University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

(USC Thesis Other)

"Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 1
“CREAMING” STUDENTS IN THE CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSION PROCESS:
A CASE STUDY OF ADMISSION PRACTICES IN CHARTER SCHOOLS
by
Zoe Carolyn Schellenberg
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2015
Copyright 2015 Zoe Schellenberg
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 2
Acknowledgments
I would first like to thank my family for encouraging me along this journey. My husband
Bill is patient, kind, and gives life to my dreams. He stepped in and took on two roles on many
evenings and weekends. Both my children, Billy and Lilah, have inspired me to be to be a better
person and remind me to never stop being curious. I thank my parents, James and Susan Adams,
who gave me the confidence to take risks and to be independent. Robert and Beverly Schellen-
berg, my wonderful in-laws, encouraged me throughout this experience. Siblings Rosalind
Murphy and James Blake Adams make me laugh and give me a sense of family. I am so blessed
to have their support and unconditional love.
I would also like to thank Dr. Wendy Griffith, friend and mentor. She has picked me up
when I felt insecure in this journey. Thanks go to Dr. Patricia Burch for her guidance and faith in
me when completing courses and dissertation process; to Dr. Alan Green for opening my eyes to
the spectrum of diversity in our society, especially in education; and to Dr. Corinne Hyde, who
supported me during my final defense.
Finally, I thank my colleagues at Rancho San Joaquin Middle School and California
Virtual Academies, who are all creative, innovative, and strive to do what is best for children. I
am humbled to have a loving and positive support team who cheered me during the past 3 years.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments 2
List of Figures 5
Abstract 6
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study 8
Overview of the Study and Local Context 8
Background of the Problem 10
School Choice Reform 10
Some Arguments for School Choice 11
The Problem of Creaming 12
Targets of Creaming 12
Pressures on Charter Schools 13
Negative Effects of Creaming 14
Purpose of the Study 15
Research Questions 16
Hypothesis 17
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study 18
Limitations 18
Assumptions 18
Definition of Key Terms 19
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) 19
California Standards Test 19
District of Columbia Public School System (DCPS) 19
English Language Learner 19
Educational Management Organizations 20
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FARL) 20
Limited English/Non-English Proficient (LEP-NEP) 20
National Assessment of Educational Progress 20
Street-Level Bureaucrats 20
Chapter Summary 21
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 22
The Rise of Charter Schools 23
Enrollment Trends in Charter Schools and Promotion of Segregation 24
The Practice of Creaming or Skimming in Charter Schools 30
Admissions 31
Economic Impact of Charter Schools 36
What State and Local Policies Can Do to Diminish Creaming in Charter Schools 38
Chapter Summary 42
Chapter Three: Research and Design Methodology 44
Overview: Problems and Purpose 44
Research Questions 46
Hypothesis 47
Sample and Population 47
EL Sol Science and Arts Academy 47
CECA 49
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 4
Instrumentation 50
Data Collection 50
Data Analysis 51
Chapter Summary 52
Chapter Four: Results 53
Participants and Locations 54
Results Relating to Research Question 1 57
Theme 1: Enrollment Trends Among Charter Schools 57
Theme 2: Shift in Enrollment Trends in Charter Schools 59
Discussion: Research Question 1 63
Results Relating to Research Question 2 65
Theme 1: Recruitment Practices 65
Theme 2: Lottery to Ensure Equity 68
Theme 3: Differences and Similarities in Charter School Admissions 72
Discussion: Research Question 2 74
Results Relating to Research Question 3 75
Theme 1: Exercising School Choice 76
Theme 2: Admissions Experience for Families 78
Theme 3: Factors That Led to Decision to Apply 82
Discussion: Research Question 3 86
Results Relating to Research Question 4 86
Theme 1: Role of Administrators and Staff 87
Theme 2: Why Students and Parents Choose to Attend a Charter School 90
Summary: Research Question 4 93
Chapter Five: Summary and Discussion 94
Summary of Findings 96
Limitations 99
Implications 101
For Practice 101
For Recruiting and Admissions Practices 103
For School Choice 104
Suggestions and Questions for Future Research 105
Conclusion 110
References 114
Appendices
Appendix A: Informed Consent 125
Appendix B: Interview Questions: Del Sol Charter School 128
Appendix C: Interview Questions for Director, Competitive Edge Charter Academy 129
Appendix D: Interview Questions: El Sol Science and Arts Academy 130
Appendix E: Interview questions: Competitive Edge Academy PTA President 131
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 5
List of Figures
Figure 1: El Sol Science and Arts Academy: Enrollment trends, K–8 64
Figure 2: Competitive Edge Charter Academy: Enrollment trends, K–8 64
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 6
Abstract
Charter schools are a popular option in school choice reform. Parents often choose to enroll their
children in charter schools because they are disenchanted with traditional public schools. Many
charter schools are independent from local school districts and promise to be innovative when
implementing their curriculum. Despite charter schools’ mission to provide equal access to all
students, there is criticism that these schools are encouraging segregation in race, ethnicity, and
students with disabilities. Another argument is that charter schools are “creaming” high-
performing students because they boost school performance and promote competition with public
schools. This study examined the history of school choice, charter schools, and common recruit-
ing and admissions practices of charter schools. Two high-performing charter schools in south-
ern California were the focus of this investigation. Interviews of parents and the charter school
administrators as well as examination of public documents were used to determine whether these
schools were abiding by California charter laws by allowing equal access to all students. Patterns
of enrollment trends were examined, along with admission practices, to determine whether the
two schools were creaming a specific student population. Data obtained from the interviews and
from public documents were coded to verify whether the two charter schools studied were
siphoning off a particular student population in order to create a high-performing charter school.
The results indicated that parents who participated in school choice set high expectations for their
children and made education a priority. The outcome of this study pointed to the effects of
school choice and how these effects related to segregation of students within a school district.
The results should provide charter schools, school districts, and policymakers with implications
for future study. Finally, questions were suggested for future research that outlined a more
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 7
in-depth study of how charter schools develop a high-performing student population and the
relationship between student achievement and admissions practices.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Overview of the Study and Local Context
The number of charter schools in the United States is rapidly increasing due to the
demand of alternative school choice options as a result of school choice reform. Charter schools,
which are publicly supported, autonomously operated schools of choice, have experienced strong
growth as the movement has evolved from a single school in Minnesota in 1992 to more than
4,000 schools in 40 states plus the District of Columbia in 2005 (Zimmer & Buddin, 2009).
Charter schools promise innovative teaching methods and stellar curriculum to maintain or
improve student achievement. Proponents argue that charter schools are held more accountable
for student outcomes; enjoy greater freedom from the cumbersome public system; operate more
efficiently; provide educational choices to parents and students, particularly those who typically
have few choices in education; infuse healthy competition into a bureaucratic and unresponsive
public system; and finally, model innovative practices for other schools and educators (Wells,
1998).
Although charter schools are a popular school choice option, there has been much public
and scholarly debate about whether inequitable admission practices have the effect of discrimi-
nating against students from particular racial and ethnic groups. The enrollment patterns of
charter schools suggest these schools are “creaming” high-achieving students to improve overall
school performance. Media reports have found that across the United States, charters aggres-
sively screen student applicants—assessing their academic records, parental support, disciplinary
history, motivation, special needs, and even their citizenship. In order to survive, charter schools
must attract students and hold down costs (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009). These constraints force
them to pursue educational aspirations, measurable outcomes, and competitive advantages that
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 9
balance social goals or regulations with market-style incentives (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009).
School choice programs exacerbate current school segregation and, in more heterogeneous set-
tings, lead to the stratification of students who were previously in integrated environments
(Rotberg, 2014). How students are assigned to, or choose to attend, a different school has serious
implications individually and in the aggregate from evaluating reforms in American education
(Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009).
Orange County, located in southern California, has approximately 14 charter schools
(California Department of Education [CDE], 2013a). San Bernardino County, another county in
southern California, has over 35 charter schools (CDE, 2013b). Several of these charter schools
exhibit high student performance based on the Academic Performance Index (API) scores. This
study researched admissions practices of two charter schools in southern California. There has
been much public and scholarly debate about whether inequitable admission practices have the
effect of discriminating against students from particular racial and ethnic groups. These students
give the school the edge it needs to thrive in the market place (Lacireno-Paquet, Holyoke, Moser,
& Henig, 2002).
In California, the selective admissions process for charter schools is forbidden. Califor-
nia prohibits selective enrollments; charters are allowed to give preference only to siblings and
students in the charter’s district (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008). However, despite
this policy, several top performing schools in southern California are designated as charter
schools, thus fueling assumptions that creaming and skimming students in the enrollment process
exists. For example, Competitive Edge Charter Academy (CECA) in Yucaipa had an API score
of 888 in 2012 (CDE, n.d.b). During the same year, El Sol Science and Art Academy in Santa
Ana performed well with an API score of 872 (CDE, n.d.c). As originally intended, performance
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 10
accountability covers a commitment to the terms of the charter contract between the charter
holder and the authorizer (Miron, 2010).
Background of the Problem
This study reviews reforms of school choice, primarily focusing on two charter schools in
southern California. First, the arguments for school choice and a review of a broader set of ideas
are presented. Next, how charter schools encourage open enrollment and equal access to all
races, ethnicities, and abilities in order to comply with charter laws and policies is discussed.
The pressures of charter schools are examined in conjunction with student stratification. Finally,
whether creaming during the admissions process is practiced and its negative consequences in
local school districts are described. Critics fear that charter schools may not have negative
consequences only for the charter students who attend these schools; but if charter schools skim
off high-achieving students, they may also have social and academic effects for students who
remain in traditional public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
School Choice Reform
The theory of school choice became visible in the 1950s by a Nobel laureate economist,
Milton Friedman, who introduced the concept of publicly funded vouchers for private schools.
These vouchers were an option of school choice for parents who wanted to break away from
government uniformity. Friedman (as cited in Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003) predicted that if
present public expenditures on schooling were made available to parents regardless of where they
send their children, a wide variety of schools would spring up to meet the demand. Proponents of
school choice shared the view with Friedman that public schools were the enemy and were bound
to weaken the nation’s education system. The most vehement critics of public education, how-
ever, looked at the 40-year history of reform in this country and concluded that pursuit of the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 11
American dream through public schooling is bound to fail (Horchild & Scovronick, 2003). Since
Friedman’s first attempt to implement school choice, various models of education institutions
have been created and have evolved. Public and political debates continue to navigate school
choice reform and also create a market-oriented educational system. Proponents of school choice
present market-based competition as a means of leveling disparities among race, class, and per-
formance in public school systems (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
Some Arguments for School Choice
Providing school choice in urban communities gives parents some control of their child’s
education. Parents who participate in school choice place high value on education (Haynes,
Phillips, & Golring, 2012). School choice provides parents with the power and freedom to
choose their child’s school while promoting healthy competition among academic institutions
(Haynes et al., 2010). Proponents of market-based models for school improvement assert that
choice offers a mechanism for strengthening schools (Haynes et al., 2010). Charter schools add
another option to the school choice menu—one that helps parents avoid residential mobility costs
and private school fees (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Often these charter schools have autonomy
from the state and local regulations so that they can provide more individualized education and
promote academic achievement. Charter schools are essentially the embodiment of structural
reforms, intended to create incentives and opportunities for educators to develop new, different,
and better approaches to meeting the needs of students (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010).
Charter schools often establish a school culture and academic standards for their students
to maintain a competitive edge among private and traditional public schools. Charter schools use
their autonomy to create their own schools, select their own governing boards, design educational
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 12
interventions appropriate for students’ unique needs and learning styles, and hire and fire teach-
ers more freely (Miron, 2010).
The Problem of Creaming
Charter schools rely on state funding through schools districts; however, a majority of
capital comes from private businesses, grants, and donations. Educational management organi-
zations (EMOs), which include both nonprofit and for-profit companies, have become powerful
forces in the charter school movement (Garcia, 2010). Charter schools are nominally entitled to
funding comparable with traditional schools, but some evidence suggests that charter school
funding is lagging behind in many states (Osberg, 2006; Schnieder & Tice, 2007). The average
funding per pupil is approximately 22% lower for charter students, and some charters receive
30% less per pupil than do traditional public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). As a result, the
admissions process to charter schools can be challenging and often discriminatory. One strategy
that charter schools may practice is creaming or skimming of high-performing students to
maintain desired API scores and other performance assessments in order to receive funding from
EMOs. As a consequence of such pressure, schools may cream students—that is, they may
attempt to siphon off those students who, because of favorable background circumstances, will
be easier and perhaps less costly to educate (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
Targets of Creaming
School choice reform gives parents opportunities to attend schools other than their local
public school. Charter schools are a popular option for school choice, as they were meant to be a
way of improving public schools by raising healthy competition. Despite the original vision of
charter schools, the admission practices of some charter schools are lengthy and extensive to
attract and enroll a specific population of students. Parents who have the knowledge and
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 13
resources to participate in school choice have an advantage when seeking alternative school
options. By not providing information about local charter schools to a diverse population, the
initial steps of creaming occur in the admissions process. Charter schools have many incentives
to target academically talented and otherwise advantaged students who are less costly to educate
and probably have higher test scores (Garcia, 2010).
Charter schools usually target a specific group of students. In some communities, charter
schools have a higher concentration of minority students than traditional public schools (Booker,
Zimmer, & Buddin, 2005; Institute on Race and Poverty, 2008). In other districts, some charter
schools serve as a vehicle for “White flight” (Rotberg, 2014). Depending on the mission of the
individual charter school, student stratification can help provide funds from EMOs, especially
when a school produces high assessment scores and API results. A growing number of charter
schools target specific racial or ethnic groups, thereby leading directly to increased segregation
(Rotberg, 2014).
Pressures on Charter Schools
School choice affects the market economy in terms of supply and demand. There is a
general consensus that national investments in education lead to economic growth (Brewer,
Hentschke, & Eide, 2010). Parents have the choice to enroll their child in the local public school,
a private school, or an alternative school that may or not be funded by the state. As concerns
about the effectiveness of existing schools have risen, policymakers have questioned the central
role and functions of government in the allocation of educational resources and have turned
toward market-related mechanisms (Brewer et al., 2010). Charter schools affect the supply and
demand of the public school economic market because they create competition within a district.
Charter schools, by breaking the district monopoly on publicly funded education, are expected to
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 14
produce superior outcomes not only for charter school students but also for students remaining in
other schools (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010).
Charter schools are often funded by their local school district; however, the some charter
schools also receive funds from private organizations. Charter schools are now often parsed into
categories such as for-profit and nonprofit, local and EMO, comprehensive and specialized, and
high performing and low performing (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010). Charter schools that are con-
nected to EMOs, often feel pressure to be innovative and high performing. Driven by the de-
mands in the market, schools may come under pressure to recruit as many students as possible in
order to achieve economies of scale and to target recruitment at students who are believed to be
less costly to educate, less disruptive in the classroom, and more likely to produce high test
scores that will improve the school’s reputation and attract even more “customers” (Lacireno-
Paquet et al., 2002).
The combination of school choice reform and the economic impact of charter schools
creates speculation that charter schools are selective in the admission process to create a high-
performing school that can compete in the school choice market. If charter schools conceive of
themselves as competitive, free-market entities, they are likely to engage in admission practices
that decrease their costs and increase their efficiency. However, if charters are intended to fulfill
democratic goals, they will be expected to serve all students equally and perhaps construct better
integrated student populations (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008).
Negative Effects of Creaming
Problems in stratifying a student population during the admissions process in charter
schools include not only creating a school that is high performing but also encouraging segrega-
tion of race, ethnicity, and ability. Dee and Fu (2004) noted that critics of charter schools raise a
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 15
number of concerns, especially that charter schools would lead to increased student segregation.
It is known that segregation can be prevalent among charter schools and public schools. What is
not known is how segregation occurs during the admissions process. Charter schools are public
schools that have autonomy from traditional public schools to implement curriculum, regulate
funding, and promote innovative methods of teaching. As a result, charter schools might be
creaming or skimming a targeted student population to establish a high-performing school or to
gain access to specific resources based on the needs of enrolled students. This study focused on
the admission process of local charter schools and how students are selected during the admis-
sion process so as to demonstrate desired student outcomes.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to gain a better of understanding of the admissions practices
of two local charter schools in southern California. The focus was to determine whether these
charter schools were practicing student stratification during the admissions process. The orient-
ing ideas for the study drew on three bodies of research. First, the researcher provides a review
of the background research on choice and its current importance in school reform. Second, she
presents background research on policy issues on charter schools related to quality and differen-
tial access to that quality by student characteristic and family background. Third, she presents
research on the importance of the street-level bureaucrat in policy implementation. As described
in greater depth in Chapter Three, the researcher drew on these ideas to examine whether or not
student enrollment in charter schools in Orange County mirrors national trends and policy issues
(many left unresolved by the research) emerging from these trends. The importance of street-
level bureaucrats is discussed with respect to policy implementation to examine the role of
admissions staff, school leaders, and teachers in the student selection process. The state of
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 16
California may have approximately 30 charter school policies; however, from Lipsky’s (2010)
theory of street-level bureaucrats, policy players make decisions about people that affect their life
changes. They socialize citizens to the expectations of government services and the bureaucracy
of school politics (Lipsky, 2010). Based on this knowledge, it is known that staff at the school
level exert influence on whether and how state and local charter school policies that impact
student admission and retention are implemented.
Admission practices are examined to begin to explore whether and how charter schools
allow equal access for all students who want to enroll. While charters are not confined to tradi-
tional attendance zones and therefore have the potential to aid in the integration of American
education, concerns about charter schools’ skimming or creaming higher-achieving students
continue to plague charter school reform (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009). There is an examination
of the idea that segregation of race, ability, and ethnicity exist within the school district as a result
of the local charter school competition in southern California. Finally, the study generates infor-
mation that should inform future studies of a number of policy issues, such as funding for charter
schools. The biased-market model raises fears that choice and charters will exacerbate existing
inequities by weakening public sector institutions that have been more responsive to the rights
and political voice of disadvantaged groups (Henig & MacDonald, 2002).
