Last time, I pointed out that PUC charter schools has a vastly lower homeless population than surrounding schools. This difference, however, is not unique to them. It is true for most charter schools across Los Angeles.
Charter schools in Los Angeles have much lower populations of homeless students than traditional district schools. This trend holds not just for the wealthier affiliated charter schools, but also for the independent charters that operate in low-income neighborhoods.
To understand why this might be happening, it helps to separate these schools out by their enrollment source.
Most traditional LAUSD schools are a “school of residence” – that is, they accept anyone who lives in the area. If a student walks in the door and lives in the area, they have to accept that student. You can step in and that very day you can be attending classes. But not all LAUSD schools are schools of residence. Most wall-to-wall magnet schools are not schools of residence and require an application through the Choices program to be accepted.
Most charter schools are not schools of residence. In order to get in, you have to fill out an application and participate in a lottery. You can’t just walk in and enroll that day – you have to be part of the process.
However, there are a few charter schools that are schools of residence. In the early 2010s, several low-performing or brand-new schools sites were turned over to charter school control. These schools are run by charter schools, but they must accept students from the neighborhood.
This sets up an interesting natural experiment. Let’s compare schools of residence with non-residence schools in independent charters and traditional schools.
By separating out schools of residence, the difference in homeless enrollment is almost eliminated. Charter schools that are also schools of residence have median homeless populations that mirror traditional schools. Similarly, district schools that are not schools of residence, like magnet schools, have much lower homeless populations.
Intuitively, this makes sense. Homeless students are less likely to be able to successfully participate in a lottery or an application process. Many are transient, and cannot commit to going to school in a specific location in the future. Furthermore, many do not have a permanent address or phone number at which they can be contacted if they were to be selected in the lottery. Instead, the data shows homeless students are more likely to attend a school that is a school of residence – one that you can simply walk into and enroll.
In other words, charter schools and magnet schools will naturally have differences in student body composition due to their enrollment methods. This seems to work to exclude homeless students.
Nerd,
Welcome back! I figured somebody should leave a comment, lest you take another sabbatical and leave us in the lurch again for what appears to be a LONG hot summer with the Dodgers running short on magic, the men’s WC team failing to qualify for Russia, and history teachers like myself unable to find summer school positions that seemingly are reserved for ELA and Math. Gotta get those SBAC scores up! Gotta get those graduation rates up! (you should look into this as I’ve heard much recently about LAUSD offering recovery classes that don’t exactly scream ‘”rigor” in a vain attempt to inflate rates…any way to mine this data?).
As for the homeless student populations at charter and magnet schools, all that really needs to be said is “duh.” Give resourceful parents more choice and they will flock to safer environs, away from the rabble that is all too often their traditional home school. Inversely, less resourceful parents will stay at their local traditional school, which in turn will appear to be doing a worse and worse job when measured by the typical data-du-jour. In the end, who suffers? Not only homeless kids, but all the students at traditional schools who sit in classrooms that have been sapped of large numbers of capable students and that are led by teachers who don’t dare teach to grade level expectations unless they are OK with 2/3 of the class failing. Ah-hah, maybe this explains those recovery classes.
Obviously what’s good for the goose, IS NOT good for the gander.
I recently saw Ben Shapiro speaking of living within LAUSD, but not sending his children to what he calls “the worst school district” in the country, and going private instead. According to him, LAUSD spends an astronomical $10,000+ per student and still gets poor results. His answer is MORE CHOICE and let the market work its wonders. And he’s not the only one. Many Americans of different stripes embrace choice in education. But have they forgotten its called PUBLIC education for a reason?
To be clear, I don’t begrudge anyone for going private. But when they start advocating more choice in the public sphere, I wonder if they’ve ever considered the impact that choice has on those left behind.
Want to make a better choice? Say “no” to Magnets. Say “no” to Charters. Say “yes” to your local PUBLIC school. It’s not just the homeless who will benefit.