打印

作者

Molly Vollman Makris;Elizabeth Brown

来源

JOURNAL OF URBAN AFFAIRS,Vol.42,Issue4,P.571-594

语言

英文

关键字

作者单位

Guttman Community College

摘要

This article describes the intersection of public and private interests in the context of education in a gentrified urban area. This empirical example demonstrates the ongoing neoliberalization of public education and the ways in which public subsidies and institutions (e.g., charter schools) support private developers in shaping the increasing educational opportunity divide between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged residents. The findings suggest that political incentives, real estate developer interests, and burgeoning demand by advantaged families influence where and which new schools are to be built. In particular, developers’ interests align with schooling options, which serve advantaged populations (namely, private day cares, private schools, and charter schools that serve advantaged residents). The founding and support of these desirable schools aid developers because (a) the “community benefit” provides building rights and incentives for developers, (b) the schools attract and retain families to establish community, and (c) the schools create customers for developers’ retail establishments. In urban gentrified areas, real estate is extremely valuable and expensive. A good deal of thought, research, politics, capital, and negotiation go into deciding how space can and will be used in the most effective and profitable way. Although constructing or supporting schools does not seem at first blush to align with the interests of profit-seeking real estate developers, the findings of this research suggest that both real estate developers (herein developers) and advantaged parents 1 benefit from such partnerships.School development in urban gentrifying spaces: Developers supporting schools or schools supporting developers?All authorsMolly Vollman Makris & Elizabeth Brownhttps://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360735Published online:30 October 2017 Figure 1. The position of desirable urban schools. Display full size Figure 1. The position of desirable urban schools. In the past decade, urban real estate developers have become increasingly involved in education. As Martin wrote in the New York Times in 2007, “One of the hottest new amenities being offered in upscale urban condominium developments doesn’t have anything to do with granite in the kitchen, marble in the baths, steam rooms or simulator golf. It’s school” (p. 1). Developers market desirable schools as urban amenities to attract residents. This research analyzes the overlap between education and private development by examining a Northeast urban region with new urban schooling options and specific schooling demands by advantaged families. In particular, the research examines the increasing role of real estate developers in the education sector and the implications of this for educational opportunity. This study documents developers’ explicit interests in facilitating desirable and exclusive schooling options as part of their profit maximization schemes in gentrified neighborhoods. This empirical example demonstrates the ongoing neoliberalization of public education and the ways in which public subsidies and institutions (e.g., charter schools) shape and reflect the increasing divide between socioeconomically advantaged and disadvantaged residents and how this is inscribed in the urban landscape. Our research is a contribution to the literature because it provides evidence of, and explanation for, the increasing role of real estate developers in urban education and the equity implications of this. Review of the literature Currently, many American cities are experiencing growth, globalization, and gentrification. Cities such as Philadelphia, Chicago, San Francisco, and New York continue to grapple with gentrification. This renewed interest in cities yields augmented capital from the private sector and the potential for municipalities to cultivate their tax bases. Although gentrifying cities today are receiving the attention and consideration needed to become healthier, more prosperous, and safer, it is evident that not all residents will benefit from such improvements and that, over time, the displacement of poor and working-class residents (especially those of color) could leave cities largely as bastions for the wealthy elite. Since 1964, when Ruth Glass first wrote of gentrification, researchers and journalists have debated both its causes and consequences. Gentrification occurs when working-class or low-income housing stock and spaces transition into residential or commercial sites for the middle and/or upper class. These demographic changes and the introduction of new capital increase the cost of amenities and housing. Large forces and institutions (e.g., politicians, real estate interests, and universities) drive gentrification. In defining gentrification, it cannot be separated from the displacement it causes. The role of race must also not be overlooked because frequently gentrification harms communities and individuals of color. In 1985, Marcuse’s seminal work characterized displacement as physical, economic, direct, chain, or exclusionary. The latter of the five types, exclusionary displacement, refers to the fact that when individuals move out of a gentrifying community if that dwelling no longer houses a family with a similar socioeconomic background that specific group then becomes excluded from a housing option they once held. Scholars such as Newman and Wyly (2006) documented the significant displacement that occurs from gentrification. Likewise, Neil Smith (1996) maintained that gentrification is inherently problematic because it is the taking of the central city for the middle and upper classes. Zukin (2009) posited that gentrification has led to the loss of authenticity in urban areas, and scholars such as Chernoff (1980), Patillo (2008), and Perez (2004) have shown other negative consequences that go beyond displacement and loss of authenticity. Although gentrification can never be seen as truly positive because of the displacement it creates, perhaps less scholarly attention has been paid to some of the beneficial effects that can occur within the context of gentrification for certain actors. In There Goes the ’Hood, Lance Freeman (2006) provided empirical evidence that gentrification can increase opportunities and access for residents in gentrifying communities. Makris (2015) documented how youth of color in public housing (not facing immediate displacement due to public housing) may experience positive environmental effects from living in a gentrified community, such as safe park space, improved amenities, transportation, and healthy food options. Florida (2003, 2010) argued that cities should encourage the influx of the creative class for an array of benefits, such as advancing the financial health and institutions of a city. In At Home in the Loop, Willie (1998) showed the potential for local and private investment; demonstrating how local businesses and leaders transformed Chicago’s South Loop into the thriving Dearborn Park community that many regard as a model. Recently, urban development initiatives, focusing on improving residents’ quality of life, have shifted from heavy reliance on the public sector to an increased reliance on the private sector with private–public partnerships (Lipman, 2011). These neoliberal shifts have resulted in safer and cleaner cities in which high-rise, affluent, luxury housing projects have replaced low-rise moderate housing and industrial sites and mixed-income housing has replaced traditional high-rise public housing. By enhancing the built environment, cities became increasingly more attractive to advantaged individuals, who a generation earlier would not have considered moving to the city to raise families. Yet the same conditions that enticed gentrifiers displaced low-income families. For instance, HOPE VI (federal public housing policy that favors the creation of mixed-income development), as well as other policies such as large-scale public housing demolition, displaced low-income families from desirable urban centers; thus, urban renewal efforts strategically foster gentrification (Goetz, 2003, 2011; Vale, 2013). Not only did HOPE VI reduce the number of low-income housing options, but it also selected sites that, according to federal auditors, were “most amenable to higher income redevelopment rather than the most severely distressed” areas in the 1990s (National Housing Law Project, 2002, p. ii). Goetz (2011) showed that, “where market rents are significantly higher than public housing rents, more demolition occurs” (p. 280). This makes it clear that the real estate market is a determining factor in decisions about demolishing public housing. Similar to urban housing policies, Lipman (2011) and other scholars argue that the infusion of private interests in urban school policies polarizes urban spaces. In Chicago, and other cities, development and schools go hand in hand. Lipman’s (2011) examination of Chicago’s marketization and delocalization of urban schools and communities focused on how public–private partnerships and private philanthropists shaped public policy (e.g., mayoral control, school closings, charter school openings, and teacher incentives). Likewise, Patterson and Silverman (2013) argue that when private interests influence housing revitalization and urban schooling policies, communities lose accountability and influence. A focus of this study is to examine the role of private developers in creating and shaping schooling options in the context of neoliberal school choice and gentrification and its equity implications. Similar to inequalities in the housing market, many education scholars contend that neoliberal school choice policies—such as inter/intradistrict school choice, gifted and talented programs, and charter schools—result in school segregation despite stated parental preferences for diversity (André-Bechely, 2005; Brantlinger, 2003; DeSena & Ansalone, 2009; Hankins, 2007; Holme, 2002; Johnson & Shapiro, 2003; Lacireno-Paquet, Holyoke, Moser, & Henig, 2002; Logan & Burdick-Will, 2016; Lubienski, Gulosino, & Weitzel, 2009; Roda, 2015; Roda & Stuart Wells, 2013; Scott & Holme, 2002). Neoliberal policies further benefit families with financial and social advantages, while destabilizing low-income communities (Lipman, 2015). S. Ball, Bowe, and Gewitz’s (1995) research suggests that parental choice between various circuits of schooling stratifies schools by socioeconomic class whereby “certain groups of parents ‘plug into’ each of the circuits” (p. 53). Butler, Hamnett, and Ramsden (2013) found in East London that affluent families’ schooling decisions contributed to exclusionary displacement of low-income children. Similar to the aforementioned research, scholars of American urban public education find that when more advantaged families opt for niche programs or schools, public schools become further segregated by race and class (Roda, 2015; Stillman, 2012). For instance, at public charter schools, some school-level policies and practices can inhibit representation of the low-income population through early lottery dates, school locations, lack of transportation (or private parent-organized, parent-funded transportation), extensive or elaborate parent fundraising, and marketing strategies that deter certain families from applying while favoring others (Makris, 2015; Wells, 2002). Specific to the charter school sector are prestige charter schools. These are public charter schools popular with advantaged families. These schools have two major features: cachet elements attractive to advantaged families and demographics that do not mirror the neighborhood schools (see Brown & Makris, 2017). Prestige charter schools differ from other urban charter schools, which serve predominantly low-income children of color. In the case of prestige charter schools, their cachet informs a reputation on par with that of an elite private school both pedagogically and demographically (Brown & Makris, 2017). Logan and Burdick-Will’s (2016) research found that “poverty is slightly lower in the charter schools attended by white children …” (p. 339). Elements of prestige charter schools resemble private schools and thus exacerbate charter confusion. Charter confusion refers to the fact that families across socioeconomic and racial lines experience confusion around what a charter school is and who qualifies to attend them (Makris, 2015). Social networks inform some families of prestige charters’ public nature in time for applying; however, an unequal distribution of social capital inhibits low-income families of color from the application process. Makris (2015) demonstrates this through interviews with residents of public housing who are unaware that prestige charter schools are an option and assume that they cost money or are inaccessible for their children. Yet, even when charter schools serve predominantly low-income students of color (as most do nationwide), they still tend to underrepresent the most at-risk populations such as English-language learners, students who qualify for free lunch, and students with special educational needs (Baker, 