Research Questions
The following research questions guided this study:
1. What are enrollment trends by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities in the 14
charter schools in southern California? How, if at all, have these enrollment trends shifted since
the schools were started?
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 17
2. What patterns provide evidence in how admission counselors and staff in charter
schools describe the practices that they use to recruit, screen, and admit students? How are these
practices similar or different for the two schools?
3. How do parents of students talk about recruitment, counseling, and admission pro-
cesses? What factors do they identify as influencing their decision on whether or not to attend
the school; and how, if at all, are they similar or different from the perspectives of staff?
4. What can be gleaned from these data about the role of staff and admissions counselors
in the recruitment, selection, and admission process? What seem to be the key points in the
process that may explain what students decide to attend this particular charter school?
Hypothesis
In this study it was hypothesized that charter schools in California encourage segregation
by race, ethnicity, and academic ability. Based on the literature review, the historical context of
school choice, and the implementation of charter schools, the evidence suggests there is
segregation as a result of selective admission practices among charter schools. Segregation of
race, ability, language, and ethnicity within school districts was the aftermath of school choice
reform. Charter schools, in particular, encourage segregation due to admissions practices be-
cause these independent schools are fostering a specific school culture. Charter schools sup-
ported by private organizations feel pressure to perform; therefore, these schools may stratify
their student enrollment to secure high-performing students. The admissions practices of two
high-performing charter schools in southern California are examined: El Sol Art and Science
Academy in Santa Ana and CECA in Yucaipa. Parents seek successful educational institutions
that will not only provide innovative instructional methods but also have a specialized education
program that is not available at the local public schools. Furthermore, despite state and local
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 18
charter school laws, these schools are finding creative ways to enroll a selective population in
order to have high-performing schools and to boost competition with local public schools.
Limitations and Assumptions of the Study
Limitations
The study provided rich data on the admission practices in two schools. Data are limited
in generalizability given these unique school contexts. The investigation of these two schools
included similar grade levels, demographics, and assessment scores such as the California
Standards Test (CST) as a method of measurement. Interviews of administrative personnel and
parents of these schools were the basis of how students enrolled in these selected charter schools.
The findings provided insight of the admission process of only the two selected charter schools
and should not be used as a universal model for all charter schools in the state of California.
Although sorting and segregation lend themselves to important normative inquiries, they are also
empirical questions that are squarely situated in theoretical perspectives of how schools should
operate in response to different incentive structures (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009).
Assumptions
The assumptions of the study included that unbiased feedback was provided through the
interviews of the admissions staff at the selected charter schools in southern California.
Unbiased feedback was critical for accurate data represented in the study. The second assump-
tion was that these charter schools were not segregating students within their district by race,
ability, ethnicity, or English language learner (ELL) classification. Finally, the admissions
process for these schools was examined; because each charter school is autonomous, the differ-
ences in practice were critical to the findings.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 19
Definition of Key Terms
In the field of education and economics, there are many acronyms and universal language
used that require a clear definition for the understanding concepts of this study. Accordingly,
definitions of these key terms are provided below:
Annual Yearly Progress (AYP)
This is a statewide accountability system mandated by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Act of 2002, which requires each state to ensure that all schools and districts make AYP. Charter
schools are included in the AYP scores and evaluations (CDE, 2014b).
California Standards Test
The CST is administered to public school students once a year to measure AYP. The
CST consists of criterion-referenced tests that assess the California content standards in English
language arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and history and social science (CDE, 2014b). The
CST measures students’ knowledge of California content standards.
District of Columbia Public School System (DCPS)
The DCPS is one of the case studies that provided data in the case study of admission
practices of Washington, DC’s public school system conducted by Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
English Language Learner
An ELL is a K–12 student who, based on objective assessment, has not developed lis-
tening, speaking, reading, and writing proficiencies in English sufficient for participation in the
regular school program (CDE, 2014a).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 20
Educational Management Organizations
EMOs are firms that have arisen to contract with public school authorities to manage their
school (Belfield & Levin, 2010). There has been a shift toward EMOs playing a more important
role in public education.
Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FARL)
FARL refers to students who are classified as having receiving free or reduced-price
lunch. Qualifications for the FARL program are dependent on the family demonstrating a low
level of annual income (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
Limited English/Non-English Proficient (LEP-NEP)
These are students who have not developed writing, listening, speaking, or reading pro-
ficiencies in English needed to participate in a regular public school program (Lacireno-Paquet et
al., 2002).
National Assessment of Educational Progress
The NAEP is the largest, nationally representative and continuing assessment of what
America’s students know and can do in various subject areas (National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES; 2014). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) provides
data about public schools’ performance and how they rank nationally.
Street-Level Bureaucrats
This term refers to the schools, police, welfare departments, lower courts, legal service
offices, and other agencies whose workers interact with and have wide discretion over the
dispensation of benefits or the allocation of public sanctions (Lipsky, 2010).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 21
Chapter Summary
Charter schools are continuing to grow in popularity among parents who are looking
for an alternative to local public schools. However, despite charter laws and policies to allow all
students to attend charter schools, there is evidence of segregation. Perhaps charter schools are
creaming and skimming students at the national level in order to enhance school performance.
The issue of student enrollment patterns in charter schools is a significant concern. Notions of
equity and social cohesion are basic values in American education (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009).
By reviewing the enrollment patterns of two school districts in southern California, this study
should provide insight on the micropractices that can contribute to school segregation in a
context of reforms focused on school choice. The district charter schools and their admissions
process should provide insight on whether these schools strategically select students for enroll-
ment. California state and local charter school laws and policies were also surveyed to determine
whether these charter schools were abiding by the charter laws or if they found creative loopholes
that encourage segregation of students.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 22
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
School choice was initially introduced by Nobel laureate economist, Milton Friedman, in
the 1950s. Friedman introduced publicly funded vouchers for private schools as a way for
parents to escape governmentally imposed uniformity (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Parents
could express their discontent with the public school system by withdrawing their children from
one school and enrolling in another local school. According to this theory, being able to choose
among schools would benefit everyone, just as being able to choose where one works or lives
increases everyone’s well-being (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Since Friedman’s idea of
private school vouchers was introduced, many school options have been created and developed to
provide families with options for their child’s education. Private schools, parochial schools,
magnet schools, public schools, and charters schools are all educational choices for families in
the American school system.
Given the variety of academic institutions, charter schools are a popular choice for many
families who may not have resources to fund private school but seek an alternative to their local
public school. Based on peer-reviewed journals, published texts, and documented case studies,
this literature examines the enrollment trends of charter schools as well as the evidence on
creaming or skimming a population of students that might explain the trends. Moreover, the fact
that much state policy tends to focus on authorization as opposed to problems of implementation
of charter schools laws or practices is explained. This review reveals there are inconsistencies
between each state’s charter school laws and execution of charter school policies; and it can be
concluded that charter schools are segregating students, with respect to both race and socio-
economic status, within communities as a result of school choice reform. Methods of research
included investigating case studies and using the data as evidence to support these theories.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 23
The Rise of Charter Schools
Charter schools are a school choice option for many students in urban areas who seek a
different curriculum than what is currently available in their local public schools. These schools
often focus on specialized subjects not only for performing arts or gifted students but also for
students with moderate to severe disabilities who require specialized capacities to fit their needs
(Levin, 2012). Charter schools are state-funded schools under the Charter Law, which enables
specifically the administration to exercise more freedom in instruction; curriculum; and addi-
tional programs such as language, the arts, and technology. Set up as alternatives to traditional
public schools, charter schools typically operate under private management and often boast small
class sizes, innovative teaching styles, or a particular academic focus (Simon, 2013).
When charter schools first arrived on the American educational landscape, few people
suspected that within 2 decades, thousands of these schools would be established across most of
the United States (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010). The first charter school was established in
Winona, Minnesota in 1991 when the state approved the first Charter Law (Dorer, 2002). This
small Montessori elementary school, Bluffview School, was a vision of both educators and
parents who wanted to provide exceptional education along with a smaller class size without
paying the tuition of a private school.
Charter schools are public schools; however, they have independent school boards, are
exempt from many of the mandates of conventional public schools, do not charge tuition for
normal K–12 programs, and the majority of the charter school board members are teachers in the
school (Dorer, 2001). Bluffview was a pioneer in the experiment of the charter school model.
Public charter schools are one of the fastest-growing educational reforms in the United States
serving, more than a million students (Stoddard & Corcoran, 2006). Charter schools have a
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 24
transformational impact on the public education system in the country. These schools also have a
special obligation: to lead in demonstrating innovations in instruction, organization, curriculum,
and design when it comes to improving American schools (Sizer & Wood, 2008).
The rise of charter schools provides local competition in terms of school choice. Reflect-
ing on the first charter schools in the United States, it is clear that there was a desire to create an
alternative to traditional public schools. However, charter schools are unreliable due to the
pressure of producing stellar academic outcomes or funding. All charter schools are unstable
because they can be closed if they do not meet their mandates, and some have been closed
because of financial or educational malfeasance (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Despite the
volatility of charter schools, they have provided a positive alternative to the traditional public
school and are popular among parents who are seeking an innovative education while maintain-
ing high academic standards and values. Led by educators frustrated by large bureaucratic
systems seemingly immune to change, the concept of charter schools was driven by a desire to
innovate on behalf of children while furthering the most fundamental values of the public
education system (Sizer & Wood, 2008).
Enrollment Trends in Charter Schools and Promotion of Segregation
Charter schools constitute the fastest-growing educational reform in the United States.
There are now more than 6,000 charter schools in the United States, up from 2,500 a decade ago
(Simon, 2013). Some educational theorists suggest that charter schools will induce systemic
change by providing more educational choices, creating competitive market forces, and serving
as examples from which other public schools can learn. However, despite the positive contribu-
tions of charter schools, there is criticism these schools do not provide equity and access to edu-
cation among various socioeconomic groups or ethnicities. Miller-Khan and Smith (2001), in a
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 25
study of charter schools in Colorado, reported that one group that set up a charter schools in
Boulder selected its students. State statutes require all public schools to be open for the admis-
sion of all children within specific age ranges who live in the district in question, and the district
policy prohibits discrimination in decisions relating to admissions (West, Ingram, & Hind, 2006).
The movement of school choice is widespread; however, the implementation has not been
equitable. State laws differ in the degree of latitude granted to charter schools, and states and
localities vary widely in the availability of and enrollment in these schools (Stoddard & Cor-
coran, 2006). Families are more likely to request transfers to schools on the basis of similarity in
culture, location, and ethnic mix factors that tend to perpetuate segregation (Tovey, 1995).
Charter schools originally aimed to provide lower-income and minority families with an educa-
tional choice. Test scores show that many students living in poor urban areas are performing
well below grade level. When students were placed in a small charter school, their test scores
rose sharply. However, the current state of the charter school system now threatens to amplify
the socioeconomic disparities among students (Swinehart, 2005).
Despite the support of charter schools within the urban communities, the implementation
has been unbalanced (Stoddard & Corcoran, 2006). Families who participate in school choice,
especially charter schools, usually seek a school culture similar to their own. While students
from higher income families are likely to request transfers into mainly White schools in higher
income districts, students of color are requesting to be transferred to non-White schools in lower
income areas (Tovey, 1995). While other student populations have been leaving assigned public
schools at a steady pace, Latino students have been left behind in the school choice movement.
(Gastic & Coronado, 2011). One contributor of Latinos not being proactive participants of
school choice is that although they are generally aware of the availability of school choice, they
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 26
do not have specific and timely information on which they can act (Stoddard & Corcoran, 2006).
Also, Latino parents do not conduct school searches as wide ranging as those of other parents,
specifically African Americans (Gastic & Coronado, 2011).
A contributor to the lack of cultural diversity in charter schools is poor recruiting prac-
tices that coincide with how school administrators communicate with parents within the commu-
nity to provide accurate information about their school. Many charter school founders explicitly
state that the goal of satisfying diverse preferences and attracting a target population is central to
their mission (Stoddard & Corcoran, 2006). Charter schools that are established within certain
district parameters may recruit for those students within a specific area due to transportation
issues or to create a homogenous student population. Charter schools may narrow their recruit-
ment to a certain race or socioeconomic population in order to increase their enrollment or to
help students who are not achieving in the traditional public school setting.
Charter schools in California are required to admit students to mirror the race and ethnic
composition of their district. The passage of California’s Proposition 209 has now made it illegal
to construct a racially weighted lottery that would ensure such an outcome (Kluver & Rosen-
stock, 2003). Despite this ruling, there is little cultural diversity across ethnicities and races. In
some cases, White charter school students attend charter schools that are more homogeneously
White than their public school counterparts (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Wells (1998) found that
Latino students were underrepresented in charter schools and Black students went to charter
schools in the same magnitude that they attended public schools (Renzulli & Evans, 2005).
Communication to parents across ethnicities, races, and socioeconomic communities are
also missing in regard to recruiting students for local charter schools. Many families learn of
charter schools through word of mouth within their community (Tovey, 1995). Parents often do
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 27
not participate in school choice programs because they are not aware of their educational oppor-
tunities (Tovey, 1995). Moreover, parents who participate in school choice programs often select
schools without being well informed—instead relying on remarks of friends or a sense that the
school has a good reputation (Tovey, 1995). Because charter schools vary in their focus of
learning styles, parents may be hesitant to transfer their child from a traditional public school.
Parents with higher educational attainment tend to place emphasis on the importance of educa-
tion and are more likely to seek out information on the varieties of educational choices (Haynes
et al., 2010).
In California, charter schools are a popular alternative to traditional public schools. Com-
pared to other states, African American and White Caucasian students are overrepresented in
local charter schools. Segregation is prevalent in charter schools across various ethnicities.
There is considerable evidence that charter schools may overrepresent minority students com-
pared with district schools. White flight is not the primary driver in the creation of segregated
charter schools; the prevailing trend is for minority students to self-segregate into charter schools
(Garcia, 2010). Rogosa (2003) explained that as in other states, Black students are overrepre-
sented in California’s charter schools in that 8% of students in all the state’s schools are Black
but 16% of charter school students are Black. White students are also overrepresented in charter
schools; specifically, 42% of charter school students are White, compared to 34% in all Califor-
nia schools (Rogosa, 2003).
School choice and charter school options may have future consequences for racial segre-
gation given the potential for White flight similar to that which occurred in the 1960s and 1970s
(Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Once charter schools emerged, critics claimed that the schools would
promote segregation by providing an escape route for White privileged families (Hill & Lake,
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 28
2010). Policymakers across the country are embracing charter schools to address a number of
issues, including lack of choice, increasing inequities, and low achievement in public education
(Lee & Lubienski, 2011). As a result of their impact on the United States educational system, the
racial and socioeconomic issues continue to be in the forefront. Integration of students for the
purpose of providing equal access to education and opportunities has led to the segregation.
Olzak (1994) and Olzak, Shanahan, and West (1994) claimed that competition theorists have
argued that the roots of collective action and resource mobilization lie in the competition for
scarce resources, including status and institutional access (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). In response
to creating equity in education, some charter schools may be aggressively catering to advantaged
population while others may go out of their way to serve at-risk and special needs students
(Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). However, parents living in impoverished urban communities
often do not participate in school choice. Latinos, for example, do not conduct as wide-ranging
school searches as do other parents, such as African American parents (Gastic & Coronado,
2011). Among Latino parents, in the study conducted by Gastic and Coronado (2011), 28% said
they considered schools other than the one currently being attended by their child, compared to
30% of White parents and 43% of African American parents. The researchers explained this
disparity as a difference in social capital and limited access to the resources of school choice.
Because of the need for better recruiting practices and the lack of communication among
families in the community about school choice and charter schools, cultural diversity in charter
schools is almost nonexistent. Critics claim that charter schools worsen segregation by serving
too many minority students and fail to achieve racially mixed schools (Hill & Lake, 2010). In the
Latino student population, enrolling in a public school of choice is notably limited compared to
the situation with Black students (Gastic & Coronado, 2011). Supporters of school choice point
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 29
out that wealthy parents, a majority of whom are White, already have a choice and exercise their
right to live in communities with high-achieving schools or to opt out of their traditional public
school altogether (Kluver & Rosenstock, 2003). Although there are many arguments as to who
has equal access to school choice in regard to charter schools, the fact remains that there are
inequities in this process and that school administrators and institutional agents need to recruit
culturally diverse students in order to provide equal access and educational opportunities for
students of various abilities. Institutional agents can be formally defined as those individuals
who have the capacity and commitment to transmit directly or negotiate the transmission of
institutional resources and opportunities. Resources include information about school programs,
academic tutoring and mentoring, as well as assistance with career decisions and college admis-
sion (Stanton-Salazar, 1997).
In summary, charter schools across the United States do not follow uniform admission
policies; therefore, segregation with respect to races, socioeconomic status, and academic ability
are prominent. Charter schools, even under a lottery system, also choose students (sometimes
explicitly and sometimes indirectly) and thus increase the probability of segregation (Rotberg,
2014). They limit the services provided, thereby excluding certain students or offer programs
that appeal only to a limited group of families (Mathematica Policy Research, 2011; Welner,
2013). Enrollment trends vary among districts, depending on the school culture of the charter
school. Because a growing number of charter schools target specific racial or ethnic groups, their
practices lead directly to increased segregation (Rotberg, 2014). No one can claim that current
charter laws are perfect or that charter admissions practices, funding, location, or program
offerings have reached a point of perfection (Hill & Lake, 2010); however, laws and local
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 30
implementation are improving all the time, especially in localities such as New York City that
use charters as vehicles for expanding opportunity for the disadvantaged (Hill & Lake, 2010).
The Practice of Creaming or Skimming in Charter Schools
School choice presents market-based competition as a means of leveling disparities
among race, class, and performance in public school systems (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
Charter schools are one example of competition alongside district public schools, because they
reflect substantial change in the education system. In the current charter school policy, competi-
tion for students means competition for funds. The per-pupil state funding essentially is trans-
ferred from the original public school to the new school of choice (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010).
