for example. However, a number of
studies have found that the relationship
between student outcomes and the
socioeconomic composition of schools
is strong even after controlling for some
of these factors, using more nuanced
measures of socioeconomic status, or
comparing outcomes for students randomly assigned to schools (Reid, 2012;
Schwartz, 2012).
Socioeconomic integration improves
student outcomes because mixed-income schools are more likely to have
certain resources or characteristics that
foster achievement. Rumberger and
Palardy (2005) found that the socio-economic composition of the school
was as strong a predictor of student outcomes as students’ own socioeconomic
status. However, the researchers found
that the advantages of attending a
mixed-income school could be fully
explained by school characteristics
such as teachers’ expectations, students’
homework habits, and school safety.
They concluded that high-poverty
schools could work “if it were possible
to alter those policies and practices
that are associated with schools’ socio-economic composition” (p.;2021).
That if is a serious caveat. High-performing, high-poverty schools are
very rare. The economist Douglas Harris
(2007) calculated that only 1. 1;percent
of majority-low-income schools consistently performed in the top third of
their state. Further, to the extent that
the biggest advantage of socioeconomic
integration may be direct peer effects
(Reid, 2012)—picking up knowledge
and habits from high-achieving, highly
motivated peers—high-poverty schools
will always be at a disadvantage, given
the strong relationship between students’ own socioeconomic statuses and
their academic performance.
Socioeconomic integration is a
win-win situation: Low-income students’ performance rises; all students
receive the cognitive benefits of a
diverse learning environment (Antonio
et al., 2004; Phillips, Rodosky, Muñoz,
& Larsen, 2009); and middle-class
students’ performance seems to be
unaffected up to a certain level of integration. Research about this last point is
still developing. A recent meta-analysis
found “growing but still inconclusive
evidence” that the achievement of more
advantaged students was not harmed
by desegregation policies (Harris, 2008,
p.;563). It appears that there is a tipping
point, a threshold for the proportion of
low-income students in a school below
which middle-class achievement does
not suffer.
Estimates of this tipping point vary;
many researchers cite 50;percent low-income as the maximum (Kahlenberg,
2001). However, in a report that
Richard Kahlenberg and I coauthored
for the Century Foundation, we profiled diverse charter schools in which
the proportion of low-income students
(as measured by eligibility for free and
reduced-price lunch) ranged from 30 to
70;percent, within 20 percentage points
of the 50;percent goal (Kahlenberg &
Potter, 2012). The findings suggested
that, more than a precise threshold,
what mattered in these schools was
maintaining a critical mass of middle-class families, which promoted a culture
of high expectations, safety, and community support.
Lessons from Socioeconomically
Diverse Charter Schools
Despite the evidence of their advantages,
socioeconomically integrated schools
are not the norm in the United States. In
traditional public schools, 65;percent of
low-income students are concentrated
in majority-low-income schools. In
charter schools, that figure is 78;percent
(Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang,
2010).
Many choices have led to our economically segregated school system. 1
Districts have chosen to let school
boundaries reflect or even amplify
residential segregation. Reformers
have chosen to focus more on fixing
high-poverty schools than on breaking
up concentrations of poverty. Policymakers and philanthropists have favored
interventions targeted at reaching as
many low-income students as possible. But de facto school segregation
also persists because balancing student
enrollment by socioeconomic status, like
most education reforms, is logistically,
politically, and operationally difficult.
Socioeconomically diverse charter
schools are developing practices to
overcome some of the challenges of
enrolling and serving a diverse student
body. They have identified strategies
that could help other schools and
districts create successful integration
programs.
Enrolling a Diverse Student Body
One of the foremost logistical barriers
to integrating schools by socioeconomic
status is geography. Residential poverty
tends to be concentrated, and successful
school integration requires either a
district with enough socioeconomic
diversity within its boundaries or a
group of neighboring districts which,
