Researchers and policymakers have often debated whether urban schools of choice enroll students who are relatively advantaged compared to their traditional public school peers. Existing research has not adequately answered this question due to a reliance on inadequate quantitative measures of socioeconomic status and an emphasis on differences between racial or class groups rather than within them. This mixed-methods study contributes new evidence based on novel survey data and interviews with parents and educational leaders in Detroit. Detroit charter schools enroll significantly fewer students living in deep poverty than neighborhood schools, and selective schools enroll a distinctly advantaged population. These stratified enrollment patterns result from differences in geographic constraints, the influence of social networks, school type reputations, and school practices.
AckermanM.EgaliteA. J. (2017). A critical look at methodologies used to evaluate charter school effectiveness. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(4), 363–396.
2.
ArchbaldD. (2000). School choice and school stratification: Shortcomings of the stratification critique and recommendations for theory and research. Education Policy, 14(2), 214–240.
3.
AveryC.PathakP. A. (2022). Missing “one-offs” in high school choice in New York City. In KominersS. D.TeytelboymA. (Eds.), More equal by design: Economic design responses to inequality. Oxford University Press.
4.
BakerB. D. (2012). Thoughts on “randomized” vs. randomized charter school studies. National Education Policy Center.
5.
BollandA. C.TomekS.BollandJ. M. (2017). Does missing data in studies of hard-to-reach populations bias results? Not necessarily. Open Journal of Statistics, 7(2), 264.
BourdieuP. (1986). The forms of capital. In RichardsonJ. (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 15–29). Greenwood.
8.
BoweR.GewirtzS.BallS. J. (1994). Captured by the discourse? Issues and concerns in researching “parental choice”. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(1), 63–78.
9.
BradyD.ParolinZ. (2020). The levels and trends in deep and extreme poverty in the United States, 1993–2016. Demography, 57(6), 2337–2360.
10.
BruhnJ. (2020). The consequences of sorting for understanding school quality. [Unpublished paper].
11.
BulkleyK. E.MarshJ. A.MulfingerL. S. (2021). States can play a stronger role in promoting equity and access in school choice. National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice.
12.
CarrascoA.MendozaM.FloresC. (2021). Self-segregation strategies through school choice in Chile: A middle-class domain?Journal of Sociology, 58(3), 359–378.
13.
Census Bureau. (2021). Guidance for industry and occupation data users. Census Bureau.
14.
Center for Educational Performance and Information. (2021). Technical notes: Economically disadvantaged statewide counts, Fall 2020. Michigan Department of Education.
15.
ChabrierJ.CohodesS.OreopoulosP. (2016). What can we learn from charter school lotteries?Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 57–84.
16.
ChaitJ. (2021, January5). Unlearning Democrat’s answer on charter schools. New York Magazine.
17.
ChengA.PetersonP. E. (2021). Experimentally estimated impacts of school vouchers on educational attainments of moderately and severely disadvantaged students. Sociology of Education, 94(2), 159–174.
18.
ClarkL. R. (2019). Disadvantage beyond poverty: Adverse childhood experiences, school choice, and educational outcomes (Working Paper). https://www.leahrclark.com/research
19.
CohenM. P. (2008). Raking. In LavrakasP. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Sage.
20.
CohodesS.CorcoranS.JenningsJ.Sattin-BajajC. (2022). When do informational interventions work? Experimental evidence from New York City high school choice (Working Paper No. w29690). NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research.
21.
CohodesS.ParhamK. S. (2021). Charter schools’ effectiveness, mechanisms, and competitive influence (Working Paper No. w28477). NBER Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research.
22.
CooksonP.Darling-HammondL. (2022). Building school communities for students living in deep poverty. Learning Policy Institute.
23.
CowanC.HauserR. M.KominskiR. A.LevinH. M.LucasS. R.MorganS. L.ChapmanC. (2012). Improving the measurement of socioeconomic status for the National Assessment of Educational Progress: A theoretical foundation. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences.
24.
CowenJ. (2010). Who chooses, who refuses? Learning more from students who decline private school vouchers. American Journal of Education, 117(1), 1–24.
25.
Detroit Metro Area Communities Study. (2022). Employment dynamics in Detroit during the COVID-19 pandemic. University of Michigan.
26.
DumasM. J. (2013). “Waiting for Superman” to save Black people: Racial representation and the official antiracism of neoliberal school reform. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 34(4), 531–547.
27.
EdwardsD. S. (2021). Just out of reach? Unrestrained supply, constrained demand, and access to effective schools in and around Detroit. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(4), 391–418.
28.
FazlulI.KoedelC.ParsonsE. (2021). Free and reduced-price meal eligibility does not measure student poverty (Working Paper No. 252-0521). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
29.