In March of 2010, there were 5,000 charter schools operating in the United States (Eckes, 2010).
Charter schools can be affiliated with a for-profit organization or supported by nonprofit organi-
zations. Schools run by for-profit companies can encounter difficulties in the enrollment process.
In general, these schools look like most other charters: The company agrees to run the school for
the same per-pupil cost to the district as a similar public or charter school and, in exchange,
promises to reach a predetermined set of student achievement levels or other academic objectives
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). As a result, the ability to enroll in a charter school run by
organizations can be challenging. It is suggested some charter schools practice creaming or
skimming a certain population of students to maintain a school population with high student
achievement. Market-oriented charter schools (i.e., those with links to for-profit corporations
with a strong business presence on their founding boards and those with entrepreneurial plans for
expansion) are hypothesized to be more responsive to pressures to engage in creaming or skim-
ming students based on academic performance and cost (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002.).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 31
Admissions
Admissions to charter schools change from state to state due to the various admission
legislation in the given state. Research by RRP International (2001) found that approximately
59% of charter schools had primary control of their admissions, with the remaining 41% having
admissions controlled by the state, county, or other regulation bodies. Many charter schools
enroll students who are representative of their community’s demographics. However, some
charter schools, especially those that have financial ties to local organizations, recruit students
who will cost less to educate and contribute to high student achievement. As a consequence of
such pressure, schools may cream students—that is, they may attempt to siphon off those stu-
dents who, because of favorable background circumstances, will be easier and perhaps less costly
to educate (Lacireno-Paquet et. al., 2002).
Due to the admissions process in charter schools, the argument for creaming or skimming
may seem valid. However, there are not enough data to prove that this practice exists both on the
national and state levels. The admission process into some charter schools is perhaps the most
challenging obstacle for parents participating in school choice. Simon (2013) of Reuters pro-
vided some insight on how charter schools admit the students whom they want to represent the
school. Examples of requirements of the admissions process include but are not limited to
lengthy applications that are available only a few times a year, applications that require parent
essays, report cards, test scores, teacher recommendations and medical records, mandatory family
interviews, academic prerequisites, and requirements that applicants document any disabilities or
special needs. Although these steps in the admission process are not considered creaming or
skimming to achieve the desired student body, it does add to the theory that high-achieving
charter schools crop the students by enrolling those who posses less academic challenges. Simon
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 32
found that across the United States, charters aggressively screen student applicants and assess
their academic records, parental support, disciplinary history, motivation, special needs, and even
their citizenship—sometimes in violation of the state and federal law. These requirements often
discourage parents from applying to charter schools and can be viewed as a barrier for entry.
Admissions requirements and processes exemplify one way in which charter schools are better
able than other public schools to shape whom they enroll (West et. al., 2006). The cropping
argument contends that market-oriented charter schools (i.e., those with stronger business or
entrepreneurial inclinations) enroll lower percentages of LEP and special education (SPED)
students than nonmarket-oriented charter schools and district schools (Garcia, 2010).
A study was conducted by Lacireno-Paquet et al. (2002) to examine whether creaming
was practiced in the Washington, DC, charter schools. The analysis focused on whether
market-oriented charter schools enrolled fewer at-risk students, students with special needs, and
LEP students. Their hypothesis was that some charter schools, by background and affiliation,
were likely to be more market oriented in their behavior than others and were more likely to
respond to incentives to cream the student population. At the time of the study, there were 25
charter schools in operation, plus one school with three campuses and one with two campuses. In
addition, 147 traditional DCPS schools were included in the study. The dependent variables
were the percentage of students enrolled in the FARL program as an indicator of socioeconomic
status, the percentage classified as SPED, and the percentage of LEP-NEP students. Moreover,
the distinction of the type of charter school (i.e., market-oriented vs. less market-oriented
schools) was made to validate the study. Market-oriented charter schools are in partnership with
a national for-profit EMO. The school relies almost entirely on revenues generated through
student enrollments to cover operational costs (Huerta & d’Entremont, 2010). The difference
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 33
between the size of the charter schools and that of the public schools was also taken into consid-
eration. Lacireno et al. (2002) found the difference to be large and statistically significant, with
the average DCPS school enrolling more than twice as many students as the average charter
school —a finding consistent with most other studies of the early waves of charter schools. The
final results of the study were unexpected.
Regarding the SPED students in the study, there did not seem to be a difference in enroll-
ment between the charter school and the DCPS schools. Specifically, the enrollment was the
same for the nonmarket charter schools and the DCPS schools. The variation was between the
market-oriented schools and the DCPS schools in that the market-oriented ones had a lower
percentage of special needs students enrolled than both the nonmarket charter schools and the
DCPS schools. This finding suggested that nonmarket charter schools were targeting SPED
students (Lacireno et al., 2002). Turning to the low-income students and whether charter schools
and public schools served a similar percentage of students from low- income families, the
researchers found that using data from the FARL program produced inconsistent results. How-
ever, despite knowing the imperfections of using this evaluation system, the data showed that
overall, charter schools served a slightly higher percentage of FARL students than did the DCPS
schools. Also, the market-oriented charter schools served the highest percentage of harder-to-
serve populations; market-oriented schools served the lowest percentage (Lacireno et. al., 2002).
Finally, the researchers reported that nonmarket charter schools enrolled a larger percentage of
LEP-NEP students compared to the DCPS schools. Moreover, the data relating to nonmarket
charter schools and market-oriented charter schools showed that nonmarket charter schools
served more LEP-NEP students. Indeed, LEP-NEP students comprised 15.88% of the student
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 34
bodies of the nonmarket-oriented charter schools student bodies, but only 0.53% for the mar-
ket-oriented charter schools (Lacireno et al., 2002).
The conclusion of the study conducted by Lucireno et al. (2002) in Washington, DC, was
that there did not appear to be creaming in the population of students in the charter schools and
the traditional public schools. In fact, Lucireno et al. noted that in the aggregate, the schools
were serving a population that had many characteristics associated with educational disadvan-
tages. Although subject to important caveats, the analysis provided evidence that this aggregate
pattern might be masking some meaningful differences between charter schools (Lacireno et al.,
2002). The difference between the nonmarket- and market-oriented charter schools was pro-
nounced. Because the balance of the charter school population was regulated, in part, by charter-
ing authorities, it is worthwhile to understand the distinctions that exist in the universe of charter
schools and how they might affect the composition of the student body (Lacireno et al., 2002).
This information could be valuable for chartering authorities when evaluating new charter
schools that are entering the market, because it might affect the student body within a school or
district.
Although the study of Lacireno et al. (2002) in Washington, DC, did not support charter
schools focusing on enrolling high-achieving or economically privileged students, stratification
of student recruitment in charter schools was still practiced. For example, some charter schools
recruited at-risk or special needs students (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). These charter schools
had mandates to maintain a certain number of enrolled students; therefore, they were actively
recruiting students and had a more relaxed admissions process. Some charter schools might have
been aggressively catering to the advantaged populations while others might have gone out of
their way to serve at-risk and special needs students. If that is the case, statistics showing that
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 35
charters “on average” do not engage in creaming might mask a more complex and problematic
phenomenon (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Moreover, these charter schools fueled the competi-
tion between local public schools and charter schools because both had similar student demo-
graphics. On the other hand, less market-oriented schools, including those with long-established
social service ties to their local community were more likely to be characterized by a mission that
focused on at-risk population rather than mass education and profit generation (Lacireno-Paquet
et al., 2002). Many students who had been unsuccessful or unhappy in other settings seem
generally satisfied with the charter school experience. Reasons include clear academic expecta-
tions, safety, individualized instruction, committed teachers, and a family-like atmosphere
(Stewart, 2002).
The creaming and skimming in charter schools do not necessarily guarantee high student
achievement. During the first of couple years of a startup charter school, administrators and
teachers are setting the expectations, implementing a new curriculum, and reflecting on strategies
that allow students to learn. Charter schools have more autonomy in operations than their public
school counterparts. Charter schools use this autonomy to create their own schools, select their
own governing boards, design educational interventions appropriate for students’ unique needs
and learning styles, and hire and fire teachers more freely (Miron, 2010). As a result, charter
schools are expected to have and are held accountable for high performance. Unfortunately, test
scores are similar to neighboring public schools. In 2004 the American Federation of Teachers
(AFT), a union known to support charter schools, published standardized test scores from the
federal government’s NAEP (as cited in Carnoy, Jacobsen, Mishel, & Rothstein, 2005). The data
revealed that student achievement was higher in public schools in comparison to the local charter
schools in both affluent and low-income neighborhoods. This report was surprising because the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 36
charter schools’ mission is to focus on increasing student achievement above that of traditional
public schools, particularly for disadvantaged students.
Economic Impact of Charter Schools
Proponents of school choice present market-based competition as a means of leveling
disparities among race, class, and performance in public school systems (Lacireno-Paquet et al.,
2002). Charter schools are fueled by the theory of supply and demand. Parents are displeased
with the traditional public schools; therefore, they are seeking innovative and efficient ways to
educate their children. This reengagement of parents in the public school system may improve
prospects for improving public education funding and reform efforts (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
Lacireno-Paquet et al. (2002) explained that the concerns of the market skeptics reflect both the
“demand-side” and the “supply-side” dynamics. On the demand side, they worry whether
parents, particularly low-income parents, have sufficient information to allow them to play the
consumer role effectively and whether the values and preferences of racial and ethnic subgroups
might lead them to voluntarily segregate into homogeneous schools settings. Charter schools that
skim students to boost overall student achievement are usually market oriented in nature; there-
fore there is pressure to maintain a high-performing student body. School choice is heralded as a
key component of charter success; charters must compete for students with traditional public
schools, and their survival is literally predicated on their ability to implement programs that
attract students (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
Enrollment in charter schools versus public schools can be controlled by market-oriented
reforms. The introduction of market-oriented reforms into public school systems has required
monitoring and effective regulation to ensure that autonomous schools do not act in their own
self-interest (West et al., 2006). Underlying the debate are two conflicting visions of market: the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 37
classical economic vision and the market that is systematically in favor of those already advan-
taged in terms of money, mobility, knowledge, and information (Henig & MacDonald, 2002).
The classical economic open market model is based on the assumption that competition and
choice are sufficient conditions for leveling the playing field by race and class. The market is
color blind and is accepting of diversity that also includes socioeconomic class. This model leads
some school choice proponents to conclude that racial minorities would be better served by
market-oriented-choice programs than they are by governmentally structured alternatives that
reflect racially patterned political inequities (Moe, 2001). Because wealthy students have the
option of enrolling in a private school or can move to desirable locations that have high-achiev-
ing schools, market incentives would be expected to encourage charter schools to move to inner
cities where needs are the greatest and competition is weak (Henig & MacDonald, 2002).
Markets that are systematically biased raise fears that choice and charters will exacerbate existing
inequities by weakening public sector institutions that historically have been more responsive to
the rights and political voice of disadvantaged groups (Henig & MacDonald, 2002).
In conclusion, enrollment practices, specifically creaming or skimming, could be driven
by the market-based competition of local educational institutions. Charter schools that cream or
skim a specific population of students to gain a reputation as a high-achieving school are fueling
a supply-and-demand market for alternative education. Charter school critics argue that charter
success might be illusory if charter schools are simply recruiting the best students from tradi-
tional public schools or if they further stratify an already ethnically or racially stratified system
(Zimmer & Buddin, 2010). Although not enough studies prove there are creaming or skimming
practices in charter schools, there is evidence to support the idea that charter schools might
encourage segregation by race, special needs, socioeconomic background, and ELLs. SPED and
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 38
language-minority students are underrepresented in charter schools, unless the schools are spe-
cifically targeted to these population groups (Rotberg, 2014). Attention to the “bottom line”
could make charter schools especially anxious to steer away SPED and LEP students, who would
impose additional expenses and almost certainly deflate mean performance rates on standardized
exams, thus making the school less attractive to consumers (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
What State and Local Policies Can Do to Diminish Creaming in Charter Schools
Charter schools in the United States were first created to provide an alternative to local
public schools. When charter schools emerged in the 1990s, neither policymakers nor academics
had experience with a large-scale, decentralized public school choice policy (Garcia, 2010).
Methods of implementing equity vary from state to state; however. the goal of providing quality
education remains the same. One collective goal holds that schools must help to provide equal
opportunity for all children (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). The practice of creaming to enroll
a desired student population adds to the inequity of charter schools. Charter school policies and
legislation must monitor the admission processes of these schools because it can lead to inequi-
ties within the education system. The charter movement can take on very different configura-
tions in different states, where laws, needs, institutions, and political culture all may play impor-
tant roles (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
In terms of enrollment trends, charter school opponents argue that White privileged
families would enroll in charter schools, thus encouraging segregation. The logic was simple:
Charter schools give families choices, but only privileged families take advantage of choice;
therefore, charter schools will serve privileged families (Hill & Lake, 2010). However, the
critics did not expect the following three outcomes. First, state legislatures provided incentives
for charter schools to serve low-income students and minority students (Hill & Lake, 2010).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 39
Second, the people who sought to run charter schools were left leaning and dedicated to improv-
ing education options for underprivileged students. Third, foundations increasingly provided
assistance to charter schools serving disadvantaged students in some of the most reform-resistant
urban school districts (Nathan, 1996). The result was that charter schools serve almost the same
percentage of poor, disadvantaged, and minority students as the public schools in the big city
school districts in which they are located (Christensen, Meijer-Irons, & Lake, 2010).
Charter schools are expected to thrive and preform better than public schools. As a result,
there is pressure to enroll students who will boost student achievement level in order to maintain
the schools’ reputation and funding, especially if the charter is supported by a local organization.
Currently, there is no concrete evidence that schools actively practice creaming. On the contrary,
most charter schools have a high population of academically disadvantaged students who were
left behind in district schools (Garcia, 2010). Charter school laws are in place to ensure that
there is equal access to all students despite their ability, race, or socioeconomic group; however,
these policies are not always practiced. Simon (2013) explained that stand-alone charters, which
account for more than half of the total in the United States, make up their own admission poli-
cies. Some policies are vague; oversight is lax; and principals can get quite creative. Policymak-
ers and charter law must come to a universal consensus on the charter admission process to
promote equality and transparency between states and districts. Because charter school laws vary
by state, analyses may accurately reflect consequences of state policy (Renzulli & Evans, 2005).
Nevertheless, Renzulli and Evans (2005) noted that many state laws require charter schools to
consider district-level characteristics when accepting and recruiting students.
Arizona authorized the state’s first charter school in 1994 and opened a few charter
schools for the 1995–1996 school year. Earlier in Arizona’s 1994 session, state legislators had
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 40
defeated a controversial bill that would have provided low-income parents with vouchers to use
at private schools (Hartley, 1999; Keegan, 1999). However, during the summer, the governor
called the legislature for a special session to examine this bill further. There was insufficient
support for the vouchers, but a compromise was made to promote charter schools (Dee & Fu,
2004). Arizona adopted aggressive charter school policies, while the neighboring state of
Nevada did not (Hill & Lake, 2010). The features of Arizona’s charter laws include how many
charter schools can be created in the state, waivers from educational regulations, and the fact that
Arizona’s charter schools can be authorized by two state agencies as well as local school dis-
tricts. Finally, all Arizona students are eligible to enroll in charter schools. Preference is only
given to students with siblings who attend a given charter school and to district residents who
wish to attend their district-sponsored charter school (Hill & Lake, 2010).
California has the most charter schools in the United States. As previously discussed,
charter school laws and legislation vary from state to state. California’s charter legislation is
moderately strong compared to that of other states that allow charters (Premack, 1996). Some of
the features that distinguish California’s legislation include automatic mega-waivers, multiple
sponsors, an appeal process, and fiscal-legal autonomy (Premack, 1996). The automatic mega-
waiver automatically waives virtually all of the state’s laws and regulations governing school
districts, including collective bargaining and teacher credentialing laws. Multiple sponsors and
an appeal process indicate that anyone may propose a charter. If the local school board rejects
the charter, the charter developers may appeal the decision. The county board of education can
grant the charter after an appeal process if the local board refuses to grant it (Premack, 1996).
Finally, California’s charter schools have the option to be fiscally and legally autonomous
(Premack, 1996). Although California’s charter legislation can be flexible, it is also vague and
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 41
provides room for interpretation; therefore, charter schools can be creative and create their own
policies for student admission. Despite the obstacles and ambiguities, many charter developers
have succeeded in exploring the limits of the legislation. Several bills have been introduced into
the state legislature to expand and clarify California’s legislation, and more are under develop-
ment (Premack, 1996).
In addition to the state legislatures, litigation may also play a role in shaping state laws
focused on diversity, either by enforcing or by challenging existing statutes (Eckes, 2010).
Diversity not only applies to race and ethnic background but also includes students with special
needs and diverse academic performances. Although there have been cases where the courts
have intervened, litigation for equal access to charter schools has already begun. The majority of
cases decided thus far have included challenges related to the constitutionality of state statutory
provisions, specifically regarding language on admissions policies interpreted to favor minorities
(Eckes, 2010).
Reflecting on the current enrollment trends and admission practices of charter schools,
there is no “one size fits all.” Charter schools are exercising their autonomy that can hinder the
mission of equal access to all students. One universal lesson from the charter school research
over the last 2 decades is that grouping charter schools under a single label is fraught with pitfalls
(Garcia, 2010). Each state has leveraged the charter school idea of quasipublic schools of choice
to different policy ends (Garcia, 2010). As a result, some charter schools use autonomy to their
advantage to recruit and enroll a special population of students. Arizona is an example of how
strict charter school laws are implemented to allow doors to open to all students. Charter laws
and policies must be clear and consistent in order for charter schools to eliminate stratification of
enrolled students. Even identical charter laws may have different impacts because these laws are
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 42
enforced to varying degrees across states (Eckes, 2010). Specifically, despite the intentions of
legislatures, it is not always cleatr how charter laws are implemented through charter school
policy (Eckes, 2010).
