Makris's book is one of the most compelling explorations of how segregation and school choice go hand-in-hand; I think it's well worth considering in any conversation about charter schools.
* * *
 |
| Molly Vollman Makris in Hoboken |
Weber: One thing that struck me right away is that your book
isn’t at all a takedown of charter schools.
Makris: It’s not. It’s a larger analysis of the direction of
education policy. The book does take a critical look at school choice and
what’s happening in Hoboken, but it’s not about the individual actors. There
aren’t heroes or villains per se; it’s about these larger systems of inequality
that are happening in many places.
Weber: You take the charter school people at their word when
they say they are genuinely interested in the inequality of their student
populations and they want to do something about it.
Makris: I do. I think their intention was to create some
level of socio-economic and racial diversity. But, given the demographic makeup
of the founders, that was going to be a challenge. And part of that is charter
school policies. It takes a lot of work to start a charter school. Many of
these were stay-at-home parents and parents with flexible careers where they
can spend hours and hours starting a charter school. So when you have them at
the helm, it’s going to be harder to create a school that represents the entire
community. There also are no policies in place that allow charter schools to
easily “manipulate” their lotteries to create socio-economic and racial
diversity.
Weber: Is it fair to say that starting and sustaining a
charter school, by the nature of its structure, is going to attract a different
sort of family than a traditional public school?
Makris: Yes; we see that everywhere. We see that in Newark
and Harlem and other neighborhoods that don’t look anything like Hoboken. I
think
your research has shown this, in the difference between free and
reduced-price lunch students, this level of creaming.
I call it charter confusion which is something we found in Hoboken
and when I was working with the Newark Schools Research Collaborative. People
are just confused about what a charter school is, who can attend a charter
school, whether they were in Newark or Hoboken, whether they’re low-income or
advantaged.
Weber: So you’re saying there is some global
misunderstanding about charter schools.
Makris: I think it’s a bit of a global misunderstanding, but
when it comes time to figure it out for your own children, you tap into your
own networks. And if your network all goes to the local neighborhood school,
and you went to the local neighborhood school, and you don’t really have the
resources to do a thorough investigation of all your school options, you’re
going to go to the local neighborhood school.
Weber: But if you cleared up that confusion, do you believe
public housing residents would see the so-called “advantages” of a charter
school trumping what they see as the advantages of their neighborhood school?
Makris: That’s a great question. It’s hard to predict; I do
think there are enough families in public housing who would be interested in
the opportunity – if they see that as an opportunity. I think there are some
who still wouldn’t, which of course would still mean there would remain issues
with the kind of creaming we see in Newark and elsewhere.
Weber: Is what you found here regarding school choice
transferrable to Newark or Paterson or Camden, where the level of
gentrification isn’t nearly what you would find in Hoboken? In other words, how
generalizable is your research?
Makris: Well, that’s always the issue with any qualitative research:
how generalizable is it? Obviously other researchers would have to go out and
confirm that. Hoboken is a unique situation. But I think we’re going to see
more and more of it; in neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Manhattan and other
cities as well.
The main thing that pushed people out of a gentrifying
community was: “I’m having children. I want the house in the suburbs, and the
schools.” I think now we see those people are more willing to stay in cities
and raise their children, but the schooling is still the issue. And these
parents have realized they can come together and create a school in their own
interests.
I think school choice policy in general is not intended to
create socio-economically and racially diverse schools.
Weber: What did you think about the commissioner’s decision?
Makris: I was not surprised. I’m not a quantitative
researcher, so I don’t dive deep into the numbers. But right away when I looked
at it, I thought: “He’s looking at the under age 18 population in Hoboken.” And
a huge part of that population is under five. To use that to compare to the
school-aged population is, to me, flawed to begin with.
But as I write in the book, I don’t think the whole problem
is the charter schools. I also think it’s important to note that in some way
these urban schools have always been segregated. So I don’t think the charters
and intra-district school choice are creating segregation so much as inhibiting
desegregation. I think we all could do a better job.
Gentrification creates this moment where we could have
schools that have a huge population of people with social and cultural and
economic capital. Because of our numbers, if we just threw everyone up in the
air and shuffled them we could have these diverse middle-class schools. But
these kind of school choice policies are preventing that from happening.