2011; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2010; Fuller, Gawlik, Gonzales, & Park, 2003; Wells, 2002). A component of this particular study is to not only highlight parents’ preferences in urban spaces but also to link how their preferences and selections of certain types of schools, including prestige charter schools, lead to decisions by private developers that influence the entire community. As for district public schools in gentrifying communities, more advantaged families are opting in and intradistrict choice can be used to segregate children by socioeconomic class. Jennifer Stillman (2012) uses the phrase “tipping-in” to describe how White middle-class families “tip” certain district schools toward more advantaged residents. Cucchiara (2013) showed that, although there can be a role for the private market and advantages to education reform being used as a tool for maintaining the middle class in cities, there are also negative consequences in terms of equality for all students and families. She demonstrated that despite limited resources, supplemental resources were channeled into schools that served more advantaged students, heightening disparities. In her case study, there was a concerted effort to “focus on the needs and the interests of one already advantaged group” (Cucchiara, 2013, p. 196) and the ideology behind this actually “justified the inequality” (Cucchiara, 2013, p. 197). Posey-Maddox (2014, 2015) argued that involvement in an urban school by White middle-class parents deepens tensions and exacerbates the pushing out or exclusion of students whom the school traditionally served. Thus, tipping-in to public schools in gentrifying or gentrified areas may diversify the student composition; however, there are also short-term and long-term equity implications. Just as a gentrified restaurant improves its menu but is less accessible to lower-income customers, a tipped-in, gentrified school may diversify and experience benefits from the increased family capital but become less inclusive of lower-income students and their families. This research examines the relationship between advantaged parent preferences for educational options, urban living, and development. Despite the research that shows that more advantaged families are engaging in public urban education, municipalities and private developers acknowledge that the perception of low-quality educational options jeopardizes urban revitalization efforts (Vincent, 2006). Thus, attracting and retaining advantaged families requires building and marketing new schooling options. However, many cities lack large tracts of affordable, uncontaminated, vacant urban property that is also appropriate for building schools (Ellerbusch, Mack, & Shim, 2004; Hersh, 2007). Accordingly, highly populated school districts struggle to find affordable property for new school sites (Sack, 2004) and municipalities hesitate in selling land to school districts due to the potential loss of tax revenue from private businesses (Hersh, 2007). The cost and logistics of siting new schools and constructing them has placed public school districts and private school start-ups in a vulnerable position. In this study, developer interviews inform the discussion around siting, supporting, and building schools. In an effort to mitigate financial and logistical hurdles to building schools, development scholars and practitioners recommend private–public partnerships. On a macro level, such partnerships take into consideration concerns that one specific agency may not consider (e.g., transportation, land use, and educational indicators of quality) and on a micro level, schools may benefit from direct funding and professional expertise. Jeffrey Vincent (2006) argues that “breaking down the institutional and disciplinary barriers between city planning, education, and other related fields is necessary to improve both cities and schools” (p. 436). Similarly, in describing the obstacles schools encounter, Barbara Worth, assistant director of the Council for Educational Facility Planners International, explained that “What’s really growing are the public–private partnerships in which districts persuade housing developers to donate land or help build schools” (Worth, quoted in Sack, 2004, p. 15). Yet, critics of partnerships examine how public policies promoting partnerships (e.g., the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) may expand private nonprofit and for-profit entities in the public spheres (e.g., tutoring and for-profit management of schools; Bulkley & Burch, 2011; Lipman, 2011; Lipman & Haines, 2007; Patterson & Silverman, 2013; Saltman, 2005) whose motives may not align to this sphere. A 2015 report equates the growth of the charter school segment to the housing bubble and deems charter schools the new subprime mortgages, because while the charter segment is growing rapidly, third parties involved may have different interests at stake and different incentives in mind (Green, Baker, Oluwole, & Mead, 2016). Our study intends to build upon the prior private–public partnership research. Currently, the private and public school markets theoretically compete against one another and their marketing strategies at times inform one another. In the case of charter schools, Chakrabarti and Roy (2011) suggest that charters became attractive, tuition-free alternatives for families who would otherwise utilize private options and others have suggested the growth of publically funded charters has directly weakened private school demand (Buddin, 2012; Labbé, 2007). The further differentiation of neoliberal school options has expanded free desirable public options (magnet schools, gifted and talented programs, small schools, themed schools, and, more recently, charter schools) that compete with the private sector. Yet, some scholars caution that charter schools may “enhance community satisfaction directly through the provision of some public goods (e.g., physical resources, social services, and cultural amenities), but not indirectly because they do not facilitate the formation of community-based social capital” (Neal & Neal, 2012, p. 482). Likewise, prestige charter schools’ private resemblance (Brown & Makris, 2017) and for-profit charters (Lipman, 2011; Ravitch, 2011) threaten the original intent of charter schools to serve at-risk students and act as innovation labs. This research intends to examine how advantaged families and developers’ perceptions of charter schools further gentrification. Although Davis and Oakley (2013) suggest an association between urban revitalization and the emergence of new charter schools, they argue that no confirmed directional association has been found to determine whether charter schools revitalize or if revitalization results in the creation of charter schools. Our research identifies how the emergence of prestige charter schools retains residents and interests developers. Much has been written about private–public relationships (Henig, Holyoke, Laciereno-Paquet, & Moser, 2003; Sack, 2004; Vincent, 2006) and public school choice (Cucchiara, 2013; Posey-Maddox, 2014; Stillman, 2012); however, few scholars have intertwined education and real estate development together to suggest a symbiotic relationship (for an exception see Lipman, 2011). Our intention is to contribute to the gap in the gentrification and education literature around the role of developers in supporting the establishment and maintenance of urban schools. Here we examine the role of developers in enhancing gentrification by supporting public charter schools and private schools, 2 the connection between these schools and parental preferences, the implications for policy, and the need for caution in promoting policies that have a stratifying effect due to their private–public partnerships. Methods This article reports results of a mixed-methods case study of one urban region, made up of two neighboring Northeastern cities. One is the city of Springton and the other is the neighborhood of Railroad Crossing, a community roughly the same size as Springton with very comparable characteristics, within the larger city of Chester (pseudonyms are used for the cities and communities to protect the confidentiality of those in the private sector who participated in the research). The methods for data collection include (a) surveys of 171 parents at one prestige charter school; (b) analysis of American Community Survey and decennial census data 3 for the cities for 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010; (c) data from 5 years of ethnographic observations; (d) 78 interviews with 84 key stakeholders and one focus group with eight residents of public housing; and (e) analysis of archival sources. This research is a case study of an urban region and, as such, is not directly generalizable to other cities; however, this case study is a vital contribution to the literature because it examines dynamics that are apparent in many other communities, such as Princeton, Red Bank, Millburn, and Montclair, New Jersey; Brooklyn, New York; and Palo Alto, Oakland, and Los Angles, California. Cities like Denver, Kansas City, Albuquerque, Phoenix, and Minneapolis have charter schools with demographics that are more advantaged than their districts. This research contributes to the literature by acknowledging the need to examine the mechanisms of, and unintentional consequences of, public–private partnerships in education. This research builds on two independent previous studies conducted by the researchers for which the researchers each spent 3 years conducting ethnographic observation in one of these two cities (one city from 2008 to 2011 and one city from 2011 to 2014). For this study, they conducted two subsequent years of observation and collaborative research from 2014 to 2016 building on their original observations and focused more closely on the intersection of development and education. Observations took place at parks and playgrounds, school open houses, real estate open houses, board of education meetings, prestige charter board meetings, prestige charter school events and classroom activities, community events and meetings, early childhood centers, and resident groups (online). The researchers also previously conducted participant observation as a volunteer at a community center for youth from public housing in Springton and at a prestige public charter school in Chester. Throughout the process, the researchers conducted 78 interviews with 84 participants and a focus group with eight individuals with a total of 92 stakeholders involved. They included charter and district school advocates, teachers, developers, a real estate agent, and parents from a wide range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Stakeholder and criterion purposive sampling were utilized to ensure that the researchers interviewed key stakeholders and a sample of parents from a variety of socioeconomic and racial backgrounds, as well as residents whose children attended a variety of types of schools. Of the interviews, 21 were with prestige charter faculty members and administrators and 14 were with prestige charter founding members. This article relies heavily on three on-the-record interviews conducted with established developers in the two cities. The developers’ experiences are not unusual and speak to larger trends in the communities. The approximately 20- to 90-min semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed with permission, to ensure accuracy. Interviews were conducted throughout the two cities: at participant’s homes, in coffee shops, in school classrooms, in offices, and in public places (such as parks and playgrounds). All coding and combining of codes was done by hand using inductive and deductive coding. Analysis for this study began after the conclusion of the two original studies when cross-case analysis was conducted and then further interviews and observations undertaken. Analysis of these data was then continual and collaborative throughout the process. As themes and patterns emerged through coding, they were compared to existing literature on the topic to lead to the findings and conclusions investigated and expressed in this article. Examples of the codes, themes (which became sections of the findings), and data are included in Table 1.School development in urban gentrifying spaces: Developers supporting schools or schools supporting developers?All authorsMolly Vollman Makris & Elizabeth Brownhttps://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360735Published online:30 October 2017 Table 1. Examples of coding. CSVDisplay Table One hundred seventy-one parent surveys were collected at one prestige charter with an 84% rate of return. The waiting list from one Chester prestige charter school and charter and district enrollment data were also analyzed. The prestige charter parent surveys measured demographic information, such as parents’ race, education level, languages, culture, gender, occupation, age, and socioeconomic status. Additionally, the questionnaire gathered data on the parents’ reasons for choosing the prestige charter school (multiple choice), alternative options had the prestige lottery not gone their way (multiple choice), and perceptions of the public district zoned schools (open-ended response). Parents’ education and income levels and students’ participation in the federal free or reduced-price lunch program provided a metric for family socioeconomic status. The items of the questionnaire were constructed after a thorough literature review and after observing the school for 6 months. Interview data were then triangulated with observational data, survey data, and existing data. Member checking was used throughout the analysis and writing with selected participants in both cities. Additionally, this research was conducted for a protracted period of time and, coupled with the researchers’ insider view as community members, has allowed for ample time to further explore, question, and validate the answers that emerged. One researcher was a resident and parent in Springton and one was in Railroad Crossing; thus, both were member-researchers. The role of the researcher must always be considered; both researchers are White middle-class women whose children have attended schools in these two cities. Although this frequently proved to be an asset in terms of understanding these cities, increased vigilance, and having access to residents, the researchers acknowledge that they will never truly comprehend the experiences of residents whose backgrounds are clearly different from their own and it is impossible to know fully the effect that their backgrounds had on participants. Nevertheless, this article examines how developers, and those who wield power in American cities, are working in and for the interests of the middle class and thus the background of the researchers allowed access to and honesty from many such individuals. This research answers the following questions: To what extent has development provided new school choices in gentrified urban areas? How are policies incentivizing private–public partnerships with developers to create schools and why? Are the schools created by these developers equitably benefiting children? Findings The below findings describe how desirable schooling options are at the center of attracting and retaining advantaged families and supporting private developers’ interests in gentrified communities. The demographic shift toward advantaged families in these two communities increased the demand for schools perceived as desirable by the growing affluent population. However, the creation and growth of new schools was only possible with the support of developers. These developers were incentivized through public abatements and variances to counter the financial and logistical costs and through their own business interests. The creation and siting of these new schools further the interests of developers by retaining and attracting advantaged residents; creating customer bases for other small businesses; and creating community amenities (Figure 1). Shifting demographics of Springton and Railroad Crossing Changes in the built environment shape, and are shaped by, the demographic makeup of a city. In both gentrified communities, an abundance of choices for dining, imbibing, shopping, and high-priced real estate exist. The clear majority of population growth in both Springton and Railroad Crossing consists of advantaged residents, many of whom have young children. The gentrification of these cities, as well as the cultural tensions and displacement that have occurred, are without question and have been well documented in books, newspaper articles, multiple documentaries, and major national periodicals. 4 Although gentrification began decades earlier in this region, it continues. The approximate median household income of both areas increased dramatically between 2000 and 2010, with the approximate average median income 5 increasing from $62,550 to $110,782 in Springton and $45,223 to $95,615 in Railroad Crossing (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). As the population of Springton gentrified, the percentage with public assistance income simultaneously declined. In Springton, the number of households recorded as receiving public assistance declined from 472 in 2000 to 286 in 2010; similarly, in Railroad Crossing, the number of households recorded as receiving public assistance declined from 520 in 2000 to 216 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010). The housing markets in both areas climbed between 2000 and 2010, when the median value for an owner-occupied home 6 increased in Springton from $231,241 to $575,557 and in Railroad Crossing from $193,154 to $512,061 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). Coupled with the trend of affluent residents replacing and displacing lower income ones, racially, both cities have experienced shifts. Springton and Chester’s racial shifts differed historically and currently. In Springton, the Latino population declined from 40% in 1980 to 15.2% in 2010 with the White, non-Latino population increasing from 39.8% to 73.2% in the same time period. However, in Chester (a much larger city that has not gentrified evenly), the White population declined overall from 57.1% in 1980 to 32.7% by 2010. In 2010, the four racial groups in Chester were nearly balanced; however, this was not the case in Railroad Crossing, which is gentrified and more closely resembles Springton, with 75.5% White or Asian. These data are summarized in Table 2.School development in urban gentrifying spaces: Developers supporting schools or schools supporting developers?All authorsMolly Vollman Makris & Elizabeth Brownhttps://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360735Published online:30 October 2017 Table 2. Demographics. CSVDisplay Table One developer explained the shifting demographics of Springton and the relationship between the two cities: I think Springton 15, 20 years ago was a place [for] young kids, kids in their 20s, right out of college [who] couldn’t afford the city. Now there’s a lot more development, people are staying, all those kids that were here got married and are raising their families [here]. Now people can’t afford Springton, they are going out to, I don’t know, Chester or somewhere else. Both communities have public housing developments. Springton has 1,353 units of public housing, including a public housing campus with high-rise and low-rise public housing projects; Railroad Crossing has only 817 units. The rapid gentrification of these two communities and their location in proximity to a major Northeastern city has created neighborhoods in which residents are generally at opposite ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, with the exception of the remaining middle-income families who are quickly being priced out of both Railroad Crossing and Springton. Telling of Springton’s recent family gentrification—and the importance of analyzing the role of schooling—is that the population of children under 5 increased by 175% from 1,232 to 3,400, and the percentage of children living in poverty declined from 23.9% to 18.4% from 2000 to 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010). Similarly, in Railroad Crossing, the population of children under 5 increased by 89% from 1,752 to 3,312 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010) and its percentage of children living in poverty was 11.9% in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, 2010). Indicative of the growing number of young families, both communities have much larger numbers of children under 5 than older children, with the percentage of the population under age 5 greater than the entire 5- to 14-year-old population. Advantaged parents’ perceptions of their schooling choices Families’ decisions to remain in Springton and Railroad Crossing are in a large part based on their school quality perceptions; likewise, the continued growth of development relies on the retention of families. These communities offer the choice between five schooling circuits: public district, public district choice (magnet and gifted and talented), public charter, public prestige charter, and private. This neoliberal array of choices benefits advantaged families equipped to navigate the options and obstacles, including transportation and enrollment lotteries. Importantly, the perceived number of circuits deemed desirable by advantaged parents decline as their children become older. Preschool Advantaged parents of young preschool age children in Chester and Springton choose between public universal state-funded preschool, private providers, and more recently prestige charter schools with preschool options. In many cases, advantaged families utilize the full-day universal public preschool, an amenity not available in nearby wealthy suburbs. However, despite the mandate for universal preschool in these communities (a result of a state Supreme Court case resulting in the most progressive school equity legislation in American history), space is limited, continued funding of the program is always a concern, and waiting lists continue to grow. Although equalizing educational opportunities for low-income children was the intention of these universal public preschool programs, in the time since the legislation (which required Springton and Chester to provide public preschool options) began, the cities have gentrified. Despite some recent political backlash about the demographic shift in the community from those in the suburbs with higher property taxes that contribute to the state-funded preschools, the free full-day preschool for 3- and 4-year-olds has been maintained, yet its future is unclear. Advantaged parents nonetheless utilize and love the universal preschool program and report that the public preschools feel like a private option: “It is not the kids it was intended for, it is very obvious, you can tell, you would think it was any private preschool.” The popularity of the public preschool program results in a waiting list and in Chester (due to its large size) a long waiting list for specific programs or preschools within coveted gentrified neighborhoods. In the case of one highly desirable Chester public preschool, in 2016 prospective families waited in line for 2 days to receive preference for a seat, with one advantaged family paying a professional line sitter. With demand exceeding supply, many advantaged families, deterred by waiting lists, seek private alternatives. Public district zoned schools By the time an advantaged family’s oldest child approaches kindergarten, schooling circuits for many advantaged families consist of acceptance through the lottery into a prestige charter, private schools, or attending a district option for a limited time until the inevitable move to the suburbs or a place in a prestige charter school opens up. The district schools have a negative reputation, with advantaged families who often use the public district zoned schools as placeholders in the lower grades or opt for alternatives. Despite the gentrification of the communities, the district schools are majority Black/Latino and majority eligible for free/reduced-price lunch. Springton district schools serve 62% students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch and Chester serves 79%. One advantaged father explained how perceptions of public schools change, as the children get older, “The free pre-K 3 and 4 is a good program and a huge attraction, diversity is good, as [the children] get older it loses some of its appeal. The high school is not very good—doesn’t test well.” Another parent spoke of her local district elementary school just a few blocks from her home and the parents outside: “Just the language. I don’t want to walk my children to school through that atmosphere. … And just from other people [who] would say that they’d been in the classes and it’s just not nice. Not where you’d want to picture your small children going to school every day.” In describing how parents apply to all of the prestige charter schools available in Springton, one parent and charter school advocate said, “I think it’s also obviously an indictment of the public school system. People want anything other than the public schools.” In Chester, advantaged parents are deterred by the district schools’ reputation and history of failing, exemplified by the fact that in 1989 the district was taken over by the state and just recently the district regained control. Prestige charter parents, whose children attended both district and prestige charter schools, compared their experiences by responding to the question, “How does the [Prestige Charter School] compare to the experience of your child’s zoned public school?” Advantaged respondents, with a family income over $100,000 in 2010, painted the district schools as comparatively “prison-like” and bureaucratic. As one wrote, “Seems very similar in lower grades. Public School more rigid and bureaucratic.” Another also reflected on this: “The public schools are mired in bureaucracy and [a] lack of respect for the school’s community.” Another wrote, “[The Prestige Charter is] very parent involved and simply a wonderful experience—not like a jail.” Similarly, another stated, “So much better—the zoned school was like a prison—parents weren’t welcome—too much homework.” In Springton, two White advantaged mothers reflected on how many families had left the district school: Participant 1: Of the families I knew who went to [district school] who were in [my child’s] class, like half of her class is not back for first grade. Participant 2: There definitely seems to be a lot more exodus than I anticipated. … Interviewer: And most of those go to charter schools [now]? Participant 1: Charter, charter, private, charter, suburbs, suburbs. Like, you’re almost the only family left that I’d known before we went. The above participants describe how the public school seats in kindergarten and first grade act as placeholders until families receive a spot in a prestige charter or move to the suburbs. An advantaged Springton mother verifies this movement: “Once they get to, like, I don’t even know what grade that is, they rip them out of [district public] school. …” An analysis of district public school enrollment shows this pattern: by third grade, the percentage of students eligible for free lunch increases immensely, reflecting advantaged families’ exodus around that time. The negative views of the district schools have an influence on real estate in the cities: Interviewer: So if you were to move, the biggest piece would be education? Participant 2: Yeah. Participant 1: Probably yes. Private schools The growing number of families who wish to stay, limited space in public universal preschools and public prestige charters coupled with the districts’ negative reputations entice many families to private options. Currently, Springton’s private school population is at 36% and Chester’s is at 14% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010)—both exceeding the national average of 10% (Council for American Private Education, 2015). One advantaged parent chose to take her child out of a district school and enroll her at a private school; she explained her complicated thought process, “I will not send my kid to private school. I don’t believe in private school. But I said, you know, unless I think I really, really, really need to. Because I don’t believe in private school, but the fact is that my kid is so much happier. You know, what are you going to do?” In this urban region, high-rise residential buildings are often constructed with private day cares/preschools and elementary schools occupying the ground floors. In communities where parking can be a major challenge and there are many dual-commuter families, convenient day care and private school options prove appealing. Prestige charter schools In both Chester and Springton, advantaged parents covet prestige charter schools. Admission to a prestige charter was referred to as winning the “golden ticket.” One parent explained why she and others apply to the prestige charter schools: “Because that’s what you do. You apply to charter schools.” Similar to public preschools, public prestige charter schools in this region attract advantaged families: an analysis of one Chester prestige waiting list from 2008 found that 37% of applicants for kindergarten seats attended private preschools, illustrating the similarities between prestige and private school parents. Prestige charters have a higher demand than supply of seats and thus long waiting lists. In both communities, high charter enrollment illustrates the expanding presence of public charters. Ten percent of Chester’s and 19% of Springton’s public school students attend charter schools (State Department of Education, 2015), and many more children sit on waiting lists. For advantaged families, the most in-demand public charter schools are prestige charter schools. Families from both cities reported that acceptance to a prestige charter school had, or would, influence their decision to remain in the city. The findings from parent interviews in Springton and 171 parent surveys from one Chester prestige charter school suggest that a proportion of advantaged parents would, without the prestige charter school option, leave the city entirely. A mother reflected on not getting into any of the charter schools: “I just think if there’s a chance we stay here in the long run, I would like my kids to go to the charter schools up to 5th grade. And it’s all part of the big picture of how things figure themselves out. If we got in we would stay longer. If we didn’t we would move sooner.” In Chester, one advantaged mother explained that after 2 years of prestige charter wait lists, the family finally moved to the suburbs. Meanwhile, the few families accepted into prestige charter schools consider themselves incredibly “lucky” but also face jealousy from neighbors and friends. In Chester, some accepted families celebrate their acceptance with “lottery babies” (once one child is in, sibling preference means that others can be assured admission) or purchasing homes nearby the prestige charter school to ensure that their children can walk to school or to put down roots in the city with a newfound feeling of security about schooling. A large component of a prestige charter school is its perceived prestige and desirability. Accordingly, prestige charter schools’ demographics represent a predominantly advantaged student body. In Chester, 2 of the city’s 12 charter schools are those of the prestige variety whereby they serve a smaller percentage of low-income children (38 and 39%) and a high percentage of White and Asian students (52 and 53%) in contrast to the district’s population (see Table 3 for a comparison of prestige charter and district demographics) which is similar to the other 10 Chester charter schools. Despite parent respondents’ enthusiasm for winning the prestige lottery, advantaged parents do not equate the quality of prestige charters to charter schools in general; only one in 10 Chester prestige survey respondents reported considering an alternative charter school if their child did not get into the desirable prestige charter. Thus, for advantaged parents, prestige progressive charter schools differ from the other charters schools that have demographics more on par with the district schools.School development in urban gentrifying spaces: Developers supporting schools or schools supporting developers?All authorsMolly Vollman Makris & Elizabeth Brownhttps://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1360735Published online:30 October 2017 Table 3. Comparison of demographic enrollment of prestige charters and public schools, 2015–2016. CSVDisplay Table In Springton, all three charter schools align with the qualities of a prestige charter. The three Springton elementary prestige charter schools serve a predominant percentage of White students (71, 50, and 56%, respectively) and a low percentage of economically disadvantaged students (9, 30, and 11%, respectively). Unlike Chester, advantaged Springton parents reported applying to all three charter schools regardless of themes or curricular differences. Thus, in Springton, all charters are seen as prestigious. Schooling and real estate The parent views documented above influence the decisions of real estate developers. Developers in these communities understand that schools, and their perceived quality, inform real estate. In Springton and Chester, acceptance to a prestige charter school increases the family’s likelihood of staying in the city. For prestige charter parent respondents who were asked in 2010 about alternatives had they not been accepted into a prestige charter, 25% would have considered leaving Chester and 40% would have considered a private option. Families waiting on prestige charter school waiting lists seek out private school options. Of the families on the 2008 Chester prestige charter first grade waiting list, 49% were attending private schools—12% more than the applicants for kindergarten seats, demonstrating that many opted for private kindergartens. Accordingly, developers’ investment in prestige charter schools and private schooling options supply families with the schooling options they want and feel they need. The negative reputation of district schools drives real estate in the community. One realtor said that it was one of the two main reasons for the business she gets in Springton. “A very, very large part of my business revolves around people who have small children who are leaving town because of two reasons. One is that there’s not enough large-sized housing stock available for them to live in with a family, and two is that they are afraid that the schools are not good enough, given what we pay in taxes.” For this reason, it is in developers’ best financial interest to provide opportunities for more palatable educational options for advantaged families. A supply of new schooling options, which retain advantaged families, is advantageous to those who benefit directly or indirectly from gentrification. Accordingly, developers become incentivized by the high parent demand and limited public options to develop private alternatives or increased or improved prestige charter school access. Developers’ roles in schools Although developers want to be included in schooling, they report numerous obstacles to creating schools, such as a required square footage and significant regulations (e.g., number of bathrooms, fire exits) requiring accommodation. A typical school founder, either private or charter, cannot afford the market rate rent of a building in either Railroad Crossing or Springton without financial support or subsidies. One developer explained, The start up costs alone are too high for any commercial business. … Most of the businesses I’ve observed over the years that fail cannot, especially startups, cannot sustain the first year or two of construction, renovation and, for lack of better words, surprise factors that happen in this business. Due to land appreciation in gentrified areas, school districts and small businesses find urban land unaffordable; consequently, successful developers are able to assert control over school availability. These developers wield power to house schools in new high-rise, mixed-use buildings, thus determining the availability and localities of schools. One Railroad Crossing developer houses three private schools within three blocks; two of the three reside in mixed-use residential buildings. A second Railroad Crossing developer has leased a former parochial school that he sublets to two new private schools. In addition to private schools, developers in Chester work with prestige charter schools. Developers write letters on behalf of schools for charter school renewal or lease purposes and attend fundraisers. Developers have extensive roles in Chester private schools. One developer described his role as physically building schools’ interior spaces, helping schools to gain occupancy approval, calling and meeting with inspectors, helping to market the schools to residents, conducting high-level networking, getting directors to meet public school officials, and connecting school officials with bankers. “It is a pretty diverse support; a high level of support that we do for our schools and stores and even I shop here, hold parties here.” This developer meets with directors of the private schools on a monthly basis to support them and their needs. In Springton, developers work with private schools as well. A luxury high-rise housing development company now houses two private Montessori schools serving young children through second grade in their residential buildings. Another developer houses one private Montessori school in a residential building. Developers also rent space to expensive early child care centers. The addition of these private schools, which fill a need for child care and education through the early elementary years, reflects the prolonged gentrification of Springton. These school options provide advantaged parents with a private school option that will “hold them over” until their eventual move to the suburbs, acceptance into a prestige charter school, or even an expansion of this private school option. These Springton developers, like those in Chester, also work with and for the prestige charter schools. A building for a nonprofit youth organization in Springton houses a prestige charter school, and this created a division in the local community over the space. Parents and young adults in the public housing community point out that young people from low-income families have less access to this space as the charter school serving a predominantly advantaged, White population expands, particularly its popular after-school programming. The school released a statement at one point to fight accusations that they were displacing this nonprofit’s after-school programming. A powerful and politically involved Springton developer is on the board of this prestige charter school, and persons involved with the charter school say that the school would not have been feasible without his help. On the one hand, a charter advocate explained of the board member, He’s a developer and he’s an aspiring politician. … He’s also been absolutely key in getting the school up and running because you need someone who’s a developer and who has basically connections with people in town basically for permits and who knows how the system works. It’s a very byzantine and difficult to navigate system and if you don’t have somebody with that kind of expertise it just won’t happen. That’s what we learned. On the other hand, a district school advocate, and critic of this alliance, said, “It shows who you’re willing to associate with to get what you want.” One of the development companies in Springton built a school in its newest luxury property