Chapter Summary
School choice reform can promote segregation in the public education system. A policy
that exacerbates existing levels of segregation should be a major concern, particularly in the
current environment. Race, ethnicity, and school choice programs result in increased student
stratification and segregation of students (Rotberg, 2014). Although charter school are public
schools that must open doors to all students, charters may skim or cream a student population for
their benefit. Charter schools, even under a lottery system, also choose—sometimes explicitly
and sometimes indirectly—and thus increase the probability of segregation (Rotberg, 2014).
Because charter schools function autonomously, they have more freedom to implement policies
in terms of their admission process. Moreover, charter schools increase the local school district’s
competition for both students and resources for school funds. Although admission barriers most
directly affect individual students, the stakes are high for public education nationwide. Funding
for charter schools comes primarily from the states; therefore, as charters expand, less money is
left for traditional public schools (Simon, 2013). School choice reform should not be seen as
negative in public education. The government must implement equal policies and practices so
that students are not segregated and healthy competition is practiced. Families will continue to
make choices in their education; therefore, it is imperative that the government provide equal
access and monitor schools so that they are unable to cream or skim a population of students. It
takes a lot of care through targeted funding and oversight to mitigate the pressures that lead to yet
more segregation (Rotberg, 2014). It is important that government does not exacerbate the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 43
problem of segregation by ignoring the unintended consequences of policies. The risk is an
increasingly divided public education system (Rotberg, 2014).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 44
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODOLOGY
A qualitative study was conducted to examine current admission policies and procedures
for El Sol Science and Art Academy and CECA. The purpose of the study was to understand
charter school admission practices from the inside out. There were three major data collection
strategies: (a) interviews with school administrators, (b) analysis of school and district data, and
(c) interviews with parents who had children enrolled in either El Sol or CECA. Finally, based
on student demographics and responses provided in the interviews, the research was to determine
whether these two schools were an accurate representation of charter schools in California. The
goal of the study was to provide an understanding of how charter schools impact school choice
reform and whether these particular schools encouraged student segregation.
The case studies of two charter schools in southern California provided insight to admis-
sion practices of popular and top-performing K–8 charter schools. El Sol Science and Art Acad-
emy is located in an urban, low-socioeconomic district; CECA is located in an affluent suburban
neighborhood. These two charter schools scored 872 or above on the 2012 Standardized Testing
and Reporting (STAR) in 2012 (CDE, n.d.b, n.d.c). The target scores for these two schools was
800. As a result, it could be assumed these schools creamed or skimmed certain students to boost
the test scores or to cater to a certain population. Studies suggest that sorting is a result of self-
segregation by families but also implicate possible impacts of admission practices, parent con-
tracts, or but word-of-mouth comments spreading through segregated social networks (Lubienski
& Weitzel, 2009).
Overview: Problems and Purpose
School choice reform has prompted the nation to examine public education and empower
parents to choose an alternative school for their children. By now, a fascinating mix of people
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 45
argue that choice among schools is the best or only way to promote the American dream through
schooling (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Charter schools are a popular alternative to public
schools because they operate as independent schools and usually receive public funding from
their local school district. Charter schools are freed from many, though not all, regulations gov-
erning public schools; they have more leeway than do regular schools to choose students, pick
staff, design curricula, and create a particular atmosphere (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Although charter schools promise to be innovative and creative in their teaching methods, the
admissions process of charter schools can be cumbersome, thereby discouraging students from
applying. The result of such admissions practices has led to segregation within school districts.
Rather than reducing inequalities between schools, the opponents of school choice and charter
schools argue that parental choice is likely to lead to even greater segregation by race, class, and
ability while at the same time failing to deliver on the promise of educational quality
(Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
The number of charter schools established in California is growing. Orange County alone
has approximately 14 charter schools, and several have been recognized as high-performing
schools. Despite the praise for charter schools, there seems to be unequal distribution of students
by race, ethnicity, and ability, all of which encourage segregation within the school district.
CECA Edge in Yucaipa, California, does not have a culturally diverse student population. The
charter school opened in 2011 and is currently at capacity in Grades K–8. During the 2013–
2014 academic year, of the 675 students enrolled, 458 were White non-Hispanic compared to the
180 Hispanic-Latino students, 13 Asian Americans, and 17 African American students. In ad-
dition, 30 students of the school’s population were designated as English learner (EL) and 28
were categorized as fluent-English proficient (FEP; CDE, Data Reporting Office, 2015). El Sol
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 46
charter school also demonstrates inequities of enrollment patterns; however, this charter school
has the opposite demographic data. During the 2013–2014 academic year, El Sol enrolled 800
students. Of these, 21 were White non Hispanic, 762 were Hispanic-Latino, 3 were Asian
American, and 2 were African American (CDE, Educational Demographics Unit, 2013, 2015).
One important factor when reviewing the data of the sample charter schools is that the number of
SPED students enrolled is not featured in the data. Based on the data of enrollment patterns of
these two K–8 charter schools, this case study should provide insight into the admissions process
and enrollment trends of charter schools in Orange County.
Research Questions
The research questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are enrollment trends by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities in the 14
charter schools in southern California? How, if at all, have these enrollment trends shifted since
the schools were started?
2. What patterns provide evidence in how admission counselors and staff in charter
schools describe the practices that they use to recruit, screen, and admit students? How are these
practices similar or different for the two schools?
3. How do parents of students talk about recruitment, counseling, and admission pro-
cesses? What factors do they identify as influencing their decision on whether or not to attend
the school; and how, if at all, are they similar or different from the perspectives of staff?
4. What can be gleaned from these data about the role of staff and admissions counselors
in the recruitment, selection, and admission process? What seem to be the key points in the
process that may explain what students decide to attend this particular charter school?
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 47
Hypothesis
In this study it was hypothesized that charter schools in California encourage segregation
by race, ethnicity, and academic ability. A review of evidence from the literature and data
available from the CDE indicated that the argument that charter schools encourage segregation
by race, ethnicity, and ability was strong. Both El Sol and CECA were at full enrollment capacity
at the time of this study; however, there was nota large population of students enrolled who
would require SPED services. In 2011 El Sol received $2.3 million in two separate grants to
provide onsite health care for lower income students, who happen to comprise the majority of the
student population. The school could be selective in its admissions process to ensure financial
stability with grants or donations. Segregation by race and class will result not only from this
unequal capability of consumers, choice opponents argue, but also from the incentives for sup-
pliers to proactively shape their clientele (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
CECA opened its doors in September 2011. The school is chartered through the
Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District (USD); therefore, most of the funding is derived
from the school district and parent fundraising. In 2012, CECA students’ API score was 888,
surpassing the goal of 800. Due to the admissions process and the high assessment scores,
CECA may have creamed or skimmed a certain population of students to ensure a high API
score.
Sample and Population
EL Sol Science and Arts Academy
El Sol Science and Arts Academy is a K–8 charter school located in Santa Ana in south-
ern California. The school opened in 2001 with only 110 students enrolled. At the time of the
study, the school had 800 students enrolled. El Sol’s API scores have steadily risen since 2003
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 48
and rose 57% between the years of 2003 and 2011 (El Sol Science and Arts Academy of Santa
Ana, 2013b)). During the 2013–2014 academic year, the demographics of the students were 762
Hispanic-Latino, 21 White non-Hispanic, three Asian Americans, and two African American;
76.2% of the students were on the FARL program, Title I (El Sol Science and Arts Academy of
Santa Ana, 2015). According the school’s 2013–2014 School Accountability Report Card
(SARC), ELLs comprised 52.3% of the student population and 2.4% were designated as students
with disabilities (El Sol Science and Arts Academy of Santa Ana, 2015). El Sol is funded by the
Santa Ana Unified School district but also receives funding from grants and private donations
because a majority of students are from a low socioeconomic population.
El Sol provides a dual-immersion curriculum using both English and Spanish. Students
do not need to live in the Santa Ana USD in order to enroll. Because there are more applicants
than spaces available at the school, students are placed on a waiting list and then participate in a
blind lottery system. Those who are not chosen through the lottery are again placed on the
waiting list.
This case study focused on the qualitative responses of the admissions faculty and school
staff at El Sol. The interview candidates must have played a role in marketing open enrollment,
must have participated in the application process, and must have made the final selection of
candidates to be enrolled each year. School administrators were chosen to give testimony on how
El Sol abided by the charter school laws in terms of application practices and enrollment.
Perceptions of trends of enrollment were discussed to clarify whether there was possible cream-
ing of students in local charter schools.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 49
CECA
CECA is located in a suburb of Yucaipa, California, in the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint USD
with San Bernardino County. CECA opened in 2011 and had 668 students enrolled at the time of
this study. In the 2013–2014 school year, the demographic composition of CECA was the fol-
lowing: 180 Hispanic- Latinos, 458 White-non Hispanics, 13 Asian Americans, and 17 African
American students (CDE, Data Reporting Office, 2015). According to the school’s 2013–2014
SARC, 29.8% of students were Title I, FARL (CECA, 2013). ELLs were only 4.4% of the
student body, and students with disabilities comprised a small 5.5% (CDE, Data Reporting
Office, 2015).
CECA’s mission is dedicated to the vision of creating a learning environment where
students are empowered to develop international awareness, self-sufficiency, and a sense of pride
in their academic and personal success (CECA, 2013). The school has a special niche, the Inter-
national Baccalaureate (IB), which promotes students to think globally (IB, n.d.). The curriculum
promotes students thinking critically to solve complex problems as well as to learn how to com-
municate and promote new ideas. The International Baccalaureate is written into the school’s
charter, setting expectations, policies, and procedures. This curriculum is not practiced in the
traditional public schools in Yucaipa; therefore, parents are desirous of enrolling in CECA so that
their children can engage in the specialized curriculum.
The qualitative investigation centered on research in terms of enrollment trends each year
at CECA. School administrative staff and parents were selected for the qualitative interviews.
The semistructured interview questions concentrated on the current admissions practices such as
requirements for admissions and how students were selected to enroll in CECA. The answers
provided in the open-ended interviews were expected to establish an understanding as to how the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 50
admissions process might influence the school’s academic achievements. Finally, the researcher
provided methods of data analysis so that information could be coded and examined accurately
for the purpose of the study.
Instrumentation
The qualitative data required for the case study include semistructured interviews using
open-ended questions to promote detailed descriptions from multiple respondents. Interviewing
is necessary when the researcher cannot observe behavior, feelings, or how people interpret the
world around them (Merriam, 2009). The candidates who were interviewed were school admin-
istrators and parents from both El Sol and CECA. Parents selected to participate were those who
had students enrolled in either El Sol or CECA. Interview questions (see Appendix) related to a
description of the practices used to recruit new students and what challenges school personnel
encountered during the admissions process. These inquiries contained follow-up questions to
promote engaging conversation that allowed flexibility and opportunity for participants to give
their perspectives based on experience. This format allowed the researcher to respond to the
situation at hand, to the emerging worldview of the participants, and to new ideas on the topic
(Merriam, 2009).
Data Collection
Prior to initiating the case study, time was needed to secure candidates and prepare the
interviews. A letter of introduction was provided both to the school administration and admis-
sions personnel; the letter outlined the purpose of the study, the importance of the integrity of the
participants, and requested permission to interview selected candidates. The interviews took 45–
60 minutes each and were individually audiotaped to ensure integrity of responses. The devel-
opment of good interview questions requires creativity and insight rather than a mechanical
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 51
conversion of the research questions into an interview guide or observation schedule and depends
fundamentally on the researcher’s understanding of the context of the research (Maxwell, 2013).
The audiotapes of the interviews were then transcribed and coded for the purpose of the study.
The parent interviews were also conducted with open-ended questions in relation to why
they chose to enroll in their children in a charter school. The sample schools and personnel pro-
vided background knowledge of the schools’ demographics, recruiting methods, and admission
practices. Questions asked of parents included their opinions of school choice, describing the
admissions process for their charter school, and listing the challenges of the enrollment process
(see Appendix). Merriam (2009) stated that it is also necessary to interview when researchers are
interested in past events that are impossible to replicate. Interviewing is also the best technique
to use when conducting intensive case studies of a few selected individuals (Merriam, 2009).
In addition to administrator and parent interviews, data in the form of public documents
were analyzed. These documents were in the form of SARCs, charter policies from each school,
and data and statistics from the CDE. These documents were integrated into the study to support
and compare findings in the qualitative interviews. Using documentary material as data is not
much different from using interviews or observations (Merriam, 2009).
Data Analysis
The qualitative research method for this study involved in-depth interviews of school
administrators and parents at El Sol Science and Art Academy in Santa Ana and at Competitive
Charter Academy in Yucaipa. Pilot interviews provided feedback on obstacles that the re-
searcher may encounter during an interview and enabled the researcher to recognize where there
could be good follow-up questions that would provide rich data. Researchers should look for
places where they could have followed up but did not and then compare them with places where
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 52
they obtained much good data (Merriam, 2009). Qualitative data revealed in the interviews were
examined for patterns and categories with respect to the purpose of the study. Any qualitative
study requires decisions about how the analysis will be done, and these decisions should inform
and be informed by the rest of the design (Maxwell, 2013). Data analysis is a complex process
that involves moving back and forth between concrete bits of data and abstract concepts, between
inductive and deductive reasoning, and between description and interpretation (Merriam, 2009).
Candidates were contacted for second interview for clarification to a response needed for data
analysis.
Finally, document analysis played an important role in this qualitative study. The authen-
ticity of documents is imperative to support or compare data emerging from interviews. It is the
investigator’s responsibility to determine as much as possible about the document, its origins and
reasons for being written, it author, and the context in which it was written (Merriam, 2009).
Chapter Summary
This chapter focused on the research methodology of measuring the enrollment trends and
understanding the admission practices of two charter schools located in southern California. The
sample schools and personnel provided background knowledge of the school’s demographics,
recruiting methods, and admissions practices. Moreover, the ethical policies and procedures for
collecting data for the study were strictly implemented to ensure the privacy and safety of the
participants. The instrument of the data collection was explained for the validity of the study.
Finally, the researcher provided methods of data analysis so that information could be coded and
examined for the purpose of the study,
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 53
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
This study examined the recruitment and admissions process of two high-performing
charter schools in southern California, El Sol Science and Art Academy and CECA. The primary
instrument for the data collection was the researcher. Because understanding was the goal of this
research, the human instrument would seem to be the ideal means of collecting and analyzing
data (Merriam, 2009). The sources of data collection used in this study were interviews and
document analysis. Corbin and Strauss (2007) explained that in any study, the researcher can use
one or several of these sources alone or in combination, depending on the problem being investi-
gated. Interviews with school administrators who created and implemented the admissions
process for their charter school were instrumental in determining whether bias existed during
admissions and enrollment of students in order to maintain high achievement scores. In addition
to interviews of school personnel, parent interviews were conducted to gain a better understand-
ing of the family experience when applying to a high-performing charter school. Finally, public
documents, including those outlining enrollment trends by race and ethnicity, played an impor-
tant role in the qualitative data analysis. One of the greatest advantages of using documentary
material is its stability. Unlike interviewing and observation, the presence of the investigator
does not alter what is being studied (Merriam, 2009).
The data derived from the qualitative research addressed the following research ques-
tions:
1. What are enrollment trends by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities in the 14
charter schools in southern California? How, if at all, have these enrollment trends shifted since
the schools were started?
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 54
2. What patterns provide evidence in how admission counselors and staff in charter
schools describe the practices that they use to recruit, screen, and admit students? How are these
practices similar or different for the two schools?
3. How do parents of students talk about recruitment, counseling, and admission pro-
cesses? What factors do they identify as influencing their decision on whether or not to attend
the school; and how, if at all, are they similar or different from the perspectives of staff?
4. What can be gleaned from these data about the role of staff and admissions counselors
in the recruitment, selection, and admission process? What seem to be the key points in the
process that may explain what students decide to attend this particular charter school?
The theory which serves as a lens for this study is charter schools promote segregation by
‘creaming’ or ‘skimming’ the high achieving student population in order to keep their charter as a
result of high performance and also promote charter schools as a popular school choice option.
Charter schools exist in a segregated social landscape in the United States, so the real question is
whether they are ameliorating or contributing to wider patterns of segregation (Weitzel & Lubi-
enski, 2010). If issues of access are not addressed in the public system utilizing charters, there is
no doubt that there will be a ‘creaming’ of the most supported students (Sizer & Wood, 2008).
This chapter presents qualitative data analysis to answer research questions. Furthermore,
a description of the participants and the schools featured in the study are featured in the analysis.
Finally, the data provided in both the interviews and documents are organized into emerging
themes within each research questions.
Participants and Locations
Two high-performing charter schools were chosen to participate in this study. First was
El Sold Science and Arts Academy in Santa Ana, California. The demographics for the city
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 55
include a high Latino population who primarily speak Spanish. According to the U.S. Census
Bureau (2014a), between 2009 and 2013, 78.2% of the population in Santa Ana was Hispanic.
The medium income was $53,335 per household, with 4.45 people sharing the same home. The
population of those who fell under the poverty level was 21.5%. Language other than English
spoken for those over 5 years old was 82.9%, and the high school graduation age for individuals
over 25 was 53.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014a).
Students who attended El Sol reflected the city of Santa Ana, culturally. In 2013, there
were 800 students enrolled in El Sol (CDE, Educational Demographics Unit, 2015). The His-
panic students numbered 762 students; 21 students were White non-Hispanic, and the remainder
were Native American or Pacific Islander (CDE, Educational Demographics Unit, 2015). El
Sol’s staff hired 35 teachers in 2013, 35 of whom were Hispanic and two were White, non-
Hispanic (CDE, Data Reporting Office, n.d.c). The two school administrators were of Hispanic
descent (CDE, Data Reporting Office, n.d.c). El Sol’s 3-year API average for 2009–2012 was
878 (CDE, Academic Accountability Unit, n.d.c).