Weber: You spent a lot of time talking with Hoboken’s
affluent parents. It seems that putting their kids into a school with a
significant number of students who are in economic disadvantage is not an
option for them, particularly when their children get up to high school.
Makris: For those parents, the idea of sending them to the
public elementary school near public housing is totally off of the table. In
the junior-senior high school, we’re starting to see a little change. There are
groups of adamant advantaged parents – often early wave gentrifiers even some
who were involved with the early charter schools, who are passionate about
education in Hoboken – who send their children to the high school, and enjoy
that diverse experience.
I’m seeing some preschool children whose parents really want
to stay, and are really devoted to trying to figure out how to make the high
school somewhere they would send their children.
But for the vast majority of affluent parents I interviewed,
the high school is not an option. The public school near public housing is not
an option.
Weber: So if that’s true, why are you optimistic about
integrating the schools throughout the city?
Makris: Well, I would say we have the potential here, and we
have that in large part because of gentrification. There is such a desire for
urban living that you have more advantaged people who are choosing to live here
and remain here. These people, when I interview them, say that diversity is one
of the reasons they want to live in a place like this.
There are schools in this country and there are communities
where people choose to send their children to socio-economically diverse
schools. I went to a high school in Akron, Ohio; it was a large, urban high
school, about 50 percent black students, about 50 percent free or reduced lunch
eligible. There was a degree of in-school tracking, but they had programs that
drew a variety of students into that school. And we did have very diverse
networks because of that; I still do. So it depends on how you see the purpose of
schooling.
Weber: And how do you see the purpose of schooling?
Makris: From my perspective, it’s so much more than social
reproduction: where your child is going to go to college, what kind of job
they’re going to end up with. There’s social justice; there’s learning about
people who are very different from you, learning from people who are very different from you.
This is a big argument in the book: I’m not arguing for
these integrated schools so middle-class capital can “rub off” on low-income
children. I’m advocating for them so everybody’s capital can be shared and
equally valued and everybody can learn from each other.
Weber: That’s an important point. If you talk to teachers of
color, students of color, parents of color, that’s a concern: that outsiders
are treating their community like it’s a pathology, and they’re coming in to
“save” it.
Makris: That’s a huge concern of mine, because the
neighborhood school here near public housing is valued by the community.
Families that go there do feel quite a bit of social and cultural capital and
comfort. In the book, parents say things like: “My friends can watch my kids
from their window. My children feel safe and part of a community here.” If advantaged
families come in and start taking over that school and making it a school they
want, it may not align with those parents’ interests.
Weber: Part of school choice, to my mind, is this idea of
values. Some people look at an advantaged charter school and say: “It makes no
sense: why wouldn’t anyone want to send their child here?” But isn’t that an
imposition of values on others?
Makris: I think so. You’re not recognizing the value of that
neighborhood school, and what that school might represent: the history for the
families of that school, the convenience, the idea of where your children may
fit in.
It is hard to understand everyone’s own backgrounds and
values. We saw that with the dual-language school. Some involved in the
founding and/or beginning of the school thought using Spanish would attract
more of the public housing population, but they found it wasn’t a draw.
Research led me to think that one reason public housing
families may not choose a charter school is because of the progressive
pedagogy. So I went into this thinking that might be part of the issue. But I
found that wasn’t the reason for the decision, because there was such a level
of charter confusion, and so many people thought these were private schools and
would cost money; it wasn’t that they weren’t going because they perceived that
the schools weren’t strict enough.
Weber: What was wrong with the way universal enrollment was
done in Newark, from your perspective?
Makris: I would not want to see the universal enrollment
tied to the closing down of certain schools and reopening them as charter
schools, or closing them down altogether.
Weber: But isn’t that a precondition for open enrollment and
charter schools? The more that you open up “schools of choice,” you’re going to
close down district schools. It’s just mathematics.
Makris: Here in Hoboken, I wish we could just stop: no more
additional charter schools. Which I think is where it’s going; the last charter
school that was proposed did not happen. I would be surprised to see another
one come in. Then I would like to see all public district and charter schools
on one application so that all parents would know they have the option to
choose between all of these schools.