FlemingD. J.CowenJ. M.WitteJ. F.WolfP. J. (2015). Similar students, different choices: Who uses a school voucher in an otherwise similar population of students?Education and Urban Society, 47(7), 785–812.
30.
GlazermanS.Nichols-BarrerI.ValantJ.ChandlerJ.BurnettA. (2020). The choice architecture of school choice websites. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(2), 322–350.
31.
GerberE.MorenoffJ. (2021). Detroit Metro Area Communities Survey (DMACS) Wave 12 (COVID-19), Michigan, 2021 (ICPSR 38199). University of Michigan. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38199.v2
32.
GreenT. L.SanchezJ. D.CastroA. J. (2019). Closed schools, open markets: A hot spot spatial analysis of school closures and charter openings in Detroit. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–14.
33.
GreenbergE.BlaggK.RainerM. (2019). Measuring student poverty: Developing accurate counts for school funding, accountability, and research. Urban Institute.
34.
HamlinD. (2017). Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 725–756.
35.
HamlinD. (2018). “The types of kids we get are different”—The distinguishing characteristics of school choosers in Detroit, Michigan. Journal of School Choice, 12(1), 52–79.
36.
HarwellM. (2019). Don’t expect too much: The limited usefulness of common SES measures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 87(3), 353–366.
37.
HarwellM.LeBeauB. (2010). Student eligibility for a free lunch as an SES measure in education research. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 120–131.
38.
HashimA.Sattin-BajajC. (2023). Transportation logics: How charter school leaders make choices about student transportation. American Journal of Education, 129(4), 513–538.
39.
HenigJ. R. (2008). Spin cycle: How research gets used in policy debates. The case of charter schools. Russell Sage Foundation.
40.
HewittK. K.MansfieldK. C. (2020). The role of mixed methods in increasing the relevancy of education policy research and evaluation. In UrickA.DeMatthewsD.FordT. (Eds.), Maximizing the policy-relevance of research for school improvement (pp. 163–187). Information Age Publishing.
41.
HoneyN.CarrascoA. (2022). A new admission system in Chile and its foreseen moderate impact on access for low-income students. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 45(1), 108–133.
42.
HoxbyC.MurarkaS. (2008). Methods for assessing achievement of students in charter schools. In BerendsM.SpringerM. G.WalbergH. J. (Eds.), Charter school outcomes (pp. 7–37). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43.
JabbarH. (2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659.
44.
JabbarH.DaramolaE. J.MarshJ. A.Enoch-StevensT.AlonsoJ.AllbrightT. N. (2022). Social construction is racial construction: Examining the target populations in school-choice policies. American Journal of Education, 128(3), 487–518. https://doi.org/10.1086/719159
45.
JabbarH.LenhoffS. W. (2019). Parent decision-making and school choice. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed., pp. 351–364). Routledge.
46.
KalsbeekW. D. (2008). Stratified sampling. In LavrakasP. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 849–851). Sage Publications.
47.
KolenikovS. (2017). IPFRAKING: Stata module to perform interative proportional fitting, aka raking. Statistical Software Components, S458430. Boston College Department of Economics.
48.
LareauA. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California Press.
49.
LenhoffS. W.PogodzinskiB. (2018). School organizational effectiveness and chronic absenteeism: Implications for accountability. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 23(1–2), 153–169.
50.
LenhoffS. W.SingerJ.StokesK.MahowaldJ. B.KhawajaS. (2022). Beyond the bus: Reconceptualizing school transportation for mobility justice. Harvard Educational Review, 92(3), 336–360.
51.
LincoveJ. A.ValantJ.CowenJ. M. (2018). You can’t always get what you want: Capacity constraints in a choice-based school system. Economics of Education Review, 67, 94–109.
52.
LoebS.DynarskiS.McFarlandD.MorrisP.ReardonS.ReberS. (2017). Descriptive analysis in education: A guide for researchers. NCEE 2017-4023. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
53.
LongK.RenbargerR. (2023). Persistence of poverty: How measures of socioeconomic status have changed over time. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X221141409
54.
LubienskiC.PerryL. B.KimJ.CanbolatY. (2021). Market models and segregation: Examining mechanisms of student sorting. Comparative Education, 58(1), 16–36.
55.
LubienskiS. T.CraneC. C. (2010). Beyond free lunch: Which family background measures matter?Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(11), 1–43.
56.
MarcotteD. E.DalaneK. (2019). Socioeconomic segregation and school choice in American public schools. Educational Researcher, 48(8), 493–503.
57.
McWilliamsJ. A. (2017). The neighborhood school stigma: School choice, stratification, and shame. Policy Futures in Education, 15(2), 221–238.
58.