CECA is located in Yucaipa, California. During the period 2009–2013, the majority of
the population within the community was 79.5% White non-Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau,
2014b). The median income was $53,335; an average of 2.9 people living in one household
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b). Those who fell below the poverty level in Yucaipa was 13.8%.
English was the main language; the percentage of those over 5 years old who spoke another
language was 18.5%. The high school graduation rate for the overall population of those over 25
was 88.6% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b).
CECA, like El Sol, mirrors the county population. In 2013, CECA enrolled 675 students;
458 were White non-Hispanic, 180 Hispanic, and 16 were Asian descent (CDE, 2015). The
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 56
school hired 40 teachers in 2013, of whom 35 were White non-Hispanic, six were Hispanic, and
one was Asian American teacher. Finally, the one school administrator, the director of Competi-
tive Edge, was listed as White non-Hispanic (CDE, Data Reporting Office, n.d.c). Because the
school was new in 2011, the target API score for 2012 was 888 (CDE, n.d.b).
Five participants provided qualitative data in the form of interviews for this study. There
were two administrators, one from each charter school; the Director of Community Life and
Early Childhood Education at El Sol Academy Science and Art Academy (Principal A); and the
Director of CECA (Principal B). Three parents, between the two schools, were interviewed.
Two parents were on the Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) board at El Sol; the first was the
president of the committee and the second participant facilitated the PTO meetings. The third
participant, associated with CECA, was the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) president. Each
of the PTA-PTO participants had had students enrolled in the charter school for more than 2
years. These participants volunteered in their child’s classrooms as well.
The school administrators had a strong background in both experience and education, as
reflected in their current administrative position. The administrator from El Sol had been a
teacher at the charter school and also an administrator; she was pursing her credential in adminis-
tration. The Director of CECA had been a teacher and also an administrator at a neighborhood
public middle school. The parents, however, had less experience with the education field or
furthering their education in graduate studies. All of the parents balanced a full-time or part-time
job while volunteering at the charter school. All the participants interviewed had been affiliated
with the charter school for at least 2 years.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 57
Results Relating to Research Question 1
The first research question asked, “What are the enrollment trends by race, and students
with disabilities in charter schools in southern California? How, if at all, have these enrollment
trends shifted since the schools started?” The aim was to determine whether the charter schools
in the study were recruiting students outside of their district, specifically high-achieving students,
regardless of academic ability and language barriers; and whether, per charter laws, the demo-
graphics of the student body reflected the student population within the school district.
Two themes emerged from these data. First, students who required or were in need of
SPED services or EL students were given paperwork to complete to participate in the lottery.
However, both of these subgroups were not equally represented in each school. These themes
were important to the study because they indicated that there was no targeted selection of a
specific student population to increase school performance, nor were students discriminated
against based on their learning needs or ability.
Theme 1: Enrollment Trends Among Charter Schools
Educational theorists suggest charter schools will induce systematic change by providing
more educational choices, creating competitive market forces and serving as examples from
which other public schools can learn (Ericson & Silverman, 2001). However, the current state of
the charter school system threatens instead to amplify the socioeconomic disparities among
students (Swinehart, 2005). The charter schools in this study provided parents with a school
choice option, particularly families living in affluent communities. Parents with higher educa-
tional attainment tend to place emphasis on the importance of education and are more likely to
seek out information on the varieties of educational choices (Haynes et al., 2010).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 58
El Sol Academy and CECA reflected each another neither demographically nor ethnically
primarily due to their location. El Sol Academy is located in Santa Ana, California, where the
majority of the community is of Hispanic decent and most students receive FARL. CECA
enrolls mostly affluent Caucasian students who reflected their community. When asked about
the current demographics of their charter school, the principals provided details of not only
factual information but also reasons for the demographic patterns of enrollment. Principal A
from El Sol noted:
We have a high percentage of ELs. Also, 85% qualify for free and reduced [price] lunch.
There is a small portion of the students that the parents are educated. There is a little a bit
diverse in the socioeconomic because there are a few students what the parents are choos-
ing this school. Not because it’s a neighborhood school, but because of the program.
In contrast, Principal B from CECA described his school as having less diversity, especially in
terms of socioeconomic backgrounds:
Well, the demographics are of course more affluent than the rest of the school district by
probably 10% to 15%. I think we have about 18% free and reduced [price] lunch, and the
rest of the district is more than that. I think they [Yucaipa School District] may be up to
like 50% to 55% now.
Both charter schools provided SPED and EL support for students; however, the SPED resources
were limited. Principal A stated, “Once we do determine the student might need a success
program or special day class, they get transferred to their home school.”
El Sol Science and Art Academy opened in 2001, and within the next 3 years enrollment
drastically increased to capacity, 800 students. CECA was established in 2011. Similar to El
Sol, the student enrollment increased and at the time of this study, was at capacity with 668
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 59
students. However, there were differences in the demographics of the student population com-
pared with El Sol. First, there is less diversity in socioeconomic backgrounds, race-ethnicity, and
language at CECA; however, what is surprising was the number of students who needed SPED
services. Remarked CECA’s Principal B:
We have fewer EL students. We don’t have fewer special education students. That’s one
of the things that kind of surprised us is the number of people who came to the charter. I
think they came based on smaller class sizes, kind of community-sheltered feel . . . with
their special education students.
The enrollment trends in these two charter schools for both EL and SPED did not com-
pare to those in their district. Due to the capacity, funding, and support services available to
these two schools, the population of thee student groups were less than their traditional public
school counterparts. According to the SARC, for 2013–2014, 4.4% of the students were EL and
5.5% of the student population were categorized as students with disabilities (CECA, 2014). El
Sol reported that for the 2013–2014 academic school year, 52.3% of the student population was
EL and only 2.4% of students were classified as having a disability (CDE, n.d.a). Therefore, it
could be determined that these student populations did not have equal access to the education
programs at the charter schools or they did not apply for the lottery because services might be
limited. “We do have special education students. We do try to serve them as much as we can
because they’re choosing this school because of the two languages,” Principal A stated.
Theme 2: Shift in Enrollment Trends in Charter Schools
When charter schools first appeared on the American educational landscape, few people
suspected that within 2 decades, thousands of these schools would be established across most of
the United States, serving almost 1.5 million children (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010). The option
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 60
of school choice has promoted charter schools as a popular education choice for many families
due to high expectations for students and free tuition. Charter schools are thus something of a
hybrid between public and private schools; their proponents see them as a way of “breaking the
mold” of rigid public schools (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003, p. 60). Parents are looking for an
alternative to low-performing or unsafe neighborhood schools without incurring high tuition
expenses. Charter schools, meant to be small, self-governing yet public institutions, were
initially put forward as one of the many ways to improve American public schools (Sizer &
Wood, 2008).
During the past 20 years, the number of charter schools has increased in California. Los
Angeles USD, San Diego USD, and Fresno USD are not only among the largest school districts
in California but also are among the largest school districts in the nation. The Chula Vista
Elementary School District, the Napa Valley USD, and the West Covina USD are moderate in
size. Among these six school districts, about 5% of the students are enrolled in charter schools.
In the Los Angeles USD, the annual charter school enrollment is approximately 29,000 students
(Zimmer & Buddin, 2009).
In reference to the present study, both El Sol and CECA had demonstrated growth and an
increase of enrollment. However, because they practiced under charter laws and policies, they
had the right to establish their class size and thus place a cap on school enrollment. Charter
schools are freed from many, though not all, regulations governing public schools and have more
leeway than regular schools to choose students, pick staff, design curricula, and create a particu-
lar atmosphere (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). The enrollment trends for both schools in this
study contrasted with each another in terms of ethnicity, race, socioeconomic background, and
special needs. El Sol is located in Santa Ana, an urban neighborhood with a high Latino
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 61
population. The appeal for students to enroll in El Sol is that the school provides a dual-
immersion language program. CECA is located in an affluent district with less ethnic diversity.
This school is known for its IB program. Due to the location of the schools and education
programs that make the schools unique, the enrollment trends have changed since both schools
first opened their doors. When asked about the current enrollment trends at their school, the
principals described their experiences. Principal A noted why El Sol is a popular school of
choice:
Our goal is for students to be biliterate by fourth grade. In English and Spanish. We have
a high percentage of ELs. I believe it’s 78%. Out of all the schools in the district, we’re
the highest top performing in both programs, the dual [immersion]. We do have special
education students. We do try to serve them as much as we can because they’re choosing
this school because of the two languages.
The IB program is the draw for parents to apply for admission at CECA. This unique
education program is designed for students to think on a global level and solve real-world
problems. The International Baccalaureate primary program for elementary students prepares
students to become active, caring, lifelong learners who demonstrate respect for themselves and
others and have the capacity to participate in the world around them (IB, n.d.). Although the
enrollment has increased as well as the waiting list, there are some surprises regarding types of
students who are applying. Principal B explained:
We have fewer EL students. We don’t have fewer special education students. That’s one
of the things that kind of surprised us is the number of people who came to the charter. I
think they came based on smaller class sizes, kind of a sheltered community feel . . . with
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 62
their special education students. We have more GATE students because that’s just kind of
the families that are drawn to be willing to go through the lottery process.
Both of the charter schools in the study have faced challenges to accommodate the
enrollment trends for all students, especially for SPED and EL students, because these student
populations may need additional academic support. Principal B commented, “We are less
challenging on the challenging student population with the exception of special ed.” Also,
because there is a waiting list for admission, the majority of the student population does not leave
to enroll in a neighborhood school. Therefore, the student body’s ethnicity, race, socioeconomic
background, and special needs rarely fluctuate from year to year. During the interviews, both
principals confirmed that they had steady enrollment for each grade level from year to year.
Students who followed through with the admission process represent4ed the community’s demo-
graphics. Often, newly enrolled students are siblings of current students. Principal A revealed:
In March we have the lottery for preschool and kinder, and we also start the waiting list
for all the other grades. As space becomes available in the other grades, then we call
people from the waiting list. For example, right now our current numbers for kinder and
fourth grade is at capacity.
Principal B also verified the enrollment growth: “We don’t have to worry about our enrollments
fluctuating hither and yond because there’s 75 seats at each grade level and we’ve got a waiting
list—we’ll find a seat.”
The perspective of the parents was similar to the school administrators. When describing
how valuable it was to enroll in El Sol, the parent said that the key is to apply when the student is
in preschool. Although the waiting list rolls over to the next year, an opening is very rare:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 63
Even before I was in the PTO, I’m just a parent, and they’re [prospective families] asking
what you could do [to enroll], and it’s crazy. It’s crazy because at 1 year old, 2 years old,
people are asking, “What do I need to do?” At kinder it’s too late. They think I’m joking.
I’m like, “No! By kinder, you’re on a wait list of 300 to 400 people.”
These two schools, despite their contrasting geographic locations and community demo-
graphics, demonstrated little change in their enrollment trends in terms of ethnicity. Due to the
community’s demographics, the majority of students enrolled were of Latino-Hispanic descent.
CECA reflected its neighborhood’s demographics with an enrollment of a majority of White-
Caucasians students. Figures 1 and 2 display the charter schools’ enrollment trends in terms of
the number of students enrolled since each school first opened. Based on the data provided, both
schools experienced steady growth and are currently at capacity.
Discussion: Research Question 1
The research showed that charter schools are a desired alternative to the traditional public
school. Often charter schools provide a special niche or education programs that set them apart
from traditional public schools. El Sol has a bilingual program that is appealing to parents who
already speak a language other than English in the home. CECA implements the IB program that
focuses on global education that includes respecting and learning from other cultures. Finally,
many families choose to enroll in these two charter schools for the smaller classes and special-
ized education programs. Once students enroll, they rarely leave the school to attend their
neighborhood schools or local private schools. Research Question 1 asked about the enrollment
trends by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities in charter schools in southern California.
Although these schools represent a small population of charter schools, the finding was important
because it showed that these schools create a learning environment that traditional public schools
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 64
Figure 1. El Sol Science and Arts Academy: Enrollment trends, K–8.
Taken from DataQuest: K–12 public school enrollment, 6119127-El Sol
Santa Ana Sci, by California Department of Education, Data Reporting
Office, n.d.b, retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/DQ/
EnrTimeRptSch.aspx?cYear=2013-14&Level=School&cName=El+Sol+
Santa+Ana+Sci&cCode=6119127&dCode=3066670
Figure 2. Competitive Edge Charter Academy: Enrollment trends, K–8.
Taken from DataQuest: K–12 public school enrollment, 0124032-
Competitive Edge Cha, by California Department of Education, Data
Reporting Office, n.d.a, retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
DQ/EnrTimeRptSch.aspx?cYear=2013-14&Level=School&cName=Com
petitive+Edge+Cha&cCode=0124032&dCode=3667959
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 65
cannot replicate. The data also revealed that parents were pleased with their charter school
choice; therefore, their children rarely leave unless they move or the school cannot support their
learning needs. Finally, students who chose to attend these charter schools represented their
community’s demographics and culture, including not only race, ethnicity, and language but also
special needs and the EL student population.
Results Relating to Research Question 2
The second research question dealt with the recruiting and admissions process of charter
schools. Research Question 2 asked: “What patterns provide evidence in how admissions coun-
selors and staff in charter schools describe the practices they use to recruit, screen, and admit
students?” The aim was to reveal if a specific population, primarily high achieving students, are
recruited and enrolled to help schools maintain their charter. As a result, by creating a high
performing charter school community, the local competition between traditional public schools,
charter schools, and private schools increases. Supporters hope that charter schools can exert
healthy competitive pressure on the existing K–12 educational system by giving families alterna-
tives to traditional public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010). The school administrators were
open to discuss their annual admission process. Three key themes emerged in this study: First,
both charter schools did little recruiting for admission. Second, the lottery system was imple-
mented to ensure equality. Third, there were similarities between the two schools with respect to
the admissions process and procedures.
Theme 1: Recruitment Practices
One argument against charter schools is that the recruiting and admissions process
promotes segregation among races, ethnicity, and student ability. The fact that charter schools
are typically given considerable autonomy in designing their programs and recruiting their
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 66
student bodies can create inequities (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008). High-
performing charter schools are accused of selecting students who will contribute high assessment
scores and academic outcomes that improve the charter school’s reputation in the state or district.
Recent studies have concluded that because of targeted recruitment, charter schools have more
power than most public schools to shape their communities (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery,
2008). Despite these underlying allegations, charter schools must follow California charter laws
and policies when it comes to recruiting and admitting students to the schools. Although charter
laws in California, as is the case in almost every state, place strict formal limitations on the right
of schools to screen students for entrance, Well et al. (1998) found that various methods and
informal steering give “charter schools more power than most public schools to shape their edu-
cational communities” (p. 148); moreover, there was evidence of underrepresentation of low-
income, SPED, and bilingual students (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
In terms of recruiting students for admission to the school, there is little money or re-
sources needed because many families learned about these charter schools through word of
mouth. However, in the early years after the opening, recruiting students was imperative for the
success of the school. Principal A described her current experience with the recruiting process at
El Sol.
To be honest with you, we don’t do any [recruiting] because we have a long waiting list.
But when we first opened in 2001, one of our Director of Operations literally will stand
on Broadway and recruit students: “We just opened this school—come in, get a tour.
Come in and see it.” In 2007 we were reaching our API scores. We had a high API score
in comparison to the schools in our district of Santa Ana. So we don’t do any, any
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 67
outreach. We don’t do any marketing because we don’t right now and we have a waiting
list of around 800 students.
At CECA, Principal B discussed how the school recruited for students when it first
opened. The school’s recruiting practices were dictated by its charter. Incentives were used to
attract families to apply to the school:
One thing our attorney told us was people don’t come to charter schools until they’re
established, so you have to do all these incentives . . . we did all kinds of incentives. We
had Founders status and stuff like that for the 1st year. We intended to have 225 kids, but
we had people winding around the neighborhood—we had 400 the first year.
CECA, on the other hand, was in the process of building a high school. Therefore, it was market-
ing and recruiting middle school students in the hope that they would continue their high school
education at CECA. The elementary classes were filled to capacity with an active waiting list.
Principal B said:
We have done less marketing over the last couple of years because we’ve already had a
waiting list. We really don’t spend as much money, but by the charter . . . we have to do
marketing. We’ve done it in local newspapers. Now with the expansion that’s pending,
we’re gonna have to do more—we’re gonna have to do broader marketing information
nights and stuff like that in order to let people know what the middle years program and
diploma program would be . . . and how it would compare if they had their kiddo go to
CECA instead of Yucaipa High School or the Comprehensive High School and how it
would be different.
El Sol and CECA advertised and communicated to prospective families in both English
and Spanish to ensure that all students would be welcome and have equal access to the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 68
admissions process. This discovery was significant because it dispels the theory that charter
schools are discriminatory in their recruiting practices. Both principals made a point to mention
that no student is turned away in the recruitment and admissions process. Principal B noted:
We don’t limit who would sign up, but I guess a limitation would be lottery. It doesn’t
matter your status. Special ed students or EL students aren’t limited that way, but they do
have to go through the lottery just like everybody else.
Theme 2: Lottery to Ensure Equity
El Sol and CECA used the lottery system in the admissions process to ensure equity when
filling openings for the upcoming school year. However, despite best efforts to invite all students
to enroll, there are still opponents who claim THAT charter schools discriminate in the admis-
sions process. Charter schools, even under a lottery system, also choose—sometimes explicitly
and sometimes indirectly—and increase the probability of segregation (Rotberg, 2014). They
limit the services they provide, thereby excluding certain students, or offer programs that appeal
to only a limited group of families (Mathematica Policy Research, 2011; Welner 2013).
Every spring, El Sol and CECA entered prospective students into the admissions lottery.
El Sol had a lottery only for pre-K and kindergarten. Students who are not chosen through the
lottery were placed on a waiting list that carried over from year to year. If a student in a higher
grade level wanted to attend El Sol, he or she was placed on the existing waiting list. On the
contrary, CECA held a lottery for each grade level every spring. The waiting list did not carry to
the next year; therefore, families had to reapply to participate in the lottery. Both school adminis-
trators explained the challenges of the lottery because they did not like to turn away families.