Weber: One of the things you say in your book is that you
can’t make an equation between Hoboken’s charter schools and the charters from
the big CMOs, like KIPP or Uncommon or Mastery.
Makris: No, they’re not the same. The intention of these
charters from these large management organizations that come into low-income
communities is to keep kids in school as long as possible; increase the school
day, increase the school year. We don’t have any of that with the charter
schools here. We have fifth graders taking school trips to Puerto Rico and
chocolate-making class. It’s a completely different situation. But they’re all
somehow part of this larger narrative about school choice and charters.
Weber: That whole debate over school choice has become
highly politicized, with stakeholders on all sides making claims about the
effectiveness of charter schools. You live in a city where the debate is very
politicized. Is it possible, in this environment, to have an honest
conversation about school choice and segregation?
Makris: I think it can be difficult to talk honestly about
what’s going on with the loudest voices in the room. In my research, I’ve tried
not to rely solely on the loudest voices in the room. The quiet voices I think
are open to having these conversations. I see that in public housing, too. I go
to board of education meetings, housing meetings – there are always the loudest
voices in the room, and you always know where they stand.
I’ve done two book talks in the community, and afterwards,
there are always parents who say, “Thank you for writing about this. It seems like
people were really honest with you.”
Again, they’re the quieter voices in the room. They’re
parents of young children who have a social justice mentality, and they’re
asking: “How can we talk about this? How can we meet as a community and talk
openly about change without imposing values on people? What are positive
solutions?”
Weber: You write about the use of test scores to drive a
narrative about school effectiveness.
Makris: That’s something I think quite a lot about as a
parent. I think parents often use it as a justification. It’s very easy to
point to the test scores and say: “These scores are terrible. Why would I send
my child to that school?” So it does become a justification.
But then the advantaged population is also not concerned
about test preparation for their children – for those [state] tests (they are
interested of course in college admissions tests). So if you have schools that
have so much pressure to improve their test scores, and they’re serving a
population that traditionally is going to struggle more on those tests, they’ve
got to really focus their teaching on the tests. And that further drives the
advantaged population away. The last thing I want to think about my daughter
doing in early elementary school is test preparation.
Weber: You think the district schools, then, have something
to learn from the charter schools in terms of how to get parents involved in
schools and how to make themselves an attractive choice. Is part of that
putting aside a test-prep curriculum?
Makris: Yes, but I worry about that for the schools. Because
they are in such a difficult position to do that, because they are so scared
about their test scores. And there are so many eyes on their test scores. There
was a celebration at the Board of Ed meeting this week for the public housing
neighborhood school because it was removed from federal “focus” status. So
there is all this pressure.
I think there are other ways to give a vigorous, rigorous
education. Of course, I know many of the teachers and administrators in the
district schools are doing wonderful work. But I do think parent involvement is
a huge draw for the parents in the charter schools. And again and again I heard
from charter school parents that they tried to do things in the district and they
weren’t able to.
You see this in the research elsewhere, such as New York
City, where the parents say it’s easier to start your own school than to work
within the district, which seems insane.
I always caution: I think the district can learn from the
charters for some things, but not all things, because they’re not serving the
same population, and it wouldn’t be fair to say: “Do it like they do it,
because it’s always better.”
Weber: Geographically, Hoboken is a small community. If
there was ever a place to implement a “Princeton Plan” – a fully mixed and
integrated system of schools across the city – Hoboken would be it. But you
document in your book how people tried that here, and the plan was shot down
quickly.
Makris: Mark Toback, the former superintendent, tried that,
and he was shot down, seemingly from what I heard from both sides. For
advantaged families, there’s not really a huge interest in rocking the boat:
are you really interested in going across town for elementary school? For
public housing families, to be told your kid has to go to school across town,
even though it’s the same community, it’s a haul. And if you don’t have a car,
and you don’t have the job flexibility, it’s makes a huge difference.
So despite this being a small community, there were still
concerns with that. There would have to be some sort of transportation that
went with it to make it work. But I do think there’s potential, and parents
still bring that plan up. There is still interest. But there’s really not a big
conversation here about segregation; it’s still not a pressing concern.
Weber: Can you define neo-liberalism as you use it in the
book? You’re using a more classical interpretation of the term, right?