to house an extant prestige charter school. The school signed a 30-year lease with the developer. The school has publicly thanked this developer for supporting charter schools and giving them such an affordable agreement. They state that this new home makes their future as a “positively different public school … brighter than ever” (charter school’s website). When the school opened, a headline in the newspaper announced that a charter school reopened in a “luxury development.” The mayor (whose children attended this school) was outwardly supportive of this plan despite having historically sided with anti–charter school board candidates. Clearly, developers in Springton and Chester have interests not only in urban housing but also in urban education. Developers’ involvement in urban schools results from many motives and particularly the perceived need to create more school choice in these communities, despite obstacles to building schools. Why are developers interested in building schools? The business and politics of development In both communities, like many cities, politics traverse the development sphere. In Springton, the field of development has a history of corruption, and a fear of overbuilding led to strict restrictions on who can build and what can be built in the community. With little area left to develop, space is at a premium and developers are at the behest of city politics and politicians. Politicians face great scrutiny from a community that does not want to be overdeveloped. In contrast to Springton, Chester (which is much larger) has many vacant lots and opportunities for development. Chester has utilized tax abatements to incentivize development since the 1980s as a redevelopment policy in an effort to attract businesses and residents to what was once deemed a blighted city. Local government in these communities is not directly involved in the education sector (and show at times varying levels of support for charter schools), but they are deeply involved in development and encourage the building of certain community benefits in order to get approval for construction. As a developer explained, all developers in Springton want to build residential housing, but to get approval for this, they must show a community benefit. We always have a community benefit to all of our developments … there’s smart growth, its good development, and there’s also obviously things you are going to do to get something. A lot of people go in with variances changing from industrial to residential with nothing and they are getting denied. It’s a good public private partnership. If you give me these approvals, I’ll give you a school, I’ll donate a school or a park or do some type of low-income housing so the city is not saying, “I am going to give you this for nothing” … finding balance that makes sense financially. This developer has decided to provide space for a prestige charter school in the community in their new LEED Gold-certified residential building for an “extremely below-market rate” decades-long lease. He described the company’s reasoning: We needed a pretty significant variance to get that [residential building] approved, at the time we thought it just made sense. We were looking for some type of community benefit. We were actually approached by them [prestige charter school] and then we thought it was just a great idea and also just to bring more families up here and kind of really change the whole atmosphere of this whole area with a school, more daytime activity. We knew this was slated for a park so it would be across the street from a park, which is great, so it just made a lot of sense on many levels. The developer receives credit for a community benefit but has also created a customer base for amenities in the building and for the apartments themselves. The developer described how the school in the building has led to interest from parent potential buyers whose children were already accepted through the lottery and attend the school. “We’ve been approached by a lot of [current prestige charter school] parents who would love to move.” Chester once provided large, 30-year tax abatements to all developers, but recent regulation changes ended this practice. Due to the uneven development among neighborhoods, Chester’s mayor rewrote regulations to incentivize construction in “distressed” areas, mostly outside of Railroad Crossing, by providing tax abatements for developers who include preschools in their mixed-use projects or use local labor. However, the regulation does not specify whether the preschool must be public or private. Similar to the controversial urban renewal programs of the 1950s, a federal program—the New Market Tax Credit provided in the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000—incentivizes investors to invest in certified Community Development Entities (i.e., distressed neighborhoods). In this case, these investments include charter schools located in Chester, which in two cases serve a largely advantaged population. The mayor of Chester supports public–private partnerships and has publicly credited private developers with filling a void by building private preschools. However, the developers also receive tax abatements for building private preschools in an agreement that in the short term benefits the state, city, local district schools, and the developer. The state, financially responsible for the public preschool program and a large percentage of state aid for the K-12 public schools, benefits from an expansion of the private school sector, because an expansion of private schools may reduce the number of public school students to educate and thus reduce the amount of state aid. Despite a large percentage of revenue coming from the state, the city of Chester has worked to incentive contracts between developers and the redevelopment agency with the Board of Education. However, developers have reported working with prestige charters and private schools to be more straightforward than the Board of Education. One Chester developer stated, There was a shortage actually of public classroom spaces, … a few trailers that were used for that are still in downtown Chester, if I’m not mistaken … still operational. And we reached out to the Board of Education and we said, “Money is not an issue here, we are doing a private school concept but we have this top floor that has 16 classroom spaces.” And I’ll be honest with you, it got so political that we kind of said, “Nice try, we did our share, but we are not gonna go through this election cycle and see what happens and who’s involved.” And it just became too political and we didn’t want to be anywhere close to it, quite honestly. Development of private or public charter schools presents fewer bureaucratic obstacles than working with public districts. However, perhaps even more important to developers and their potential clients, working outside of the district can mean avoiding a student body that many advantaged residents perceive as undesirable—something that would be an obstacle for developers working in the private interest. As one of the developers explained, “It was very important for us to be comfortable with the school that was going to be in our building and obviously with the kids that were going to be hanging outside our building.” Attracting residents All three developers discussed the use of schools as ways to attract and retain residents. The developers and real estate agents who were interviewed for this study were keenly aware of the negative reputation of the local district public schools in both communities among advantaged residents. One developer explained, So we do have a first-hand feedback from buyers and the one thing that always came up was the education system in Chester. For lack of a better word, it is not really where it should be in terms of public education. A Springton developer expressed the same sentiment: I think younger families are staying with kids and toddlers; the one problem with Springton is the public school system is not good. You have the charters, which are great, [but] it’s a lottery system so it is very difficult to get in [because of their popularity and waitlists]. Developers, invested in these communities, may change the conversation. In many ways, a good school is comparable to a good park, restaurant, or train station for the neighborhood: residence proximity to these amenities increases the desirability (McKenzie, 1924). One developer explained that children attract residents—even those who do not intend to have children. It [the presence of children] makes a neighborhood strong. You cannot just have all young bar goers. You need maturity; you cannot just have all grandparents. Having just retirees or just young people would make it very thin. It is important to have that mix of people. Also, when you are sitting in a park and see kids playing in the playground, it just feels good. To have that void of just seniors walking around or just people hung over from the night before doesn’t make for a strong neighborhood. The strength, balance, and diversity are important. One developer reported that when a potential commercial tenant visits a neighborhood, the developer may schedule the visit around the time of school dismissal to show the potential commercial tenant the number of children and families in the neighborhood. Yet, the demographics of the student body of the school and what the students look like influence this strategy. One developer made it very clear that they would not house “just any” school because the student body must also attract potential residents and the developer stressed that the district population would not be as attractive. He spoke about not wanting to work with the district schools. No, because you kind of lose control. You don’t know what you are going to get. It was very important for us to be comfortable with the school that was going to be in our building and obviously with the kids that were going to be hanging outside our building, and we really felt comfortable. [The prestige charter] is the longest-running charter school in [town]. We went to their school and saw their program. We weren’t going to just let any school go into the building, the last thing we wanted. What if they decided to put a high school there or something that could really deter people from living there? The prestige charter school that they house, which serves a far more advantaged student body than district schools, acts as a draw for potential buyers despite the fact that there is no guaranteed admittance. This reflects feelings in the community from advantaged residents with negative views of district schools, largely due to demographics. A Springton developer explained that having early childhood providers and private school options such as a Montessori school in the building appeals to potential tenants. In fact, the developer has entered into a joint marketing agreement with one child care provider. The developer will “completely include them in our PR and marketing [worth] six figures.” In exchange, the school will hold spots for the children of residents in the facility. The developer described this type of partnership as a real “opportunity for private schools that can control their marketing in new buildings.” In this way, the two—private childcare provider and developer—have a beneficially synergistic relationship. Retaining residents and creating community Developers attempt to not only attract, but also retain residents in a community. Despite the fact that the square footage of three-bedroom apartments lowers the developer’ profit in comparison to a one- or two-bedroom apartment, developers still benefit from building them because they attract families to their communities to realize a long-term rate of return. One developer explained, I think it becomes, if you can get people to stay, it definitely helps out property values. Right now, this is a transient community; if it becomes more people staying, then obviously it’s going to push values up and then also it’s less turnover in rentals … last thing you really want is to have to re-rent your place every 1 or 2 years. You want that person to stay. Retaining residents will keep families invested in the city, prolong gentrification, raise property values, and “create community.” One developer stated, “There are the streets, and the clean water, but education is a basic need. And it needs to be addressed and if it is not going to be addressed publically, then it will be addressed privately.” It was clear from the surveys and interviews that, for many families, acceptance into a prestige charter school determined whether or not they would stay in Chester or Springton. Prestige charter schools advantage developers because they retain residents, decrease transience, prolong gentrification, and improve what the developers see as “community.” One developer, and many Springton residents, noted that the only advantaged families who stay in Springton long term are those whose children attend prestige charter schools. Thus, it behooves developers to assist charter schools in keeping their doors open. In Chester, developers take cues from the prolonged gentrification occurring in Springton in their attempts to retain residents. We wanted to answer that call for that shortage that we knew existed