Principal A noted:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 69
Pretty much you have to get through a lottery. At any time in January, the 3rd week of
January, they can come in and fill out the interest card. And that interest card, for pre-
school and kinder, we have a lottery that takes place in March. And then they start in the
fall. For all other grades we start a waiting list. So depending on how many spots we
have available for the next school year, we call those people. So, for example, right now
our current numbers for kinder to fourth grade is at capacity. Until they move—then we
will call people from the waiting list. And in lottery, only happens for preschool and
kinder. Those are the students that we’re trying to bring in. The other ones carry over as
the year progresses.
CECA held its lottery in a public format that is written in the charter. Principal B shared
that
the lottery happens for every grade level. There’s a class that at least 25 or 30 kids at each
grade level every year that are in the lottery, and we establish a waiting list. And we just
fill it from there. It’s based on how you write your charter. Which usually is determined
by whatever attorney you used, and our attorney said no, the waiting list starts over every
year.
Also written in their charter was that children of faculty and staff are excused from the lottery.
Principal B continued:
That’s the one that I get a lot of flack about from parents who didn’t get in. “Well, how
come you let all your employees’ kids go without being really in the lottery?” We did
that because that’s what our attorney told us to do.
Although the population of these students is small, this discovery was valuable because it demon-
strated that exceptions were made in the lottery at CECA.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 70
One of the difficulties that both school administrators experienced was turning away
families who did not win a spot in the lottery. However, to ensure equity in the admissions
process, they did not make exceptions for families to enroll. This finding was important because
it demonstrates that these charter schools were not willing to enroll students for the sake of
improving performance scores or gaining additional benefits for the school. Moreover, the
students who were accepted through the lottery were of mixed ability, race, ethnicity, and social
capital. Principal A described:
I wouldn’t say [parents] get angry but they just get disappointed. Because when they call
us they just say, one . . . it could be that they really want this program because they want
their children to be bilingual. Or two . . . because unfortunately they say that the district
doesn’t have quality schools. So it is, it’s disappointing.
At CECA Principal B described his experience of the lottery: “Ya know . . . it’s not fun . .
. it’s not always a fun process because I literally sit like waiting for Superman and pick out the
lottery tickets and I hate it.” Although CECA was a desired school of choice, the Yucaipa school
district did have high-performing schools as well. Principal B noted:
I do have the backup of knowing for the most part in Yucaipa, it isn’t like, they have a
choice between this school and some impoverished terrible place. They, ya know, like
waiting for Superman. And be on the waiting list. So I feel at least a little bit better about
that, but it’s still . . . I hate it because people cry. They look at me like, “Why did you
pick my number last?” We have a set of twins where one made it and the other one
didn’t. So the parents are taking them to two elementary schools and they bring the other
guy in, and he cried every day when his brother is dropped off. It’s like there’s nothing I
can do about it.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 71
These personal accounts of the school administrators provided insight on not only how
the lottery process for charter schools are administered but also the challenges of not being able
to admit all interested students.
Although the intent of the lottery system was to eliminate biased from admitting a certain
population of students that will enhance overall academic school performance, there were some
discrepancies between the data provided in the interviews and the data from public records.
Based on data given in each school’s SARC by the CDE (n.d.a), there was a lower number of
SPED students enrolled in both charter schools. At CECA there was a lower population of
SPED students who needed additional academic support. During the 2013– 2014 school year,
the number of students with disabilities enrolled at El Sol was 2.4% (CDE, n.d.a). At CECA,
only 5.5% of the student body enrolled were students with disabilities (CECA, 2014). Although
the lottery was open to all students, the number of students with disabilities is important because
they may not score well on assessments and may require additional academic support that can
often represent an additional cost to the school. This finding was significant because it pointed to
some limitations of these charter schools in terms of the population they were able and willing to
accommodate academically. Principal A noted:
We do serve special education students. We currently have a few as well, but we do not
have is if it’s severe. Once we determine the student might need a success program or a
special day class, they get transferred to their home school. So this is considered not a
neighborhood school because if kids that live here . . . [they] cannot automatically get in.
This finding was critical because it demonstrated the limitations of services that the
school provides. Welner (2013) addressed this concern by explaining that a charter school may
or may not have services designed to meet the needs of a given group of higher needs children.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 72
For example, a charter school may not have the resources necessary to meet the special needs of a
child with so-called low-incidence disabilities.
Theme 3: Differences and Similarities in Charter School Admissions
El Sol and CECA had both similarities and differences regarding their recruitment and
admissions process. One similarity of enrolling students who represented the community by
race, ethnicity, ability, and social capital was shared. This shared demographic is due to the
California charter school laws. Charter school laws vary by state; therefore, state analyses may
accurately reflect the consequences of state policy. Nevertheless, many state laws require charter
schools to consider district-level characteristics when accepting and recruiting students (Renzulli
& Evans, 2005). The lottery system was also a method that both schools used to randomly choose
new students. If access is to be meaningful, charter policies should prevent schools from sorting
and selecting students and from excluding those who are harder or more expensive to educate
(Darling- Hammond & Montgomery, 2008).
There are different ways that schools can administer the lottery process: either by utilizing
computer-based software or by manually drawing students’ numbers. The school’s charter can
outline the process. El Sol relied on a computer to randomly select the students for admission,
while CECA manually drew the numbers in front of prospective families. This finding was
important because how can a family be sure that variables do not determine the outcome of a
computer-based program? True random selection seemed to be those students who were hand-
picked by the principal in person. Principal B shared his viewpoint:
You know, the other school went to a computer program. So it randomly selects num-
bers. But to me, I’ll draw the tickets out because I want people to be able to see that I sat
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 73
there and drew the tickets out. It’s not like Las Vegas where I’m playing Keno or some-
thing like that. Those are the numbers that came up . . . really.
El Sol and CECA also differed in their waiting list policies. Although charter schools
must follow state laws and policies regarding students who enroll, required assessments (e.g., the
STAR test), and funding, they may establish their own policies that may reflect their community.
These guidelines were legally written in the charters. El Sol carried the waiting list from year to
year so that students never had to reapply to participate in the lottery. CECA conducted the
lottery each year for every grade level. Thus, if a student was first on the waiting list a particular
year, they could be last on the waiting list the next year. Principal A commented:
When we first opened, we were chartered under the umbrella of Santa Ana Unified
School District. We’re not anymore. We’re considered an independent charter school.
That means we can decide our own curriculum, our own program. We still need to renew
our charter every 5 years. We have to abide by the district standards.
This information was important for the study because it explains how each charter
schools can create their own procedures, rules, and processes to meet their needs. The recruit-
ment and admissions process would fall under the category of independent rules and regulations.
Through the application process, charter schools can control the pipeline that leads to enrolled
students. If less desirable students do not apply, they will not be enrolled (Welner, 2013).
In terms of requirements that enable families to participate in the lottery, both El Sol and
CECA required interest cards or compacts to be completed and signed by prospective families.
Parent community and service hours were a requirement for students to enroll and to remain
enrolled in the charter school. Principal A explained: “Well, the only thing we ask is that they do
20 hours of volunteer hours a year . . . per child. As long as they do that, then it’s pretty much—
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 74
they can move on and continue being at the school.” CECA used volunteer hours as an incentive
for status within the school, but this procedure was dropped after the 1st year due because it was
controversial in the admission process. Principal B admitted:
We said 50 hours of dedicated work per family, and then your kids get Founders status.
But the attorney told us we could only do that the 1st year. Now we have kind of pushed
it the subsequent years, but we can’t enforce it. She [the attorney] said you can do that
the 1st year because you’re telling them that’s what’s going to get you in, but we can’t
require parents to come and work in subsequent years.
These data were significant because they demonstrated that there were some requirements
attached to the admission practices at CECA to gain access to the school. However, due to the
current charter laws, CECA did not require parents to volunteer a certain amount of hours—only
that they support the school community and donate time for fundraising, as outlined in the
parent–student compact.
Discussion: Research Question 2
The research showed that two California charter schools under study, although a small
representation of charter schools statewide, had similar recruiting practices. Abiding by Califor-
nia charter laws, these two schools opened their doors to all students regardless of ethnicity, race,
ability, and social capital. California prohibits selective enrollments, and charters are allowed to
give preference only to siblings and students in the charter’s district. Charters are also required
to design recruitment and lottery systems so that the racial balance of the charter will be reason-
ably similar to that in the district (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008). Both El Sol and
CECA implemented the lottery for admission to promote equal access to their schools. The
principals agreed that this is a difficult reality because the demand for openings is high; however,
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 75
there are limited spots available. The schools’ recruitment and admissions process provided
insight to the fact that there was not a specific selection process for admission. The two schools
had the capacity to educate students who would also attend their neighborhood schools, including
ELs and SPED students. However, despite their willingness to open their doors to students with
disabilities, the enrollment of this population of students was low, possibly due to the challenging
curriculum and lack of resources to support them. Finally, both schools required parents to
pledge that they would volunteer as part of the admissions process. This procedure encouraged
parents to be involved in the education process but also provided additional manpower for
charter schools that received less funding than their traditional public school counterparts.
Results Relating to Research Question 3
The findings for Research Question 2 showed that the two schools did not select certain
students to improve school performance. However, the advantage for students of charter schools
is that there is a high level of parental involvement and knowledge of school choice. The third
research question asked, “How do parents of students talk about recruitment and admission
processes?”
Parents who had children enrolled in the two charter schools provided details of their
experience in the recruiting and admissions process. Three themes emerged from their testimo-
nies. First, parents were knowledgeable and exercised school choice. Second, parents described
the factors that influenced their decision to apply as well as their admissions experience. The
two themes often appeared in the interviews conducted with the parent participants in the study.
Each participant had strong opinions regarding school choice and seeking a tuition-free alterna-
tive to the neighborhood public school.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 76
Theme 1: Exercising School Choice
Charter schools are a significant player in the school choice reform. Proponents of choice
sometimes invoke the language of civil rights and the collective goals of education (Hochschild
& Scovronick, 2003). At other times, they speak in terms of individual achievement alone.
Either way, their message is clear: there is only one path to securing the American dream through
education, and taking that path will change everything (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Because charter schools are tuition free and receive public funding for education programs, they
must be open to all students, especially those who live within the community. Charter schools are
a popular school choice for parents, most especially for those who cannot afford to send their
children to a private school. School choice is heralded as a key component of charter success.
Charters must compete for students with traditional public schools, and their survival is literally
predicated on their ability to implement programs that attract students (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
Under California charter law, students who attend must represent the community’s demographics
to ensure equality.
El Sol and CECA are high-performing charter schools in southern California. The
schools set high expectations for both faculty and staff who create the tone for school culture.
Parents waited in line each year to register in order to participate in the annual lottery to guaran-
tee a spot for their child in the fall. In this study, three parents explained their experiences of
seeking alternative schools in place of their neighborhood public school. The two parents from
El Sol are referred to as Parent A and Parent B; the third parent, Parent C, was affiliated with
CECA and currently enrolled in a teacher education program at the time of the study. Both El
Sol parents had experience in school choice. Parent A attended private school when she was in
high school. Parent B had an older child who was enrolled in the local fundamental school in
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 77
Santa Ana. A fundamental school is a school that has a rigorous traditional, standard-based
curriculum as well as strict dress codes, discipline, and code of conduct. Fundamental schools
also use a lottery system as part of their admission process. All three participants were members
of their schools’ parent–committee. Therefore, they were active volunteers at the charter school
as well.
Each participant explained why she participated in school choice. Parent A described her
experience:
Technically, I am in the Santa Ana Unified School District. I am private school raised. I
attended private school from preschool through high school. I knew no other education
than a private school education; and that family environment, which I grew up on, I
appreciated it, and I wanted to find that for my son.
While Parent A participated in school choice when she was young, Parent B was raised in
Mexico and did not participate in school choice. However, through word of mouth from other
parents, she became knowledgeable and sought alternative public schools for both her children:
“[Our local public school] is in the Santa Ana school district. We also did [enroll] at one of the
fundamental schools. This was our first choice”
Parent C from CECA was in a teacher credential program at the time of the study, and her
mother was an educator. This information was important to note because she had knowledge of
school choice and knew the benefits of attending a charter school:
Our local elementary school is located in Yucaipa Calimesa Joint Unified School District.
We were looking for a private school alternative. My son was already enrolled at another
district school. They had just redrawn the boundary lines because they had closed two of
the elementary schools. When we moved here when he was in kindergarten, the school
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 78
that he was supposed to go to, which is only two blocks from my house, was underper-
forming. So I chose to keep him in private school at that time.
The data revealed that participants knew that they had a choice to enroll their children in
another school other than their neighborhood public school. They all had a sense of
empowerment to make a decision in the best interest of their children. Regardless of their
personal education experience, these parents knew that they had a right to school choice. One
key factor of how they gained knowledge of schools stemmed from Research Question 1: recruit-
ing families to the charter schools. Both administrators stated that they did not need to advertise
or recruit as much as they did when the schools opened because advertising was word of mouth.
Parents influenced one another and provided knowledge regarding school choice. Some believed
that parents ought to have a greater say in the way their children are educated, asserting that
schooling decisions cannot be left to the state without an unacceptable loss of liberty (Hochschild
& Scovronick, 2003). “I think word of mouth is the biggest thing. I mean, at least for our lower
grades,” Parent C confirmed.
Theme 2: Admissions Experience for Families
Many high-performing charter schools practice selecting students for admission through a
lottery system to ensure equality. California prohibits selective enrollments, and charters are
allowed to give preference only to siblings and students in the charter’s district. The most
responsible charter policies require that charters are open to all students in the district, with a
lottery for an oversubscribed school (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008). Despite using
the lottery to ensure equity and access to high-performing charter schools, each charter school has
its own policies or practices on how the lottery is executed. Because of how the lottery is prac-
ticed within each school’s charter, there can be room for some discrimination. Through various
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 79
mechanisms, such as recruitment and enrollment requirements for children and parents, charter
schools have more power than most public schools to shape their educational communities
(Wells, 1998).
The recruiting and admissions experience was similar for all three parent participants in
the study. First, they were not formally recruited to enroll in the charter school; rather, recruit-
ment was through word of mouth from other parents. Second, each participant had to register or
complete paperwork to enter the lottery. Finally, they all had a backup plan should they not be
accepted into the charter school. Parent A related:
I couldn’t afford the private school, so I searched local schools and charter schools and El
Sol’s the one that got my attention. I noticed the scores and had a visit. You wind up in
February—January, February—put your name in the lotto.
Parent B, also affiliated with El Sol had a similar experience: “The application is by lottery, so it
was having to come make the line to get the application—just the application for her to even be
considered.”
When CECA opened its doors in 2011, there were already families who were eager to
apply. The school conducted a lottery in the early spring for the fall semester. Parent C related:
We heard how this other charter was opening up and so we decided to go for the lottery
for that one. We went through the lottery and didn’t get a spot, so we were not able to
enroll him. He was wait listed and got a spot a week before school started. I know I
camped out overnight in order to make sure that they [her children] got a guaranteed spot.
The siblings, as long as there are enough spots, then the siblings are pretty much auto-
matic. Our son actually started kindergarten in the regular school district and was wait
listed at two schools.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 80
These accounts of the admissions experience were significant because they did not show
that charter schools selected certain students to enroll in order to maintain high performance
scores. The lottery process can be a stressful one, especially if a family cannot afford private
school as an alternative. Parent A reflected, “You pray. Cross your fingers and pray that you get
that letter in April-May, because they send out the letter. If he didn’t get in, he was going to a
private school.” Similarly, Parent B revealed:
Then the waiting time for the lottery was kind of nerve wracking. It’s not our usual
school—you go enroll your kid and you know they’re there. And here there are a lot of
people coming in and filling out the form, so you’re just thinking like, “What are the
chances of my kid getting in?” We did the lottery here, and we also did another one at
one of the fundamental schools.
Both experiences were important because they confirmed that the charter schools followed the
California charter laws and selected students at random to ensure equality.
Parent A, who was the PTO president at El Sol, also helped parents complete paperwork
for the lottery. This evidence was important because it disclosed that there could be some bias in
student selection in the lottery process. This parent provided more insight into the school’s
application practice. “I helped with the lottery process. We have a sibling lottery, and then we
have just a public lottery. I stand there in January and help them [families] fill out forms, for the
Spanish-speaking families.” Parent further related more information on the families who applied
and the lottery process:
I help them complete their form, and it’s just basic information. Do they speak English at
home? I believe the way they also like to base the classroom is 50-50. Fifty percent of
the class when they enter only speaks English, and the other 50% speaks Spanish. That
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 81
way, not only are you learning outside of the classroom, but you’re also learning at recess,
because you have to live and communicate with each other. So that’s another part of the
lottery process.
Because El Sol is a dual-immersion program, the language portion of the application
process is significant information. These data revealed that students may be chosen based on
language fluency to promote a dual immersion-curriculum, which is the foundation of the
charter. Moreover, middle school students at El Sol do not participate in the lottery system but
are automatically placed on a waiting list. As a result, there might be more discrimination in
terms of which students are admitted. Parent A noted:
The upper levels, I believe they test. Because you have to—you take a Spanish test just
because the curriculum is in Spanish. So they just test you to see where you are with your
Spanish, and they just advise the parents after the test that this is where your child is
scoring on the Spanish test.
The participants’ responses were similar, with the exception of Parent A, who provided
some additional data regarding her school’s lottery process. The qualitative data revealed how
parents were anxious about lottery outcomes and the need to secure an alternative to admission
into the charter school. Each participant exhibited knowledge of school choice and high parental
involvement, despite the education level. Also, from learning about parental experiences during
the lottery process, it can be concluded that these two charter schools were not skimming aca-
demically talented students for their own performance gain. However, El Sol could have selected
students based on language fluency to promote the dual-immersion charter. This information was
important to the study because it demonstrated possible bias in student selection to create bilin-
gual classrooms.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 82
Theme 3: Factors That Led to Decision to Apply
Factors that led parents to find alternative education choices for their children vary.
