The article examines how the entrepreneurial municipal government in Chicago, IL has deployed tax increment financing revenues to realize so-called urban education reform through the construction of exclusive neoliberal schools. At the same time traditional open enrollment schools are relatively deprived of tax increment financing revenues for school construction projects. In effect, Chicago’s municipal government is allotted the financial flexibility by the tax increment financing program to construct a variegated, unequal and polarized school system consisting of well funded, high quality exclusive public schools and underfunded, lower quality open enrollment public schools. Further, the placement of exclusive schools is also polarized as prestigious selective enrollment public schools are located in high socio-economic neighborhoods and partially privatized charter and contract schools, outside of local democratic control, are located in predominantly African-American low socio-economic neighborhoods, thus disempowering these residents.
AkersJM (2012) Separate and unequal: the consumption of public education in post-Katrina New Orleans. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research36(1) 29–48.
2.
BrennerNTheodoreN (2002) Cities and the geographies of ‘actually existing neoliberalism’. In:BrennerNTheodoreN (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 2–32.
3.
BriffaultR (2010) The most popular tool: tax increment financing and the political economy of local government. University of Chicago Law Review77(1): 65–95.
4.
BrownLGutsteinR (2009) The Charter Difference: A Comparison of Chicago Charter and Neighborhood High Schools. Report for the Collaborative for Equity and Justice in Education. Available (consulted 26 March 2013) at: www.uic.edu/educ/ceje
5.
BrunoRQuesadaA (2011) Tax Increment Financing and Chicago Public Schools: A New Approach to Comprehending a Complex Relationship. White Paper, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Chicago, IL.
6.
BurasKAppleMW (2005) School choice, neoliberal promises and unpromising evidence. Educational Policy19(3): 550–564.
7.
Burdick-WillJKellsMSchubleT (2013) Closing and opening schools: the association between neighborhood characteristics and the location of new educational opportunities in a large urban district. Journal of Urban Affairs35(1): 59–80.
8.
CarefCJankovP (2012) The Schools Chicago’s Students Deserve: Research-Based Proposals to Strengthen Elementary and Secondary Education in the Chicago Public Schools. Report for the Chicago Teacher’s Union, Chicago, IL.
9.
CarefCHaindsSHilgendorfK. (2012) The Black and White of Education in Chicago’s Public Schools. Report for the Chicago Teacher’s Union, Chicago.
10.
ChubbJEMoeTM (1990) Politics, Markets and America’s Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
11.
DrameERFratturaE (2011) A charter school’s journey toward serving all learners: a case study. Urban Education46(1): 55–75.
12.
DreierPMollenkopfJSwanstromT (2004) Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-First Century. 2nd Edition.Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
13.
Education Sector (2009) Growing Pains: Scaling up the Nation’s Best Charter Schools. Education Sector Reports. November. Washington, DC.
14.
EisingerP (1998) City politics in an era of federal devolution. Urban Affairs Review33(3): 308–325.
15.
FrankenbergESiegel-HawleyGWangJ (2010) Choice Without Equity: Charter School Segregation. Educational Policy Analysis Archives19(1). Available (consulted 2 June 2013) at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/779
16.
GoughJ (2002) Neoliberalism and socialisation in the contemporary city: opposites, complements and instabilities. In: BrennerNTheodoreN (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 58–79.
17.
GrahamSMarvinS (2001) Splintering Urbanism. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
HackworthJ (2007) The Neoliberal City: Governance, Ideology, and Development in American Urbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
19.
HankinsKBMartinDG (2006) Charter schools and urban regimes in neoliberal context: making workers and new spaces in metropolitan Atlanta. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research30(3): 528–547.
20.
HarveyD (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography71(1): 3–17.
21.
HarveyD (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
HealeyLMcCormickJF (1999) Urban revitalization and tax increment financing in Chicago. Government Finance Review15(6): 27–30.
23.
HuddlestonJR (1984) Tax increment financing as a state development policy. Growth and Change15(2): 11–17.
KerthRMeiffrenC (2012) Cleaning up Tax Increment Financing: Rethinking Chicago’s Troubled Redevelopment Program. Report for the Illinois PRIG Education Fund. Chicago, IL.
26.
LehnenRJohnsonC (2001) The impact of tax increment financing on schools districts: an Indiana case study. In:JohnsonCManJ (eds) Tax Increment Financing and Economic Development: Uses, Structures and Impact. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
27.
LipmanP (2002) High Stakes Education: Inequality, Globalization and Urban School Reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
LipmanP (2011) The New Political Economy of Urban Education. New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
LipmanPGutsteinESmithJ (2012) Examining CPS’ Plan to Close, Turn-Around, or Phase Out 17 Schools. Research Paper for the Data and Democracy Project: Investing in Neighborhoods. Series #1. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
30.
LoganJRMolotchHL (1987) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
31.
LubienskiC (2005) Public schools in marketized environments: shifting incentives and unintended consequences of competition-based educational reform. American Journal of Education111(4): 464–487.
32.
MillerBJ (2008) The struggle over redevelopment at Cabrini-Green, 1989–2004. Journal of Urban History34(6): 944–960.
33.
MironGNelsonC (2002) What’s Public about Charter Schools: Lessons Learned about Choice and Accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
34.
MullinsDRWallinBA (2004) Tax and expenditure limitations: introduction and overview. Public Budgeting and Finance24(4): 2–15.
Office of School Financial Services (2011) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report: For the Year Ended June 30, 2011. Report. Chicago: Chicago Public Schools.
38.
PeckJTickellA (2002) Neoliberalizing space. In:BrennerNTheodoreN (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 33–57.
39.
PurcellM (2008) Recapturing Democracy: Neoliberalization and the Struggle for Alternative Urban Futures. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
RavitchD (2011) The Death and Life of the Great American School System. New York, NY: Basic Books.
41.
RenzulliLA (2006) District segregation, race legislation, and black enrollment in charter schools. Social Science Quarterly87(3): 618–637.
42.
SaporitoSSohoniD (2006) Coloring outside the lines: racial segregation in public schools and their attendance boundaries. Sociology of Education79(2): 81–105.
43.
SilvermanRM (2012) The nonprofitization of public education: implications of requiring charter schools to be nonprofits in New York. Nonprofit Policy Forum3(1). Available (consulted 2 June 2013) at: http://www.thecyberhood.net/documents/papers/npf2012.pdf
44.
SmithN (2002) New globalism, new urbanism: gentrification as global urban strategy In: BrennerNTheodoreN (eds) Spaces of Neoliberalism: Urban Restructuring in North America and Western Europe. Oxford: Blackwell, 80–103.
45.
StovallD (2013) Against the politics of desperation: educational justice, critical race theory, and Chicago school reform. Critical Studies in Education54(1): 33–43.
46.
ThompsonJLiechtyJQuigleyM (2007) A Tale of Two Cities: Reinventing Tax Increment Financing. Report. Chicago, IL: Office of the Cook County Commissioner.
47.
TIF Reform Panel (2011) Findings and Recommendations for Reforming the Use of Tax Increment Financing in Chicago: Creating Greater Efficiency, Transparency and Accountability. Report. Chicago, IL: City of Chicago.
WeberR (2003) Equity and entrepreneurialism: the impact of tax increment financing on school finance. Urban Affairs Review38(5): 619–643.
50.
WeberR (2010) Selling city futures: the financialization of urban redevelopment policy. Economic Geography86(3): 251–274.
51.
WeberRHendrickRThompsonJ (2008) The effect of tax increment financing on school district revenues: regional variation and interjurisdictional competition. State and Local Government Review40(1): 27–41.