in the marketplace because we have observed what’s been happening in [Springton], which is families are now staying behind. The only reason they can stay behind is because the school systems, the private schooling, is an option now and we are trying to fill that void in the [Chester] market. … The bigger picture is, you cannot have people escape downtown Chester once their kid reaches the age of 5 and 6. So you have to be able to keep them in Chester, and the only way to do that is to be able to fill that void. Another developer reinforced the importance of creating community with good educational options for the advantaged and their powerful role in this process. Building a nice building can fix someone out for a few months, a few days even, and then once they look outside their walls and there is nowhere to eat, nowhere to go, the crime is up, the schools stink, they are out. We know how important it is to have all the surrounding community of arts, culture, schools, recreation, safety. Education is the most important thing we do, because it eliminates crime and makes the economy better and it makes a more productive society. We have always focused on education. The first developer expressed a clear focus on decreasing transience to improve community, particularly the schools. We hope that families don’t have to leave Chester. Because that’s how you get citizens to really take more interest in their city. As you know, because most people, the transients, they’re not gonna care what happens to the school system in Chester. Providing school space for a prestige charter or a private school benefits developers twice by both creating a community for the advantaged and decreasing transience. Creating customers for businesses Developers do more than just build and fill high-rise units. All of the developers in this study expressed intentions to build communities with mixed-use buildings. Selling or leasing residences may allow a cross-pollination of customers from various commercial spaces and amenities. Thus, a vibrant customer base promotes developers’ interests. For instance, the strategic placement of schools where families drop off and pick up children adjacent to commercial spaces, such as a pediatrician’s office, coffee shop, or gym, expands their customer base. One developer explained, “The whole idea is that a parent can drop off their kid at the preschool, go upstairs, take a spin studio or yoga or dance, and go straight to work or do that before picking up their child.” All developers acknowledge that selling a unit takes more than just granite counter tops and hardwood floors. Developers must enhance the amenities outside of the residences as much as inside. “You will see more development in [Chester], which is absolutely great and by more development … there’s going to be more restaurants, bars, and commercial uses that actually make a city a city.” One developer reported that, off the main thoroughfare in Springton, retail stores struggle if reliant on shoppers dropping in to survive, so destination retail (yoga, cooking classes) become more successful. Because the developers build mixed-use buildings with retail facilities, a school serves the purpose of bringing customers off the main thoroughfare into their developments, thus encouraging retail services. The developer described Springton as a “bedtime community” because advantaged residents leave the community during the day to work. A school or child care center in a bedroom community brings customers to quieter, residential areas during the down time and then when tenants come back from work, unlike a noisy bar that could discourage nearby residents, the space holding the school quiets down. One developer has worked out an agreement to share a basketball court in the school with tenants of the building (but not with the general public) after hours, increasing the building amenities and profitability through the community good. Discussion Developers’ roles in Springton and Chester shape residential and commercial markets, but also educational options. As a result of gentrification, urban economies have an influx of capital providing the local governments with more revenue and healthier local economies. Gentrification in both cities has resulted in increased investment such as parks, sewer lines, and restaurants through both public and private funding. Developers’ roles in enhancing housing and dining opportunities only further gentrification with their intended advantaged residents as clientele. Similarly, our findings suggest that developers’ expansion of their reach to schooling leads to a stratified community impact and inequitable access to schools. Cities across the country have experienced neoliberal policies in housing and education, and these show no signs of abating. From Chicago to New York to Philadelphia, urban public schools and communities have lost control through school takeovers by the state, mayors, or private interests and endeavors to diminish public services (Lipman, 2011). Our findings suggest that one cannot overlook the salience of developers’ roles in education, which contributes to enhancing exclusionary displacement of low-income students of color. Just as Marcuse (1985) identified exclusion in housing, our findings align with Butler et al.’s (2013) conception that in the education sphere there has been exclusionary displacement as spaces once occupied by low-income children now serve a wealthier clientele. For instance, prestige charters and private schools enact exclusionary displacement by repurposing formerly accessible spaces, like parochial schools or youth organizations, and excluding certain groups explicitly (through private school tuition) or implicitly (through prestige charter confusion). However, gentrification and its partner, displacement, are not simply the resurgence of middle-income families in cities; instead, they work together with governments and developers to systematically transform cities to the benefit of some and the detriment of the less advantaged. We argue that exclusionary displacement in education is not entirely created by advantaged parents’ decision making (Butler et al., 2013); instead, when developers wield control over school options, they hold the power to shape urban schooling circuits. Developers contribute to the exclusionary displacement of certain students because, unlike a municipality or school district, a developer is not responsible for ensuring inclusion. The above findings suggest that developers invest in the schooling circuits most desired by advantaged parents, resulting in the retention of advantaged parents in the gentrifying cities. Advantaged parents’ four most desired schooling circuits include the universal public preschool, private preschools and day cares, prestige charter schools, and private elementary schools. The developers reported supporting all four of these circuits and likewise not readily supporting district schools perceived negatively by advantaged parents. Thus, advantaged parents and developers hold a shared interest in expanding the number of school circuits deemed desirable by the advantaged. On the surface, the cities’ public non–charter school districts may benefit from the creation of private schools monetarily, because the districts will not need to build new schools to accommodate the burgeoning population of young children. This line of logic aligns with the proponents of public–private partnerships (Sack, 2004; Vincent, 2006). Similarly, the community may benefit through creation of new jobs (although comparatively low paying) for the teaching staff and the financial support of quality public prestige charter schools (Brown & Makris, 2017). However, the long-term effect of public–private partnerships has dire consequences. Exclusionary and direct displacement occurs when the interests of development converge with school reform initiating local communities, especially communities of color, to lose control. In Washington, DC, Fenwick (2013) argued that redevelopment “is really about exporting the urban poor, reclaiming inner city land, and using schools to recalculate urban land value” (¶10). In support of Fenwick’s (2013) argument, our research suggests that developers’ control of schools further advantages those with economic, social, and cultural capital in terms of educational opportunities and likewise displaces low-income students of color, similar to the housing displacement described by Marcuse (1985) and Newman and Wyly (2006). Thus, the expansion of prestigious schooling options, like the role of fancy coffee houses and restaurants (Glass, 1964; Smith, 1996; Zukin, 2009), increases the real estate value of a neighborhood and its desirability benefits property owners and investors. Although some scholars advocate for public–private partnerships in schools (Sack, 2004; Vincent, 2006), our findings caution policymakers to question whether and to what extent private entities should have opportunities to invest in traditionally public entities, while receiving economic benefits. In particular, a developer’s support should not be incentivized unevenly through local government, which should be representing the entire community. Although some residents, neighborhoods, and schools benefit from developers’ support, the private–public partnership excludes the public from the deliberation process. Instead, the schools cultivated through public–private partnerships actually serve to benefit developers who are seeking affluent residents and decreased transience, without a fair or even community benefit. Our findings support others who found that the expansion of school choices provides advantaged families with more choices that keep them in cities longer (Cucchiara, 2013; Posey-Maddox, 2014, 2015; Stillman, 2012). In the case of expanding prestige charters and private schools, advantaged families receive additional options, but this is not the case for low-income families for whom prestige charters seem out of reach and private schools are out of reach. In particular, newly founded private schools exclude many, because as new unaffiliated institutions, they lack endowments, progressive histories, or religious affiliations held by older private schools or they are for-profit schools, and thus do not provide notable financial aid or have a mission to serve a diverse student body. Similarly, this research demonstrates that, without adequate mechanisms and marketing attempts, parents from both affluent and low-income backgrounds begin to confuse prestige public charter schools with private schools in terms of access. As charter schools expand and charter school laws are changed, there is also the possibility that advantaged children, and the children of those who help charter schools, will be favored in other ways. This can be seen in the proposed House Bill 800 in North Carolina, which has been criticized as “potentially granting enrollment priority to private corporations that donate land, tech, infrastructure or renovations to a charter” (B. Ball, 2017, ¶2). It will, they argue, “allow corporations to essentially buy spots at public charter schools for their employees’ children [which] has a lot of folks upset—including some charter school leaders” (Wagner, 2017, ¶1). Unlike others, our findings highlight the specific and deliberate role of developers, with government incentives, and their involvement in schools, which deepens the inequality of urban spaces by providing choice for some and increasing the desirability of urban areas for advantaged families, inevitably displacing more of those with less economic or social capital. This enhanced gentrification, although good for developers and the advantaged, will raise the cost of surviving and thriving in this region. Gentrifying communities must be cautious of private–public partnerships. The lack of transparency and public understanding of revenue flow coupled with schooling decisions made behind closed doors erodes the democratic fabric by valuing the voice of a private interest above those of the public. For example, tax abatements awarded to developers through private–public partnerships can deplete a municipality’s overall tax base and in turn influence school funding. Recommendations If private developers truly intend to provide community benefits through increasing school choice, then several policy changes must be considered. Developers should receive benefits and incentives only if they work with district schools serving low-income students, not just charter schools and private schools. Working with existing public district schools can have a powerful effect. One Chester developer shared his efforts that include a Principal for the Day program in which he matches leaders from the business sector with all public schools. This is an example of a partnership that can benefit schools serving predominantly low-income students. Partnerships with district schools through which they can learn more about their successes and obstacles may encourage developers, realtors, and others in the private sector to build support. However, the developers who participated in this study also expressed that the politics and bureaucracy in each municipality served as deterrents for working in other capacities with the public district schools. In addition, the developers and