Local neighborhood schools may be underperforming or unsafe. Families could be seeking a
certain community or learning environment for their child. Charter schools vary from one
another and often have a unique niche that draws families to that particular school. The profiles
and goals of charter schools differ, but they all carry the weight of their founders’ high hopes
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). One thing is clear: Charter schools have become a popular
educational institution for many families who are dissatisfied with their neighborhood public
schools. Led by educators frustrated by large, bureaucratic systems seemingly immune to
change, the concept of chatter schools was driven by a desire to innovate on behalf of children
while furthering the most fundamental values of the American public education system (Sizer &
Wood, 2008).
In this study, parents were not shy about discussing the factors that led for them to apply
to El Sol and CECA. All participants discussed wanting a valuable education for their children,
even if it meant finding scholarships or alternatives to funding a private education. Responses
from the participants varied from the charter school’s reputation to wanting a family-like com-
munity within the school. Parent A explained:
I was private school raised, and I wanted to find that for my son. I noticed the scores, and
I did a visit. And I noticed the first visit. Just the environment of the school and it was—
I went after work. It was 5:30. The kids were still there, and they weren’t like monkey on
the fence—like begging parents to take them out. They were happy to be there, and they
didn’t want to leave when the parents were trying to sign them off. So that’s what got me
to apply to that school, El Sol.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 83
Another parent, Parent B, had similar motives for applying to El Sol. She revealed:
My main factor was it was a bilingual school. The biggest benefit I see is that it’s a com-
munity. So it’s more than just classmates. We’ve become more like a little family . . .
where that I don’t think you see that at other schools.
Parent C from CECA had experience with private schools. Her son was enrolled in a
private school prior to CECA; however, for financial reasons, she was seeking a public school
alternative that provided a stellar education experience without paying high fees:
We were looking for a private school alternative. My kindergartner was in private school.
We were not in a position to keep him in private school, but because I wasn’t going to put
him in 3 years of private school and then, when my daughter started kindergarten, then
would have two in private school and not be able to afford it.
The two factors that these participants were seeking when applying to the charter school
was a tuition-free school and a school with a community feel. Parent A mentioned that she
noticed the high test scores (API), and that was a key feature that drew her to El Sol
The participants also discussed the key factors that kept them enrolled in their charter
school and why their school was special. Parent A gushed:
This school, it’s like a family. You know almost everybody, or you know someone else
who knows that person, and they help each other. Whereas a public school, you just go
drop your son off or daughter off and then you leave. Here, it’s like a family and every-
one will say, “How are you doing?”
Parent B provided the same sentiment as to why her family stayed enrolled at El Sol:\
I think it’s because the school is bilingual gives it an extra plus. I think being a small
school where you don’t have so many kids—that’s another plus for me. As your kids get
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 84
older, it’s like you see their classmates that it’s their little family, and there’s that comfort,
I think, that extra comfort they feel.
Although Parent C valued the community feel at CECA, her priority was finding a safe, academi-
cally sound school:
They redrew the boundary lines . . . they redrew because the underperforming school
closed. I was okay with putting my son there [neighborhood public school] . . . so I actu-
ally enrolled him. Two days after I enrolled him is when we found out he got his spot [at
CECA]. It worked out pretty well because the other charter school in town, like I said,
it’s really . . . I like where we’re at. It’s a bit more of my philosophy of education than the
other school was.
The findings regarding the quality of education that these parents’ children were receiving
and the elements of their experiences that kept them enrolled in the chosen charter school were
important for two reasons. First, the decision to participate in school choice, especially seeking a
charter school that came with the benefits of a tuition-free education, was validated. Second,
parents were key players in school choice reform; therefore, their opinions and experiences
would influence others to seek admission to high-performing charter schools. There was a sense
of empowerment among these parents, especially for those who lived in the Santa Ana USD,
where many of the school experience poverty, underachieving test scores, and unsafe
neighborhood conditions. The participants’ comments demonstrated hope and excitement when
reflecting on their charter school experience. Participant A shared:
I think parents posting on social media throughout the year . . . great things about their
students and what they’re doing at the school. Whenever there’s an article written on our
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 85
school, everyone starts to share it on their social media. So we’re not really recruiting.
It’s just we’re bragging about our school.
Parent B, also from El Sol, validated the same feelings:
And when someone knows that your kid comes here, they’re always like, “When are reg-
istrations coming up?” Or you know, I think some of us even put it up there, when the
registrations come up because there’s always people that want to know.
Parent C, who had an education background, had more of a business-like demeanor when reflect-
ing on reasons why her family remained at CECA: “You know, it provides more, a very private
school-like atmosphere at the schools—a very selective environment. There’s mostly students
there or families having the same kind of goals you have.” Despite personal reasons as to why
each participant valued her charter school, the data showed their goal was the same: to seek and
provide their children with a quality education.
Finally, the recruitment and admissions experience had both similarities and differences
between the parents who applied and the school administrators and staff. Parents and administra-
tors recruited by word of mouth and created a positive reputation for their charter school. Due to
school performance and exposure through media, school administrators did not have a need to
actively recruit because there were more students who applied for admission than there were
seats available. Parents influenced community members to apply for admissions, and this form
of advertising is very effective. In terms of the lottery process, both the school administrators
and participants felt some anxiety and stress because they all wanted the same outcome—for the
child to be enrolled in the school. Administrators did not like turning students away, and parents
did not want to have to find another school in which to enroll until their child was taken off the
waiting list.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 86
Discussion: Research Question 3
The research showed that both El Sol and CECA had strict admissions policies—the
lottery—for the admissions practice to enroll in the school. Each school had its own procedures
and policies on how this practice was carried out, based on the charter. Centered on the adminis-
trators’ responses, students were selected at random; therefore, high-performing students were
not necessarily selected in the lottery process. Participant data also demonstrated that the lottery
was a method to keep class size down while also allowing all students in the district to participate
in the admissions process. Finally, the research revealed that segregation or creaming of students
in the admissions or enrollment process could be determined as a result of parents taking advan-
tage of school choice. There was high parental involvement in connection with these students;
therefore, they were motived and driven to be successful.
Results Relating to Research Question 4
Charter schools are essentially structural reforms, largely at the state level, where alterna-
tive governance schemes are implemented. These reforms are intended to create incentives and
opportunities for educators to develop new, different, and better approaches to meeting the needs
of students (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010). School choice produces a supply-and-demand dynamic
in a school district and in the state, which puts parents in the consumer role as they shop for
educational choices for their children. As a consequence of such pressure, schools may cream
students—that is, they may attempt to siphon off those students who, because of favorable back-
ground circumstances, will be easier and less costly to educate (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
This study focused on the recruiting practices and admissions process of two charter schools in
southern California to gain a better understanding of how students were selected for admissions
and enrollment.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 87
After interviews with both administrators and parents who had experienced the recruit-
ment and admissions process of a charter school, Research Question 4 asks, “What can be
gleaned from these data about the role of staff and administration in the recruitment, selection,
and admission process?” The key points in the process that may explain why students decide to
attend a particular charter school were examined. The purpose was to find that despite having to
go through a lottery process that might not favor the student, why did families apply to the
charter school and what were the factors that kept them enrolled? The data revealed by inter-
views with the participants not only offered a snapshot of charter school practices and procedures
but also why these parents chose to attend a particular charter school.
Theme 1: Role of Administrators and Staff
The role of charter school administrators in this study was not to be a gatekeeper in the
recruiting and admissions process but rather a facilitator and liaison between the community and
the long-term vision of the school. The first step to enrolling into one of the charters schools in
the study was to complete an interest form to participate in the lottery. This application process
could control which students were able to participate in the lottery. Lotteries are also preferential
to the “first-come, first-served” policies used in some states because such policies in effect grant
privilege to students with more assertive parents and easy access to better information (Darling-
Hammond & Montgomery, 2008, p. 100).
At El Sol Science and Art Academy, the lottery was computerized and names drawn
without the presence of prospective families. The school administrator explained that students
were chosen at random to ensure equality. Administrators expressed that selecting students is a
stressful process because they knew that they could offer only a certain number of spaces.
Administrator A said:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 88
It’s that time of year that I do not like because it’s the time of year that I have to say no to
people; and they call, and they call, and they call. And unfortunately, we cannot serve
everyone. It’s difficult that you have a few spaces for a high number of interested stu-
dents.
CECA, however, publicly handpicked the lottery numbers so that potential families saw firsthand
how students were chosen for enrollment. Principal B explained:
However, if you have a sibling in the school, these students are given first priority when
enrolling into the school. “We don’t have boundaries, so anybody from anywhere in our
district or in the area can apply. Applying for admission, they just have to fill out a
couple of information sheets, and then they have to come for our lottery which is always
the first Saturday morning in March. As far as getting in, you just have to win the lottery
or be a sibling, but that only works really 100% of the time for kindergarteners.
The data revealed in the interviews demonstrated there was no preferential treatment or
creaming of high-performing students in the district for the purpose of creating a high-achieving
school. However, due to the pressures of maintaining high performance scores to keep the
charter school open, both school administrators explained that the high expectations of the school
environment and dedicated teachers were what made the students high achievers. Principal A
declared:
We have high expectations. We do want all our students to be successful, and I think
that’s very broad, but we do our best. We try to offer different programs for students to
reach those goals. They [teachers] know there is no tenure here. You pretty much have to
perform.
The principal at CECA shared the same experience:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 89
The parents that waited in line to get their kids in here are the kinds of parents that are
going to make their kiddos be successful at other schools as well. I find that has to be
done personally. Parents are maintaining the expectations for us. And the 25:1 with only
75 at each grade level makes a huge difference.
This finding was important because it pointed to the fact that parents, students, and school
staff set high expectations; therefore, the charter school became a desirable school of choice.
Because most of the advertising and recruiting was word of mouth from parents, the reputation
and academic expectations were set high by families and school staff.
The role of the administrators at both El Sol and CECA was to ensure equality of those
who were selected to enroll. Charter school administrators’ roles and responsibilities are out-
lined in their charter, the terms of which may vary among local charter schools. Charter schools
have the ability to change their recruiting and admissions process as long as it provides equal
opportunity for all students to vie for a place in the school. When charters are added to any
system of public education, their doors must be open to all students (Sizer & Wood, 2008).
Charter schools are independent public schools that are established under an agreement or
“charter” with a state or local agency; these agreements identify each school’s goals and obliga-
tions and provide public support (Dee & Fu, 2004). This study demonstrated the role of the
administrators as they followed and supported their school’s vision. Moreover, the administra-
tors communicated with families who were not selected in the lottery and encouraged them to
apply the next year. Despite disappointed parents whose children were not chosen for enrollment
during the lottery process, both administrators did not make exceptions or provide preferential
treatment for any student at any academic level. Principal B shared:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 90
The challenge has been on the capacity side—how many people can we serve, and that’s
all been good stuff but it’s a challenge. Parents bring me a résumé for their little baby and
they’re beautiful kids, and I say this is not a private school. They make appointments
with me; they bring their whole family and say “please.” It’s a lottery, and it’s in front of
everybody. I can’t bend the rules. They’re federal government rules.
Theme 2: Why Students and Parents Choose to Attend a Charter School
Despite the stress and challenges of lottery process, parents still wanted to apply to these
charter schools. However, many of the parents had an alternate plan in case they were not
selected. The students and parents who chose to enroll at these two charter schools were exercis-
ing school choice. Parents expressed displeasure with their neighborhood public schools and
were looking for an alternative. School choice allows parents to find schools that better match
their preferences for a particular pedagogical approach or emphasis (Rabovsky, 2011). El Sol is
located in the heart of Santa Ana, an urban school district where many families live in poverty-
stricken neighborhoods. There are many failing schools in the area, and parents who are
knowledgeable about school choice look for a charter school or private religious school. Charter
schools are focused on changing the fundamental governance and management structure of
schooling: unleashing the creative potential of educators and communities, nurturing diverse
options for families, encouraging parents to choose what is best for their children, and making
schools directly accountable to the people who use them (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010).
El Sol’s bilingual curriculum was appealing to parents who lived in Santa Ana. A
majority of the students are Latino; therefore, they are able to learn in both English and Spanish.
This system not only provides students with the necessary language skills but also honors their
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 91
cultural heritage. The school also had various after-school enrichment programs that enabled
students to continue learning after school hours.
The parents at CECA lived in affluent areas with successful public neighborhood schools.
They were drawn to a specific niche, the IB program, which provided an international cultural
studies program. This program focuses on reflecting on other cultures and becoming an
international-minded school (CECA, 2015). Parents who had children enrolled at CECA were
pleased with the IB program and advertised to other families about its benefits. “The Common
Core Curriculum promotes the same things that IB already promotes. Which is abstract thinking
and inquiry, and you know, asking questions and being thinking learners instead of just rote
learners,” described Parent C.
Despite the niche in which attracted families wanted to enroll in the charter school, in this
study it was apparent that parental involvement was a key influence in their decision. The par-
ticipants in the study wanted to be part of a family-like community, not just a school. Both El
Sol and CECA required a certain number of volunteer hours for parents as part of their contract
when they enrolled in the school. The volunteer positions included PTA-PTO positions, helping
teachers in the classrooms, and fundraising. Parent A commented:
So when we have our festivals, parents and former students ask, “How can we help?” it’s
on Fourth Street in Santa Ana. We were in the rain at 6:00 in the morning, and they were
all helping. Former students came to help, and they stayed from the setup to when we
took down everything at 10:00 at night. They were there. It’s incredible the way the
parents come together and do these events for us to help us raise funds.
When asked how parental involvement was an instrumental part of the appeal of El Sol, Parent B
reflected on her experience:
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 92
It’s very parent involved, especially for the younger grades. The kids love having you
here, so it’s great that they give us an opportunity to actually be in class and help out. My
older son went to a fundamental school, so there was some kind of involvement. It was
more clerical help. And here you do it in class, which I think is great. It motivates your
kids, too, in a way.
At CECA, parental involvement is key to the school’s success. Parent C noted:
I think that it’s your lower grade [that receives the most parent help]. I think people
invest so much in making sure their kid gets into the school that they’re excited to be
there, and so our younger grades get a lot more involvement. You know, new parents are
curious—that kind of thing. They’re very excited about the whole process, so that’s
always wonderful.
The school administrators at both El Sol and CECA stressed that parental involvement is
important not only for the school staff but also for the students who attend. Principal A said:
They can come in and help the teacher with making copies, cutting, with anything that the
teacher might need. It depends on the grade level. Also, once a month, the parents can
come in and eat lunch with their children. We strongly believe that if the child sees the
parent more in the school, then the child knows that the parent is aware of what is going
on in their school and cares about their education.
At CECA parents help in the PTA, festivals, and fundraising. “We have a lot of parent
involvement. We’ve done some things to foster parent involvement. But it’s not about the labor.
When parents network, it’s a support system for that group of kids,” Principal B remarked.
School choice reform has given power to parents in the educational choices that they are
able to make in the best interest of their children. Referring to the thoughts from Administrator B
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 93
from CECA, these students would have been successful at any school as a result of parent
involvement. This study demonstrated that parents who are involved in their child’s education
will have successful students because they set high expectations both at home and at school.
Summary: Research Question 4
The charter school administrators in this study demonstrated unbiased student selection in
the lottery process. Each administrator relied on the lottery to provide an equitable outcome
when filling vacancies for the next school year. Administrators from both El Sol and CECA
described the challenges of this process but deemed it the most reliable way. Parental involve-
ment was a key component as to why students and parents chose to enroll in these charter
schools. Parents were required to volunteer so many hours a year, per their enrollment contract.
Therefore, parents were an integral part of the schools’ learning community. Both schools were
open to all students who lived in the city. The key points of the admission process did not
influence whether students applied; however, the process was disappointing for both the adminis-
trators and the families if they were not selected through the lottery process.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 94
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
School choice has developed into on the most contentious policy debates in K-12 educa-
tion (Rabovsky, 2011). Charter schools, a popular school choice option, have provided competi-
tion with traditional public schools and private schools in schools districts in southern California.
Despite conflicting interpretations over their impact, charter schools have emerged as the fastest-
growing educational innovation in the United States (Renzulli & Evans, 2005). Part of the
appeal of charter schools is that they have the opportunity to be innovative and create a specific
culture that promotes high student achievement. “As an innovation in governance, charter
schools aim to bypass the educational establishment; empower new institutions, organizations,
and communities; and bring the competition that characterizes the consumer-driven economy of
the United States to bear in education as well” (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010, p. 2). Lubienski and
Weitzel further noted that
one of the arguments against charter schools is that these institutions cream or skim a
certain student population in order to create a high-performing school. In other words,
charter schools may attempt to siphon off those students who, because of favorable
circumstances, will be easier and less costly to educate. (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002, p.
146)
The controversy of creaming or skimming students in the recruitment and admissions
process led to this study. After reviewing API scores of schools in the district as well as looking
into admissions practices of charter schools in southern California, an investigation into admis-
sions process was essential to determine whether a specific student population was targeted for
enrollment. The purpose of this study was to examine the recruiting and admissions practices of
charter schools in southern California. Two schools were selected to participate in the study, El
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 95
Sol and CECA. Each school’s recruitment and admissions process was investigated based on not
only interviews from school administrators and parents but also reviewing the schools’ charters.
The study also investigated parents’ reasons for participating in school choice and seeking admis-
sions into high-achieving charter schools. Parent interviews that revealed their values with
respect to education, experience with the recruiting and admissions process, and their opinions
regarding enrolling into a charter school were imperative in the data collection. The challenges
of the roles of administrators were also examined.
The research questions that guided this study were the following:
1. What are enrollment trends by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities in the 14
charter schools in southern California? How, if at all, have these enrollment trends shifted since
the schools were started?
2. What patterns provide evidence in how admission counselors and staff in charter
schools describe the practices that they use to recruit, screen, and admit students? How are these
practices similar or different for the two schools?
