EdWize’s Racial Libel

Race Card w watermark

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

On EdWize, Jonathan Gyurko finds himself forced to acknowledge that Caroline Hoxby’s recent blockbuster study is good news for charter schools. He then starts desperately groping for any excuse he can find to neutralize the good news.

Most of his claims will be familiar to those who have seen the teachers’ unions try to spin away gold-standard empirical evidence that their positions are wrong. We’ve read all these cue cards before.

But one of his claims deserves more attention. Like many before him, Gyurko tries his hand at racial demagoguery to make parental choice seem like a scary throwback to Jim Crow:

Such a dramatically-presented conclusion is sure to feature prominently in charter advocates’ efforts to expand the number of charter schools across the city and state. And if it’s true, then why shouldn’t we? The answer actually depends on how policymakers weigh the goal of improved student achievement against other worthy goals, such as greater educational equity and meaningful diversity. And on these other objectives, nagging questions dog the charter sector.

For example, Hoxby finds that 92 percent of charter students are black or Hispanic, compared to 72 percent in district schools and concludes that “the existence of charter schools in the city therefore leaves the traditional public schools less black, more white, and more Asian.” Such racial segregation is consistent with research on charter schools in other states including North Carolina, Texas and elsewhere.

Although this statistic is likely to be a function of charter schools’ location in largely black and Hispanic neighborhoods, Hoxby also reports that fewer white students are applying to the charters; although 14 percent of residents in the charter school neighborhoods are white non-Hispanic, only 4 percent are applying.

There are two claims made here:

1) If the citywide aggregate population of all charter school students is more heavily minority than the citywide aggregate population of district school students, charters must be increasing segregation.

2) If charter school applicants who live near the charter schools are disproportionately minority, charters must be increasing segregation.

Both claims are transparently bogus.

On the first claim: citywide aggregate figures tell us nothing whatsoever about the impact charters are having on segregation, for the simple reason that citywide aggregate figures can tell us nothing whatsoever about segregation in any context, even aside from the whole charter question.

Imagine for a moment that New York is made up of 50% green children and 50% purple children. Let’s look at two scenarios:

Perfect segregation scenrio: All the green children go to fully segregated schools made up exclusively of green children, and all the purple children go to fully segregated schools made up exclusively of purple children.

Perfect integration scenario: All children attend perfectly integrated schools made up of half green children and half purple children.

Now, let’s take a look at the citywide aggregate figures we would get under these two scenarios.

Perfect segregation scenario: Citywide aggregate 50% green, 50% purple.

Perfect integration scenario: Citywide aggregate 50% green, 50% purple.

You see? Aggregate figures are intrinsically incapable of providing any information about school segregation. To find out whether schools are segregated, you must look at the individual schools.

Let’s apply that principle to the real world. Hoxby finds that the citywide aggregate population of district school students is 72% minority. But does that mean every individual school is 72% minority? Of course not. You could very well have all the white children going to perfectly segregated exclusively all-white schools, all the black children to perfectly segregated exclusively all-black schools, all the Hispanic children going to perfectly segregated exclusively all-Hispanic schools, etc., and the citywide aggregate figure would remain unchanged.

And, in fact, the reality on the ground is a lot closer to that dystopian hypothetical than it is to the utopian scenario of ideal racial balance. But Gyurko’s argument relies on the unspoken assumption that the reality on the ground in district schools is utopian.

Meanwhile, the citywide aggregate for charter schools is 92%. As with district schools, the aggregate figure tells us nothing about the actual racial balance in any individual school. Supposing for a moment that New York’s district schools are very heavily segregated – which they are – it is quite possible that the actual charter schools on the ground are better integrated than the district schools even though their aggregate population figure is disproportionately minority.

And, in fact, given that the primary cause of school segregation is housing segregation, the fact that charters can break down neighborhood barriers and draw students from other neighborhoods with different demographics makes it highly likely that they are, in fact, better integrated. That’s the reality in voucher programs, where the empirical evidence unanimously shows parent choice improves integration.

But at any rate, the data to which Gyurko appeals don’t tell us either way.

Once the essential sham behind the first claim is exposed, the second claim is much easier to refute. What counts is not how the local applicant pool differs from the local resident population, but how the final makeup of each charter school differs from the final makeup of each district school. Once the process of parents making choices is completed, are the individual charter schools more segregated? This datum tells us nothing about that.

Ironically, Gyurko’s argument on this second claim really implies that he wants charter schools to represent the racial balance of their local neighborhoods. That would imply endless racial segregation, given that neighborhoods are so racially homogeneous. Any serious attempt to break down racial segregation in schools must begin by acknowledging that schools representing their neighborhoods is the problem.

That’s why hyper-arrogant courts forced us to go through the disastrous failed experiment with forced busing. That was a terrible idea, just like anything that robs parents of their freedom. But at least those tyrannical judges understood the source of the problem correctly.

If parents want to send their children to their local neighborhood schools, they should be allowed. But anything we do that forces them to send their children to school locally is – among so many other evils – going to increase racial segregation. Assigning students to schools by ZIP code is not only educationally bankrupt, it’s racially poisonous.

8 Responses to EdWize’s Racial Libel

  1. Patrick says:

    Nicely done and well said. Nice picture too.

  2. […] Jay P. Greene’s Blog has a guest post by Greg Forster about charter schools and segregation. Riff […]

  3. allen says:

    Greg, you’re working way to hard by playing according to rules set by the lefty.

    The problem isn’t segregation and it never has been. People segregate all the time. Dark-skinned black kids sit with dark-skinned black kids and light-skinned black kids sit with light-skinned black kids at historic black colleges.

    What’s unacceptable in a democracy is forced segregation of the citizenry.

    That’s the crucial difference, and all the difference that’s necessary, between Brown v. Topeka and a 95% black charter school.

    Other then the obvious ethical difference between forced and voluntary segregation, the other important difference is that those who voluntarily segregate themselves have to accept the cost of self-segregation to access its value. That’s why all those wonderful ethnic neighborhoods have fallen apart; the cost of a common language, heritage, foods, etc gradually became high enough that fewer and fewer were willing to accept the bargain.

    Mr. Gyurko’s manufactured concern over some theoretical, societal cost of voluntary segregation diminishes to insignificance before the value parents see in the power to exercise control over the education of their child.

  4. Greg Forster says:

    If we had to make a choice between freedom and desegregation, I’d choose freedom, and I would take more or less the line you do.But then you’re essentially saying, yes, people will use their freedom to seek out a state of racial isolation which can reasonably be expected to reduce prospects for a sense of shared citizenship that transcends race. Why affirm that perception if it happens to be factually wrong? And you would also be throwing away one of the most powerful arguments in favor of freedom – that it actually accomplishes the desirable goals that the socialists always promise but never deliver.

    If all other things are equal, we’re better off if kids aren’t being raised in racial isolation – especially if we believe in colorblind citizenship. Since in fact not only are all other things equal, but the same policy that accomplishes desegregation also accomplishes our other policy objectives, why *not* make this argument?

    Desegregation is our turf, not theirs. Every time I’ve had this argument I’ve won – big time. They’re just not smart enough to have realized that yet.

  5. […] black and white students perfectly mirrors a nearby school, opponents of charter schools can always come up with a different comparison (district-wide demographics, demographics of whatever traditional public school the students […]

  6. Dr. Hoxby’s study is statistically flawed because it does not (cannot) control for the crucial peer group variable:


Leave a Reply to allen Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s