This study compares “diverse” and “non-diverse” charter schools in Washington, D.C., focusing on three areas: academic proficiency, academic growth, and suspensions. It focuses particularly on the eighty-seven D.C. charter schools (out of 112 total) where more than twenty-five students took the DC CAS test between 2011 and 2014, of which twenty-seven are “diverse”—defined as having a student population that is less than 80 percent African American. (No other race accounts for more than 80 percent of the student body at any school in the study, though a few schools that were excluded for technical reasons are more than 80 percent Hispanic.)
Overall, the study finds no statistically significant differences between diverse and non-diverse schools when it comes to proficiency and growth. When the results are broken down by subgroup, however, some interesting differences emerge. For example, African American and at-risk students have higher proficiency rates and lower suspension rates at diverse schools, but they exhibit no differences in growth; on the other hand, there are no significant differences for Hispanic students in any of these areas. (Unfortunately, there are too few white students at non-diverse schools to make any comparisons.)
A secondary analysis that restricts the sample to diverse schools also yields some interesting results. For example, a whiter student body is associated with significantly less academic growth for at-risk students and less growth in reading (but not math) for African American students, whereas proficiency and suspension rates for these groups are unrelated to a school’s whiteness. In contrast, Hispanic students exhibit greater academic proficiency at whiter schools, but similar academic growth.
These results, in particular, cry out for an explanation of some kind, but the data offer few clues as to what that might be. Although African American and at-risk students are suspended at lower rates in diverse schools, the lack of correlation between whiteness and suspension makes it unclear whether the former has an impact on discipline policy. Perhaps white kids (or parents) in D.C. simply monopolize the attention of teachers. Or perhaps it matters if a school’s racial diversity is intentional or fortuitous. There are many possibilities.
Regardless of the true explanation, it’s important to understand that the study does not represent a rejection of diverse schools in general—though it seems to favor those with greater concentrations of minority students, for reasons that aren’t clear. Prior studies have also found that poor students benefit from attending school with richer students, a finding that is difficult to square with the results of this analysis.
Additionally, it’s essential to remember that this study “did not attempt to assess many of the less-measurable benefits that are posited for diverse schools, such as greater tolerance and a better ability for students to live, study, and work with others from different backgrounds.” Nor, I might add, does it consider other long-term outcomes, such as college enrollment and employment, which could plausibly be impacted by the number of white kids with whom one goes to school.
In short, the study raises at least as many questions as it answers. It should be repeated in as many cities as possible.
SOURCE: “Diversity in DC Public Charter School,” DC Public Charter School Board (November 2015).