advantaged parents made it clear that prestige charter school students are seen as better clientele. Statements such as, “We weren’t going to just let any school go into the building, the last thing we wanted. What if they decided to put a high school there or something that could really deter people from living there?” illustrate this. As long as concerns about the comfort of residents based on their own assumptions about race and class determine what developers ask for and receive as community benefits, this will not create equitable options. Public–private partnerships by schools, real estate developers, and municipalities require public oversight to ensure that community benefits are equitably distributed. This research has policy implications for municipal governments, developers, and schools. At the municipal level, public–private partnerships and incentives must be scrutinized. In particular, private developments that receive perks for community benefits must be thoroughly examined. On the surface, the subsidy or financial support of a school may seem adequate; however, one must examine who actually benefits from the school. If the school serves a predominantly advantaged population, then the benefit’s extension does not reach the whole community. Developers should be made to show that a community benefit evenly benefits the community, and charter schools and private schools benefiting from such development initiatives must takes steps to be accessible to all families. Efforts must be made on school and city levels to ensure that all families learn about potential schooling opportunities. Similarly, if the government is providing advantages to developments that house preschools, they should stipulate that this be a public preschool or a private preschool that serves a certain percentage of low-income students. Developers’ strong desires to build in gentrified communities and public–private partnerships can be used to incentivize increased educational choice for low-income populations. As Kahlenberg and Potter (2014) stated, “Choice is not going away for middle-class families. … Our best hope of leveling the playing field is to expand public-choice options for low-income families” (p. 165). Location matters. Research has shown that charter schools tend to populate heterogeneous neighborhoods with high percentages of home ownership (Henig & MacDonald, 2002). Policies should be in place to locate schools within urban communities with higher percentages of low-income students. Public prestige charter schools must also be held accountable for decreasing charter confusion and increasing access to less-affluent students. As the benefactors of developers’ support, they must show evidence of attracting a diverse population through their recruitment efforts, staff dedicated to diversity, diversity quotas, set-asides, and balanced or weighted lottery systems. Kahlenberg and Potter (2014) recommended that certain federal, state, and district policies must be utilized to promote integration in school choice; we agree that these could be enforced, given the private–public relationships in gentrifying communities. Some of their recommendations were (a) funding for transportation (in particular, for low-income children), (b) providers sharing their recruitment strategies for English-language learners and special education students publicly, (c) weighted lotteries associated with socioeconomics and geography, and (d) state laws to prohibit for-profit charter schools. Conversely, special treatment in charter school admissions should not be given to developers, corporations, etc., because this would decrease equity for disadvantaged populations. The success of the universal preschool programs in Springton and Chester should be used as a model for the way positive education policy can lead to decreased transience, greater equity, and in certain cases some degree of school integration. The examined preschool programs should serve as foundations and models for successful school development. Lessons can be learned from the success of public preschool programs that attract and retain students from a diversity of backgrounds. Just like the public preschools, the public school systems should develop quality curricula and programming that draw a diverse student population. In addition, although there may be some benefits to private–public partnerships in education, the public investment in universal preschool must be maintained. These communities have this investment because of equity legislation and there is always the chance that they will lose this positive public investment and this will become a private venture only, in which case these developers will benefit even more and the low-income community will be hit the hardest. The context of gentrification and housing must also not be ignored. Affordable housing must be maintained and expanded and efforts must be put into place to allow for the maintenance of socioeconomic diversity within the communities as a whole. The potential for school integration and developer involvement benefiting low-income populations will be lost if socioeconomic diversity itself is lost. Where possible, redevelopment initiatives, attracting affluent populations to enhance taxes and improve communities, must include measures to maintain diversity and curb displacement of all kinds. True parental educational choices increase with parents’ levels of economic and social capital. Families with more economic capital can select private options and more advantaged families can navigate the public choice options of magnets, gifted and talented programs, and charters and district schools or pay for the few remaining parochial schools or even school choice consultants. Such a system unfairly advantages already advantaged families. In addition, findings in this study suggest that families with less social or economic capital tend to send their children to zoned public schools. The fate of school integration and equitable access to quality schools now may increasingly lie in the hands of developers as they seek profit by supplying a schooling commodity that they assume fits with the demands of clientele. Just as stainless steel dishwashers and granite countertops became the norm for new middle-class homes, nonintegrated private and public prestige schools will become the norm for residents of gentrified neighborhoods. Rather than creating diverse educational options, such policies increase the supply of seats in private schools or charter schools that serve largely advantaged families in direct competition with families’ stated inclinations to choose more integrated public options. Just as the gentrification that preceded this led to exclusionary displacement in housing, real estate developers are now being given the opportunity to benefit from creating exclusionary displacement in schooling. Table 1. Examples of coding. CodeThemeExampleGVDPSAdvantaged parent views of district schools“I think it’s also obviously an indictment of the public school system. People want anything other than the public schools.”“Just the language. I don’t want to walk my children to school through that atmosphere either. And just from other people [who] would say that they’d been in the classes and it’s just not nice. Not where you’d want to picture your small children going to school every day.”GVPCSAdvantaged parent views of prestige charter schools“I just think if there’s a chance we stay here in the long run, I would like my kids to go to the charter schools up to 5th grade. And it’s all part of the big picture of how things figure themselves out. If we got in we would stay longer. If we didn’t we would move sooner.”“Golden ticket.”“Because that’s what you do. You apply to charter schools.”DARDevelopers on attracting residents“I think younger families are staying with kids and toddlers; the one problem with Springton is the public school system is not good. You have the charters, which are great, [but] it’s a lottery system so it is very difficult to get in [because of their popularity and waitlists].”“It [the presence of children] makes a neighborhood strong. You cannot just have all young bar goers. You need maturity, you cannot just have all grandparents. Having just retirees or just young people would make it very thin. It is important to have that mix of people. Also, when you are sitting in a park and see kids playing in the playground, it just feels good. To have that void of just seniors walking around or just people hung over from the night before doesn’t make for a strong neighborhood. The strength, balance, and diversity are important.”DCCDevelopers on creating community“Building a nice building can fix someone out for a few months, a few days even, and then once they look outside their walls and there is no way to eat, nowhere to go, the crime is up, the schools stink, they are out. We know how important it is to have all the surrounding community of arts, culture, schools, recreation, safety. Education is the most important thing we do, because it eliminates crime and makes the economy better and it makes a more productive society. We have always focused on education.”SAURSchools as agents of urban retention“There are the streets, and the clean water, but education is a basic need. And it needs to be addressed and if it is not going to be addressed publically, then it will be addressed privately.” Table 2. Demographics. DemographicsSpringtonRailroad CrossingTotal population under 56.8%7.2%Total population 5–92.7%2.5%Total population 10–141.7%1.7%White73.2%38.8%Black3.5%7.4%Asian7.1%36.7%Latino15.2%15.3%Two or more races2.7%3.4%Households earning $200,000 or more (compared to 8.2% state level)19.7%16.6%Median income$103,275$97,486Owner-occupied rate32.4%25.2%% Ratio to poverty level − Below level 220.8%17% Table 3. Comparison of demographic enrollment of prestige charters and public schools, 2015–2016.  % White% Black% Hispanic% Asian% Eligible free/reduced-price lunchChester prestige3118212137Chester district schools1229391874Springton prestige7161489Springton district schools331547455 Note. Chester prestige and Springton prestige are calculated using data from one prestige charter, and Chester district schools and Springton district schools come from district-wide data. Notes 1. Advantaged parents as defined by their financial advantages (socioeconomic class and ability to afford market-rate housing in these gentrified communities) and by their access to a number of educational alternatives (such as private options or relocation). 2. Private schools include schools that charge students tuition to attend; these include independent, secular, for-profit, and religiously affiliated schools. 3. Social Explorer was utilized for data analysis of census and American Community Survey data. 4. We do not cite specific sources to avoid revealing the names of the communities. 5. Approximation calculated by averaging all census tract median incomes in the community. 6. Approximation calculated by averaging all census tract median housing values. References André-Bechely, L. (2005). Could it be otherwise? Parents and the inequities of school choice . New York, NY: Taylor & Francis. [Google Scholar] Baker, B. (2011). Un-spinning the numbers on charter schools, demographics and performance in New Jersey. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/un-spinning-numbers  [Google Scholar] Ball, B. (2017). Some charter school leaders slam “Company” Charter Bill. Retrieved from http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2017/05/09/report-charter-leaders-slam-company-charter-bill/#sthash.kJJpVF8Y.B596xMWA.dpbs  [Google Scholar] Ball, S. , Bowe, R. , & Gewirtz, S. (1995). Circuits of schooling: A sociological exploration of parental choice of school in social class contexts. The Sociological Review , 43, 52–78. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1995.tb02478.x  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Brantlinger, E. (2003). Dividing classes: How the middle class negotiates and rationalizes school advantage . New York, NY: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Brown, E. , & Makris, M. (2017). A different type of charter school: In prestige charters a rise in cachet equals a decline in access. Journal of Education Policy . Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02680939.2017.1341552  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Buddin, R. (2012). The impact of charter schools on public and private school enrollments. Retrived from http://www.cato.org/ publications/policy-analysis/impact-charter-schools-public-private-school-enrollments  [Google Scholar] Bulkley, K. E. , & Burch, P. (2011). The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education , 86, 236–251. doi:10.1080/0161956X.2011.578963  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Google Scholar] Butler, T. , Hamnett, C. , & Ramsden, M. J. (2013). Gentrification, education and exclusionary displacement in East London. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research , 37, 556–575. doi:10.1111/ijur.2013.37.issue-2  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Chakrabarti, R. , & Roy, J. (2011). Do charter schools crowd out private school enrollment? Evidence from Michigan (FRB of New York Staff Report No. 472). [Google Scholar] Chernoff, M. (1980). Social displacement in a renovating neighborhood’s commercial district: Atlanta. In S.Laska & D.Spain (Eds.), Back to the city: Issues in neighborhood renovation (pp. 204–219). New York, NY: Pergamon Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Council for American Private Education . (2015). Facts and studies . Retrieved from http://www.capenet.org/facts.html  [Google Scholar] Cucchiara, M. (2013). Marketing schools, marketing cities: Who wins and who loses when schools become urban amenities . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Davis, T. , & Oakley, D. (2013). Linking charter school emergence to urban revitalization and gentrification: A socio-spatial analysis of three cities. Journal of Urban Affairs , 35, 81–102. doi:10.1111/juaf.12002  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] DeSena, J. , & Ansalone, G. (2009). Gentrification, schooling and social inequality. Educational Research Quarterly , 33, 60–74. [Google Scholar] Ellerbusch, F. , Mack, J. , & Shim, J. S. (2004). Using the triad approach to expedite the acquisition of an Abbott district school site. Remediation Journal , 14, 85–105. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6831  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Fenwick, L. (2013, May 28). Urban school reform is really about land development (not kids). Washington Post . Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/05/28/ed-school-dean-urban-school-reform-is-really-about-land-development-not-kids  [Google Scholar] Florida, R. (2003). Cities and the creative class. City and Community , 2, 3–19. doi:10.1111/1540-6040.00034  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Florida, R. (2010). The rise of the creative class. In J.Brown-Saracino (Ed.), The gentrification debates (pp. 345–354). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar] Frankenberg, E. , Siegel-Hawley, G. , & Wang, J. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segrgation and the need for civil rights standards . Los Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project/Poyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. [Google Scholar] Freeman, L. (2006). There goes the ’hood: Views of gentrification from the ground up . Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. [Google Scholar] Fuller, B. , Gawlik, M. , Gonzales, E. , & Park, S. (2003). Localized ideas of fairness: Inequality among charter schools. In K. E.Bulkley & P.Wohlstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next? (pp. 93–120). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] Glass, R. (1964). London: Aspects of change . London, England: Centre for Urban Studies. [Google Scholar] Goetz, E. (2003). Clearing the way: Deconcentrating the poor in urban America . Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. [Google Scholar] Goetz, E. (2011). Where have all the towers gone? The dismantling of public housing in U.S. cities. Journal of Urban Affairs , 33, 267–287. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00550.x  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Green, P. C. , Baker, B. D. , Oluwole, J., & Mead, J. F. (2016). Are we heading toward a charter school “bubble”?: Lessons from the subprime mortgage crisis. University of Richmond Law Review , 50, 783–808. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2704305  [Google Scholar] Hankins, K. (2007). The final frontier: Charter schools as new community institutions of gentrification. Urban Geography , 28, 113–128. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.28.2.113  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Henig, J. , & MacDonald, J. (2002). Locational decisions of charter schools: Probing the market metaphor. Social Science Quarterly , 83, 962–980. doi:10.1111/ssqu.2002.83.issue-4  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Henig, J. R. , Holyoke, T. T. , Laciereno-Paquet, N. , & Moser, M. (2003). Privatization, politics, and urban services: The political behavior of charter schools. Journal of Urban Affairs , 25, 37–54. doi:10.1111/1467-9906.00004  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Hersh, R. (2007). New schools, new sites in older cities: School siting practices in New Jersey . Retrieved from http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/NJSchools.pdf  [Google Scholar] Holme, J. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review , 72(2), 177–205. doi:10.17763/haer.72.2.u6272x676823788r  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Johnson, H. B. , & Shapiro, T. M. (2003). Good neighborhoods, good schools: Race and the “good choices” of White families. In A.Doane & E.Bonila-Silva (Eds.), White out: The continuing significance of racism (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar] Kahlenberg, R. , & Potter, H. (2014). A smarter charter: Finding what works for charter schools and public education . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] Labbé, T. (2007, September 8). 8 D.C. Catholic schools eyed for charters: Turning over operation to secular entity proposed to avert closure. Washington Post . [Google Scholar] Lacireno-Paquet, N. , Holyoke, T. , Moser, M. , & Henig, J. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to market incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24, 145–158. doi:10.3102/01623737024002145  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lipman, P. (2011). The new political economy of urban education: Neoliberalism, race, and the right to the City . New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar] Lipman, P. (2015). Urban education policy under Obama. Journal of Urban Affairs , 37, 57–61. doi:10.1111/juaf.12163  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lipman, P. , & Haines, N. (2007). From education accountability to privatization and African American exclusion Chicago public schools’ “Renaissance 2010.” Educational Policy , 21, 471–502. doi:10.1177/0895904806297734  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Logan, J. , & Burdick-Will, J. (2016). School segregation, charter schools, and access to quality education. Journal of Urban Affairs , 38, 323–343. doi:10.1111/juaf.12246  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Lubienski, C. , Gulosino, C. , & Weitzel, P. (2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education , 115, 601–647. doi:10.1086/599778  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Makris, M. V. (2015). Public housing and school choice in a gentrified city: Youth experiences of uneven opportunity . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Marcuse, P. (1985). Gentrification, abandonment, and displacement: Connections, causes, and policy responses in New York City. Urban Law Annual; Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law , 28, 195–240. [Google Scholar] Martin, A. (2007, April 7). Condominiums with classrooms. New York Times . Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/realestate/01njzo.html?_r=0  [Google Scholar] McKenzie, R. D. (1924). The ecological approach to the study of the human community. American Journal of Sociology , 30, 287–301. doi:10.1086/213698  [Crossref], [Google Scholar] National Housing Law Project . (2002). False hope: A critical assessment of the HOPE VI public housing redevelopment program . Retrieved from http://nhlp.org/files/FalseHOPE.pdf  [Google Scholar] Neal, Z. P. , & Neal, J. W. (2012). The public schools as a public good: Direct and indirect pathways to community satisfaction. Journal of Urban Affairs , 34, 469–485. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.2011.00595.x  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Newman, K. , & Wyly, E. (2006). The right to stay put, revisited: Gentrification and resistance to displacement in New York City. Urban Studies , 43, 44–52. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Patillo, M. (2008). Black on the block . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar] Patterson, K. L. , & Silverman, R. M. (2013). Urban education and neighborhood revitalization. Journal of Urban Affairs , 35, 1–5. doi:10.1111/juaf.12006  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Perez, G. (2004). The near northwest side story: Migration, displacement, and Puerto Rican families . Berkeley: University of California Press. [Google Scholar] Posey-Maddox, L. (2014). When middle-class parents choose urban schools: Class, race, and the challenge of equity in public education . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Posey-Maddox, L. (2015). Beyond the consumer: Parents, privatization, and fundraising in U.S. urban public schooling. Journal of Education Policy , 31, 178–197. doi:10.1080/02680939.2015.1065345  [Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Ravitch, D. (2011). The death and life of the great American school system . New York, NY: Perseus Books Group. [Google Scholar] Roda, A. (2015). Inequality in gifted and talented programs: Parental choices about status, school opportunity, and second-generation segregation . New York, NY: Palgrave. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Roda, A. , & Stuart Wells, A. (2013). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where White parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education , 119, 261–293. doi:10.1086/668753  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Sack, J. (2004). Scarcity of property is growing obstacle to building schools. Education Week , 23(28), 15–16. [Google Scholar] Saltman, K. J. (2005). The Edison schools: Corporate schooling and the assault on public education . New York, NY: Routledge. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Scott, J. , & Holme, J. (2002). Public schools, private resources. In A.Stuart Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity (pp. 102–127). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] Smith, N. (1996). The new urban frontier: Gentrification and the revanchist city . London, England: Routledge. [Google Scholar] Stillman, J. B. (2012). Gentrification and schools: The process of integration when Whites reverse flight . New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] U.S. Census Bureau . (2000). U.S. demography 1790 to present: Population density (per sq. mile) . Retrieved from http://www.socialexplorer.com/6f4cdab7a0/explore  [Google Scholar] U.S. Census Bureau . (2010). U.S. demography 1790 to present: Population density (per sq. mile) . Retrieved from http://www.socialexplorer.com/6f4cdab7a0/explore  [Google Scholar] Vale, L. (2013). Purging the poorest . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref], [Google Scholar] Vincent, J. M. (2006). Public schools as public infrastruture roles for planning researchers. Journal of Planning Education and Research , 25, 433–437. doi:10.1177/0739456X06288092  [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar] Wagner, L. (2017). Charter school leaders decrie “company” charter school bill, say it’s wrong for kids . Retrieved from http://ajf.org/charter-school-leaders-decry-company-charter-school-bill-say-wrong-kids/  [Google Scholar] Wells, A. (2002). Where charter school policy fails: Issues of accountability and equity . New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [Google Scholar] Willie, L. (1998). At home in the Loop: How clout and community built Chicago’s Dearborn Park . Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. [Google Scholar] Zukin, S. (2009). Naked city: The death and life of authentic urban places . New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]Additional informationAuthor informationMolly Vollman Makris Molly Vollman Makris is an Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at Guttman Community College, City University of New York, where she currently serves as Program Coordinator for Urban Studies. She holds a PhD in Urban Systems from Rutgers University. She is the author of Public Housing and School Choice in a Gentrified City: Youth Experiences of Uneven Opportunity (Palgrave Macmillan, 2015) and co-author (with Elizabeth Brown) of “A Different Type of Charter School: In Prestige Charters, a Rise in Cachet Equals a Decline in Access” (Journal of Education Policy, 2017). Her research interests are urban education reform, school segregation, public housing, gentrification, and the privatization of public education, housing, and space. Elizabeth Brown Elizabeth Brown is an Associate Professor in the College of Education at William Paterson University and the Director of the K–6 Elementary Education Program. She is a graduate of Urban Systems with a focus on Educational Policy from Rutgers University, New Jersey. Her recent publications include “A Different Type of Charter School: In Prestige Charters, a Rise in Cachet Equals a Decline in Access,” co-authored with Molly Vollman Makris; a chapter in Alan Sadovnik and Susan Semel’s second edition of Schools of Tomorrow, Schools of Today (Peter Lang Publisher, 2016), and “Recruiting Teachers with the 3 C’s: Urban Principals’ Search for Teacher Candidates With Commitment, Content Knowledge, and Cultural Understanding,” co-authored with Deena Khalil (Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, & Research, 2015). Her research interests include urban educational reform, gentrification, diversity, and equitable pedagogical practices.