Although technically open to all, charter schools often emphasize distinctive missions that appeal to particular groups of students and families. These missions, especially ones focusing on ethnic, linguistic, and cultural differences, also contribute to segregation between schools. Such schools raise normative questions about the aims of education. Are they a troubling retreat from an integrated public school system? Or are they new public spaces relevant to the needs of certain communities? Through a case study of one potentially counterpublic school, I describe how this school embodied aspects of public-ness. I argue that a counterpublic framework—in emphasizing shared decision making, expanded discursive space, and a publicist orientation—offers resources for considering under what circumstances distinctive schools might serve public goals.
BeckerH. S. (1992). Cases, causes, conjectures, stories and imagery. In RaginC. C.BeckerH. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 205–216). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
BellC. A. (2009). All choices created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 191–208.
3.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159–180.
4.
BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R.LevinH. M. (Eds.). (2010). Between public and private: Politics, governance, and the new portfolio models for urban school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
5.
Center for Educational Reform. (2015). Charter school laws across the states (16th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
6.
CorbinJ.StraussA. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
EckesS. (2015). Haven charter schools: Separate by design and legally questionable. Equity and Excellence in Education, 48(1), 49–70.
8.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
9.
EisenhardtK. M.GraebnerM. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.
10.
EpsteinE. A. (2015, December12). Picturing the new Americans. The Atlantic.
11.
FarrellC.WohlstetterP.SmithJ. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499–532.
12.
FeinbergW.LaytonR. A. (2014). For the civic good: The liberal case for teaching religion in the public schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
13.
FinnC. E.MannoB. V.VanourekG. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245.
15.
FrankenbergE.Siegel-HawleyG. (2013). A segregating choice? An overview of charter school policy, enrollment trends, and segregation. In OrfieldG.FrankenbergE. (Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 129–144). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
16.
FraserN. (1992). Rethinking the public sphere. In CalhounC. (Ed.), Habermas and the public sphere (pp. 109–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
FraserN. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the post-socialist condition. New York, NY: Routledge.
18.
FraserN. (1998). From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a “post-socialist” age. In PhillipsA. (Ed.), Feminism and politics (pp. 430–460). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
19.
FoxR.BuchananN. (2014). Proud to be different: Ethnocentric niche charter schools in America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
20.
GalstonW. A. (2002). Liberal pluralism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GarciaD. (2008). The impact of school choice on racial segregation in charter schools. Educational Policy, 22(6), 805–829.
22.
HabermasJ. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
HenigJ. R. (1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
24.
HenigJ. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates: The case of charter schools. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
HenigJ. R.MacDonaldJ. (2002). Locational decisions of charter schools: Probing the market metaphor. Social Studies Quarterly, 83(4), 962–980.
26.
HenigJ. R.SmikleB. (2014, August). Race, place and authenticity: The politics of charter schools in Harlem. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
27.
HessD. E.McAvoyP. (2014). The political classroom: Evidence and ethics in democratic education. New York, NY: Routledge.
28.
HoweK. (2007). On the (in)feasibility of school choice for social justice. In Philosophy of Education 2006 (pp. 259-267). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.
29.
Institute on Metropolitan Opportunity. (2013). Update of “Failed promises: Assessing charter schools in the Twin Cities.”Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
30.
JacksonP. W.BoostromR. E.HansenD. T. (1993). The moral life of schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
JenningsJ. L. (2010). School choice or schools’ choice? Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227–247.
32.
Knight AbowitzK. (2001). Charter schooling and social justice. Educational Theory, 51(3), 151–170.
33.
Knight AbowitzK.KarabaR. (2010). Charter schooling and democratic justice. Educational Policy, 24(3), 534–558.
34.
KolderieT. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the exclusive franchise in public education (Policy Report 8). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
35.
KvaleS.BrinkmannS. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
LaddH. F.ClotfelterC. T.HolbeinJ. B. (2015). The growing segmentation of the charter school sector in North Carolina (No. w21078). Chicago, IL: National Bureau of Economic Research.
37.
LeeC. D. (1992). Profile of an independent Black institution: African-centered education at work. The Journal of Negro Education, 61(2), 160–177.
38.
LevinsonM. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
39.
LubienskiC. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Education and Urban Society, 40(1), 118–141.
40.
MironG.GulosinoC. (2013). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations (14th ed.). Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
41.
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2014). 2013–2014 national schools overview. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
42.
NeumannA. (2006). Professing passion: Emotion in the scholarship of professors at research universities. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 391–424.
43.
NiY. (2012). The sorting effect of charter schools on student composition in traditional public schools. Educational Policy, 26(2), 215–242.
44.
OrfieldG.FrankenbergE. (Eds.). (2013). Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
45.
PedroniT. C. (2007). Market movements: African American involvement in school voucher reform. New York, NY: Routledge.
46.
ReardonS. F.OwensA. (2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218.
47.
ReichR. (2002). Bridging liberalism and multiculturalism in education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
RenzulliL. A.BarrA. B.PainoM. (2015). Innovative education? A test of specialist mimicry or generalist assimilation in trends in charter school specialization over time. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 83–102.
49.
SaldañaJ. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
50.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.RochC.MarschallM. (1997). Networks to nowhere: Segregation and stratification in networks of information about schools. American Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 1201–1223.
51.
ScottJ. T. (2008). Managers of choice: Race, gender, and the political ideology of the “new” urban school leadership. In FeinbergW.LubienskiC. (Eds.), School choice policies and outcomes: Empirical and philosophical perspectives (pp. 149–176). Albany, NY: SUNY.
52.
ScottJ. T. (2013). A Rosa Parks moment? School choice and the marketization of civil rights. Critical Studies in Education, 54(1), 5–18.
53.
StakeR. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
54.
StulbergL. M. (2004). What history offers progressive choice scholarship. In RofesE.StulbergL. M. (Eds.), The emancipatory promise of charter schools: Toward a progressive politics of school choice (pp. 7–51). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
55.
ThalerR.SunsteinC. (2008). Nudge: The gentle power of choice architecture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
56.
WaltonJ. (1992). Making the theoretical case. In RaginC. C.BeckerH. S. (Eds.), What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry (pp. 121–137). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
WellsA. S. (Ed.). (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and Equity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
58.
WellsA. S.LopezA.ScottJ.HolmeJ. J. (1999). Charter schools as postmodern paradox: Rethinking social stratification in an age of deregulated school choice. Harvard Educational Review, 69(2), 172–205.
59.
WhiteT. C. (2014). Culture, power and pedagogy in market-driven times: Embedded case-studies of teaching in four urban charter schools. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
60.
WilsonT. S. (2015). Exploring the moral complexity of school choice: Philosophical frameworks and contributions. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 34(2), 181–191.