MichelmoreK.DynarskiS. (2017). The gap within the gap: Using longitudinal data to understand income differences in educational outcomes. AERA Open, 3(1), 1–18.
59.
MichelmoreK.RichP. (2023). Contextual origins of black-white educational disparities in the 21st century: Evaluating long-term disadvantage across three domains. Social Forces, 101(4), 1918–1947.
60.
MilesJ. N.WedenM. M.LaveryD.EscarceJ. J.CagneyK. A.ShihR. A. (2016). Constructing a time-invariant measure of the socio-economic status of US census tracts. Journal of Urban Health, 93(1), 213–232.
61.
MilesM. B.HubermanM.SaldañaJ. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage.
62.
MilnerH. R. (2013). Analyzing poverty, learning, and teaching through a critical race theory lens. Review of Research in Education, 37(1), 1–53.
63.
MonarrezT.ChienC. (2021). Dividing lines: Racially unequal school boundaries in US public school systems. Urban Institute.
64.
MonarrezT.KisidaB.ChingosM. (2022). The effect of charter schools on school segregation. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 14(1), 301–340.
65.
NerenbergK. M. (2021). Decoupled or doubled? Evaluating geospatial dispersion of student-resident displacement by school closure. Social Science Research, 95, 1–19.
66.
Office of Financial Management. (2021). Pupil accounting manual, 2021–2022. Michigan Department of Education.
67.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. (2021). 2021 poverty guidelines. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
68.
ParolinZ.DesmondM.WimerC. (2023). Inequality below the poverty line since 1967: Then role of the U.S. welfare state. American Sociological Review, 88, 782–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231194019
69.
PattilloM. (2015). Everyday politics of school choice in the Black community. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 12(1), 41–71.
70.
PondiscioR. (2019). How the over half learns: Equality, excellence, and the battle over school choice. Penguin Random House LLC.
71.
SaatciogluA.SnethenA. R. (2023). Preference compromise and parent satisfaction with school choice markets: Evidence from Kansas City, Missouri. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 45(3), 367–398.
72.
SacerdoteB. (2011). Peer effects in education: How might they work, how big are they and how much do we know thus far? In HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 249–277). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00004-1
73.
SaldañaJ. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
74.
Sattin-BajajC. (2014). Two roads diverged: Exploring variation in students’ school choice experiences by socioeconomic status, parental nativity, and ethnicity. Journal of School Choice, 8(3), 410–445.
ScottJ.HolmeJ. J. (2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 250–297.
77.
SingerJ. (2020). Student stratification among a combination of school choice policies in Detroit. Journal of School Choice, 14(1), 122–153.
78.
SingerJ. (2024). Quantification and the homogeneous representation of urban students in school choice research and politics. Race Ethnicity and Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2024.2306395
79.
SingerJ.LenhoffS. W. (2022). Race, geography, and school choice policy: A critical analysis of Detroit students’ suburban school choices. AERA Open, 8(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211067202
80.
SingerJ. L. (2022). School choice, socioeconomic status, and stratified enrollment in Detroit (Publication No. 3696) [Doctoral dissertation], Wayne State University.
81.
SmallM. L. (2009a). “How many cases do I need?” On science and the logic of case selection in field-based research. Ethnography, 10(1), 5–38.
82.
SmallM. L. (2009b). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. Oxford University Press.
83.
SmithT. W.SonJ. (2014). Measuring occupational prestige on the 2012 General Social Survey (GSS Methodological Report No. 122). National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
84.
SpiegelM.ClarkL. R.DominaT.RadskyV.YooP. Y.PennerA. (2024). Measuring school economic disadvantage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231217683
85.
SpillaneJ. P.BlaushildN. L.NeumerskiC. M.SeeligJ. L.PeurachD. J. (2022). Striving for coherence, struggling with incoherence: A comparative study of six educational systems organizing for instruction. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(4), 567–592.
86.
StageF. K. (2007). Answering critical questions using quantitative data. New Directions for Institutional Research, 133(133), 5–16.
87.
TrajkovskiS.ZabelJ.SchwartzA. E. (2021). Do school buses make school choice work?Regional Science and Urban Economics, 86, 103607.
88.
TuckE. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428.
89.
WellsA. S.KeenerA.CabralL.Cordova-CoboD. (2019). The more things change, the more they stay the same: The resegregation of public schools via charter school reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 94(5), 471–492.
90.
WiledenL.BensonE. (2022). The economic well-being of Detroit residents two years into the COVID-19 pandemic. Detroit Metro Area Communities Study, University of Michigan.
91.
YoonE.-S.LubienskiC. (2017). How do marginalized families engage in school choice in inequitable urban landscapes? A critical geographic approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(42), 1–26.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