Makris: Yes; it’s more a classic conservative strain of
thought. Privatization of things that were once public; decrease in the social
safety net; that sort of thing. Charter schools, alternative route teaching
programs, data-driven assessment, on-line schools -- all are part of this
larger neo-liberal movement.
Weber: This is where Hoboken seems to be so different: the
charter schools aren’t aligned with that. They aren’t, for example, taking TFA
(Teach For America, an alternate route preparation program) teachers.
Makris: And neither is the district. You don’t see the same
kind of outside forces and consultants that you see in Newark.
Weber: Newark is a stage on which a larger drama is being
played out. But that’s not the case in Hoboken.
Makris: It’s not the case. There’s a different drama being
played out. But I do think unwittingly the charter schools here are a piece of
that corporate reform model.
Weber: Your book is about much more than schooling; you also
address the larger environment and how people from different socio-economic
backgrounds interact with each other in a city like Hoboken.
Makris: When I started my research, my education findings
weren’t very surprising to me, especially in light of research done elsewhere.
But the environment findings were surprising, because here the public housing
is in an isolated campus, and other research has shown that in similar
communities, the public housing population might not have access to the same
amenities as an advantaged population. In the book I demonstrate how that is
not the case.
When I asked young people from the public housing population
if there was any place they felt uncomfortable, the only example was one girl
who said: “The sushi stores, because I don’t like sushi.” So there’s a great
deal of social and cultural capital that does come from gentrification. The
young people, and the grown-ups, really do come to Washington Street and take
advantage of the parks and the fairs and the free events. Transportation was
interesting, because the shuttle in town was intended to get cars off of the
streets and be green, but it also allows families and older people from public
housing to get to Washington Street and hang out at Panera.
But there is still a disconnect; it’s separate and
different, but not isolated. When I asked youth living in public housing
whether there were more rich people or more poor people in Hoboken in general,
all but one said more poor people. Which I think speaks to the fact that
they’re still in a separate community.
Weber: But isn’t there a threat to the character of urban
communities? When cities start taking on the trappings of the more affluent
suburbs, with organized sports leagues and franchised retail shopping, don’t
they risk losing what makes them unique?
Makris: There we get into values again, and what we want our
cities to be. A lot of scholars write about gentrification and the “death of
the city,” how our cities are all becoming generic. They’ll write a lot about
how Starbucks is the death knell of the community. But in all of my research,
the low-income youth I work with love Starbucks. So for me to say: “We
shouldn’t have a Starbucks” – well, some people do want to have that Starbucks.
So what are the values in a community? Are there groups of
people that want to have those amenities? And is it my own middle-class urban
aesthetic that I want to impose?
Weber: You talk about Hoboken moving to
“supergentrification.” What does that mean?
Makris: It’s a theory that early-wave gentrifiers are
eventually replaced down the road with people who work in FIRE industries:
finance, insurance, real estate. They tend to be less social justice-minded
than people who are earlier gentrifiers. I would argue that, at least along the
waterfront, it’s supergentrified here.
Weber: Are these supergentrifiers all going to send their
kids to private school? Are charter schools not even an option?
Makris: For some, charter schools are. There’s a private bus
company that picks up at two of the big luxury housing apartment complexes on
the waterfront and drives to the dual-language charter school across town. But
largely, for many of the people I encountered living in those buildings, their
plan is private schools, or living here for a few years and then moving to the
suburbs.
Interestingly, we do have this crop of parents whose
children don’t get into the charters, they send their kids to the district
schools through the preschool programs, and I see some of that capital and
energy go into the district schools. So there’s a network of parents of younger
children who are very involved and actively engaged because they didn’t get
into the charter schools. And they are becoming advocates for the district. It
remains to be seen whether those people stay longer. Fourth grade, fifth grade
seems to be the turning point for many.
So I argue that because parents can choose their preschool
location and because they can then choose which elementary school location and
in a large part because of charter schools, they’re staying longer. And that’s
influencing real estate development.
Weber: It seems as if you attract enough affluent people
here, it’s almost inevitable that at least some of them will stay and invest
themselves for the long term.
Makris: I think I’m seeing some of that, and I hope that’s
the case. The question then becomes is it a critical enough mass to change the
demographics of the schools to create socio-economically and racially balanced
schools that respect all of the voices.