3. How do parents of students talk about recruitment, counseling, and admission pro-
cesses? What factors do they identify as influencing their decision on whether or not to attend
the school; and how, if at all, are they similar or different from the perspectives of staff?
4. What can be gleaned from these data about the role of staff and admissions counselors
in the recruitment, selection, and admission process? What seem to be the key points in the
process that may explain what students decide to attend this particular charter school?
This study navigated the inquiry of how student populations gained access to two charter
schools and what made these schools so high performing. Two charter schools were chosen for
the study, El Sol Science and Art Academy and CECA. El Sol is located in a urban low-
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 96
socioeconomic community in Santa Ana. The opposite situation exists with CECA, which is
situated in a suburb of a rural neighborhood in Yucaipa. The participants in the study two school
administrators who executed the lottery for admissions and three parents who volunteered in the
PTA at their respective schools. Through interviews, participants provided insight as to their
experience with the recruitment and admissions process. Data from the CDE on enrollment
trends and demographics were included to support the qualitative data provided by the inter-
views.
The input of the school administrators and parents was utilized to determine whether the
selected charter schools creamed a specific student population in the recruiting and admissions
process. As indicated above, the schools were dissimilar in demographics, location, and socio-
economic status.
The enrollment trends were studied to determine whether the charter schools were fol-
lowing charter school policy in that the demographics of the students who enroll must be repre-
sentative of those who currently reside in the community. Based on data from the CDE, the
demographic for both schools mirrored those of their neighborhood schools. Based on the quali-
tative data analyzed from the school administrator interviews, special education services and
interventions were provided to ensure student academic growth.
Summary of Findings
The first finding of the study indicated that both charter schools advertised and vigorously
recruited students when they first opened; however, their current recruiting practices were at a
minimum. Parents were the sources for advertising and recruiting, and they were eager to discuss
and spread positive information about their charter school. As a result, both schools practiced the
lottery because there were more students who wanted to enroll than there were openings. In
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 97
regard to the lottery, the study indicated that students were chosen at random. First, they had to
complete an interest form; next, their names were submitted for the lottery. Despite many simi-
larities between the two schools, each had a different lottery practice. El Sol used a computer-
ized system, and CECA physically pulled names of potential applicants in a public forum. The
philosophy of this practice was to ensure equity in access to enroll.
This finding was important because it demonstrated these charter schools tried to create
an equitable process in terms of recruiting and admissions. Allowing charter schools the freedom
to attract communities of students who will be successful at their schools within the practice of
open admission policies appeared to be a useful compromise, but challenges in implementation
could not be avoided (Darling-Hammond & Montgomery, 2008). Both schools were popular
school choice options for parents; therefore formal recruiting was at a minimum. Despite this
stipulation, both charter schools provided equal access to all students within their district.
The second finding indicated that the parents interviewed had had previous experience
with school choice; therefore, they were knowledgeable with respect to alternative educational
institutions and deviated from their assigned neighborhood public school. The parents in the
study also set high expectations regarding academics for their children and were supportive of the
charter school. They all volunteered and had positive relationships with both the faculty and
staff. Finally, based on the value of education discussed in the interviews of both the school
administrators and parents, it was clear that the children of the participants would be successful
in any school. Academic high expectations were fostered at home, and parental involvement was
the key to student success at both these charter schools.
The discovery that parents were familiar with and practiced school choice was important
because it demonstrated that parents identified flaws in the public education system; therefore,
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 98
they were gravitating towards high-performing schools to ensure a better quality education for
their children. :Most parents take care to choose a suitable school for their children and may
expend considerable resources in terms of time and money in the process” (Chakrabarti & Roy,
2010, p. 336). Charter schools have the opportunity to provide a quality education without
parents paying tuition; however, in this study, parental involvement was key and also a require-
ment for enrollment.
Finally, the third finding in this study indicated that there was no obvious creaming of a
specific student population in order for a school to maintain a high-performing status. Based on
the data analyzed in the participant interviews, students were chosen at random in the lottery
process. The lottery was open to all students within the district; therefore, there was no discrimi-
nation. The school administrators confirmed that the lottery was difficult for all involved
because it did not guarantee spots for all students who wanted to enroll. Moreover, the parents
who participated in the study confirmed the lottery as a stressful process because there was no
favoritism when students were selected. Each parent in the study had an alternative plan if the
child was not selected in the charter school lottery. Only one of the parents was willing to enroll
the child in the neighborhood public school; the other two were seeking a private school or
fundamental school as an alternative.
Although there was not an obvious stratification of students selected in the lottery
process, it should be noted that the population of students with disabilities was low in both
charter schools. Students who required intensive special education support were redirected to
enroll in their neighborhood public school. This situation could be considered creaming because
it encouraged segregation among all students in the school district. Both learning and physical
disabilities fall under the category of special education, and both populations of students were
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 99
minimal at the schools examined in the study. Rotberg (2014) stated that special education and
language-minority students are underrepresented in charter schools. Even when students are
selected in a lottery, they are discouraged from attending charter schools when the schools do not
provide the services they require (Rotberg, 2014).
Limitations
Several limitations were presented in Chapter One. One limitation was the number of
charter schools willing to participate and provide data for the study. Several high-performing
schools were selected; however, only two were responsive and eager to share information. As a
result, the data provided were was limited and did not confirm that creaming in the recruiting and
admissions process does not take place in southern California. There was not a true representa-
tion of all charter schools in southern California.
Another limitation in the study was the information that parents had to provide for the
interest card prior to participating in the lottery. This limitation, disclosing student academic
information, was the first step in the application process. The limitation pointed to whether there
was discrimination with respect to academic ability, language preference, or socioeconomic
status of students prior to being entered in the lottery. The data of how the initial interest cards
are evaluated by the charter school administrators was not measurable, thus leading to specula-
tion. Moreover, the preference of the lottery system, computer-based or physically drawn, also
constituted a limitation. For example, El Sol stated that its lottery system was computer based
and that students were selected behind closed doors; therefore, one could question whether the
outcome was fixed to select a desired student population.
The limitation that CECA was new in relation to El Sol should be considered. Because
the California STAR program has been transitioning to the new, computerized Smarter Balanced
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 100
Assessments, there is not a true assessment score to measure student achievement. CECA must
rely on other district-mandated assessments to measure academic gaps or growth. The charter
school must take into consideration the enrollment trends, parents’ satisfaction with the school,
and parental expectations as a measure of school success.
The validity of the study must also be categorized as a limitation. Internal validity deals
with the question of how research findings match reality (Merriam, 2009). The researcher may
have had assumptions regarding the equity of the lottery process prior to interviews with the
administrators. The researcher could have interpreted the data provided in the interviews with
bias to prove the hypothesis of the study, which was that the charter schools examined did cream
students to have a high performance outcome. However, the data analyzed from the interviews
with both school administrators and parent participants confirmed similar outcomes in previous
studies. Because human beings are the primary instrument of data collection and analysis in
qualitative research, interpretations of reality are accessed directly through their observations and
interviews (Merriam, 2009). The data collected from interviews and observations were analyzed
by the researcher and cross checked for decoding misinterpretations.
Due to the theme of the study, generalizability was a threat to the conclusions. Internal
generalizability refers to the ability to generalize conclusion within a case, setting, or group, to
other persons, times, and settings (Maxwell, 2013). Some of the data coded and analyzed from
the interviews of the school administrators and parent participants could be generalized to other
studies that included charter school recruiting and admission practices. As a result, the re-
searcher realized that this case study was a small sample of the phenomenon that could be
applied to all charter schools. The interviews and interactions with the participants were not over
a long period of time, nor were they frequent. Therefore, although the researcher was eager to
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 101
confirm themes within the study, it was imperative to monitor the research design and to focus
only on the sample schools. “Sampling issues are particularly relevant to internal generaliz-
ability, because it is impossible to observe everything in a small setting, and a lack of internal
generalizability can seriously impair the validity of a study’s conclusions” (Maxwell, 2013, p.
137).
Finally, the researcher as a limitation must also be noted. As an outsider in the study, the
researcher was not familiar with the cultural norms for each community and for the charter
schools. Although this limitation was relevant, it did not affect the outcome of the data analyzed
in the study.
Implications
For Practice
The implications of the findings confirmed in this study would benefit not only school
administrators and district superintendents but also education policymakers and lobbyists. Data
from this study could benefit the stages of planning and opening a new charter school. Charter
school administrators must be aware of charter laws and policies when recruiting and admitting
students into their schools. District officials must be prepared for competition among the tradi-
tional public schools and charter schools. District officials must also be prepared to provide
resources (both financial and staffing) to support students with diverse learning abilities. Finally,
policymakers and lobbyists have data that could be used when creating and implementing charter
school policies for California.
The data derived from this study could provide awareness on recruiting and admissions
practices of charter schools in southern California. “There are few studies on creaming and
skimming on charter schools, but the preponderance of the available evidence indicates that
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 102
charter schools do not enroll a larger percentage of academically talented students than do district
schools” (Garcia, 2010, p. 42). High expectations were set for the charter schools in the study;
therefore, they were viable competitors in the market of school choice.
Attention to the “bottom line” could make charter schools especially anxious to steer
away special education and LEP students, who would create additional expenses and
almost certainly deflate mean performance rates on standardized exams, thus making the
school less attractive to consumers. (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002, p. 148)
Moreover, the recruiting and admissions process for the charter schools in this investiga-
tion provided insight on how these high-level schools handled the significant demand of consum-
ers in their community. Promoting school choice reform that creates competition among local
district schools is another implication of this study. Supporters hope that charter schools can
exert healthy competitive pressure on the existing K–12 educational system by giving families
alternatives to traditional public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010). The data provided by this
study indicated that charter schools have proved to be a prominent player in the school choice
movement. The mix of increased choice and independence may explain the surprisingly broad
political appeal of charter schools and their explosive growth over the last decade (Dee & Fu,
2004). Based on previous research, this study confirmed that parents were looking for a school
that was both innovative in curriculum and also tuition free. The belief was that creative educa-
tors, freed from myriad rules and regulations, would try new things that, if successful, would
influence the entire system (Sizer & Wood, 2008). Both charter schools in this study had a
special niche that attracted parents. El Sol was a bilingual charter school, and CECA was an IB
school. Parents interviewed in this study found these to be important features when implement-
ing school choice.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 103
For Recruiting and Admissions Practices
This study examined the relationship between the recruiting–admissions practices and
high-achieving students who comprise the majority of students in the school. More specifically,
were the charter schools creaming or skimming students to create a custom, high-achieving
school? Both El Sol and CECA used the lottery as the key method of admissions to ensure equal
access for enrollment. The most responsible charter policies require that charters must be open to
all students in the district, with a lottery for an oversubscribed school (Darling-Hammond &
Montgomery, 2008). However, each school in this study carried out the lottery practice differ-
ently. El Sol used a computer-based lottery system, and CECA physically handpicked the names
of students in front of families. Interest forms that are completed to participate in the lottery
should require less student information (e.g., demographics, special education support) to avoid
segregation and to promote truly equal access. Although findings of previous studies vary
somewhat due to methods and locations, most data have indicated that charter schools are at least
as segregated as, if not more segregated than, public schools in their arena (Weitzel & Lubienski,
2010). Finally, to promote transparency and equity, the lottery should be conducted in person,
with parents present.
Another implication for recruitment–admission practice is to examine the enrollment
trends of charter schools. In California, charter schools must reflect the culture of the com-
munities where they are established. California charter schools are free to set admissions require-
ments. The law also asks charter school applicants to state how they will achieve an enrollment
that reflects the racial balance in their local school district (Wells, 1998) for the purpose of
avoiding segregation and promoting equal access to education. Charter schools must have the
resources to accommodate various learning abilities, specifically those with special needs.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 104
However, funding can be a problem due to a lack of financial resources in charter schools.
Specifically, average funding per pupil is about 22% lower for charter students, and some
charters receive 30% less per pupil than do traditional public schools (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
The extent of these funding gaps is largely a function of state policies, including whether the state
provides funding for facilities, whether state funds are supplemented by local resources to pay for
education, and whether the state paperwork has limited charter access to a large array of categori-
cal funds (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010).
For School Choice
This study demonstrated how parents set academic expectations by participating in school
choice. One of the claims of school choice is that it leads to segregation and promotes inequity in
education. Many criticisms of school choice center on the potential to create or increase inequity;
one such choice would increase school segregation (Rabovsky, 2011). Parents who participate in
school choice value education; therefore, their students could be successful at any school due to
parental expectations and involvement. However, this factor can translate into segregation due to
parents’ knowledge of and participation in school choice, especially with charter schools. Rather
than reducing inequities between schools, critics of charter schools argue that parental choice is
likely to lead to even greater segregation by race, class, and ability while at the same time failing
to deliver on the promise of educational quality (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Parents who are
knowledgeable about and engaged in their child’s education usually participate in school choice
and ensure that their child receives quality education; thus, segregation may occur in various
communities.
The presumed link between parental choice and educational performance will be attenu-
ated if parents, regardless of their socioeconomic status, select schools based on criteria
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 105
such as convenience, facilities, safety, advertisements, or the inculcation of traditional
values rather than the proven quality of the education they provide. (Lacireno-Paquet et
al., 2002, p. 147)
Another implication of school choice is how parents receive information when seeking
alternative schools of choice. Parents look to their peers for verification of successful schools
when choosing a particular school of choice. Social networks provide parents with information
such as school location, cost, reputation, and teacher quality, as well as stories of children’s
successes and failures at particular schools (Bell, 2006). Both the school administrators and
parents in the study verified that the charter schools did not have to advertise because they
already had a good reputation within their community. Therefore, it can be concluded that each
school had established social norms and a culture that reflected their social groups. In addition,
parents held the same values in terms of education. Past studies have suggested that sorting is a
result of self-segregation by families but also implicates the possible impacts of admission
practices, parent contracts, or word-of-mouth spreading through segregated social networks
(Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009). Parents must not only rely on social networks when choosing a
school but also must research all local schools to obtain a comprehensive overview of which
schools would be the best for their family.
Suggestions and Questions for Future Research
This study provided a glimpse into the recruitment and admissions practices of charter
schools in southern California. Because several limitations were outlined that impacted the
study, more research is needed. Having access to more charter schools across the state of Cali-
fornia would provide a more comprehensive understanding of charter school recruiting and
admissions practices. Charter schools with students from both poor and wealthy socioeconomic
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 106
backgrounds should be examined more thoroughly to determine whether there is a relationship
between school choice and social capital. Surveys and interviews are required for data analysis.
In addition, the enrollment trends—specifically ethnicity, race, and special needs—should be
considered. Because many charter schools have a niche that attracts families to apply, the spe-
cialties should also be outlined and explained to investigate whether there are patterns of enroll-
ment trends that coincide with school culture.
In terms of charter school faculty and staff, data from teacher experience are needed. In
this study, teachers did not volunteer for interviews, nor did they provide data. Because charter
schools have more freedom than traditional public schools, their participation in best practices
would be valuable. Furthermore, sharing how they navigate through budget constraints to meet
the learning needs of their students would provide data of how charter schools can be innovative
while staying true to the founders’ mission. Because charter schools receive less funding per
student and teachers’ salaries are less compared to the district teachers in the traditional public
schools, their motives for teaching in the charter school could provide useful data. Finally,
teachers’ reflections on students’ performance are necessary to determine whether all students
enroll with similar academic ability, thus supporting the process of creaming students during the
enrollment process.
This study provided limited data on school choice and charter schools. More evidence is
needed to support charter schools as a popular school choice option. Charter school enrollment
trends across the state of California should be examined, especially in low-income urban commu-
nities. Information on how parents learn about school choice, especially in low-income commu-
nities, is needed to determine whether charter schools should advertise or whether parents make
decisions based on their social networks. Studying the relationship is needed between the charter
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 107
schools and the local traditional public schools, specifically with respect to creating a competi-
tive market in terms of school choice. Learning how charter schools promote high achievement
status and how they classify student success outside of state-mandated assessments affects both
old and new charter schools. Both qualitative and quantitative data should be used to support the
findings.
This study should be considered a starting point for future research when examining
charter school recruiting and admissions practices. El Sol and CECA are just a small sample of
California charter schools. In order to have a more accurate measure of charter school recruiting
and admission practices, sample charter schools all over the state should be examined. First,
each charter school has charter policies specific to its school and community. Second, charter
schools are funded differently; therefore, there may be an alternative motive for maintaining
student performance. For example, charter schools that are classified as an EMO may be more
selective in their admissions because student performance can be a requirement to receive funds
outside of the local school districts. Third, more an in-depth review of interest forms and
applications should be considered, for there may be discrimination prior to students’ participation
in the lottery process.
Understanding how charter schools affect the mix of students requires dynamic, longitu-
dinal data to examine the characteristics of students who migrate from a traditional public
school to a charter school and to compare the students’ characteristics with the distribu-
tion of students at the old and new schools. (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010, p. 330)
The findings that related to Research Question 1 provided data on the enrollment trends
by race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities. Both El Sol and CECA revealed that their
enrollment trends reflected their local community. Special education students were the lowest
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 108
population number enrolled in either school. Those who may want to further this study could
examine why special education students are underrepresented in these charter schools. Is this a
statewide trend, or are the resources of El Sol and CECA limited? These questions are important
because if one looks at enrollment data of charter schools throughout California, specifically
special education, one might find a stratification pattern that limits special education students in
enrollment. Hence, charter schools could indeed be creaming in order to maintain high-
performance assessment scores. Connected to application and enrollment practices is the old
practice of steering away less desirable students (Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, & Finnigan, 2000).
The discoveries relating to Research Question 2 described the practices used to recruit,
screen, and admit students. El Sol and CECA did very little active recruiting because parents
were the main influence on the community, thus informally recruiting by word of mouth.
Investigators who want to extend this study should investigate how new charter schools in Cali-
fornia establish recruiting–admissions policies and procedures to ensure equal access to the
school. What methods of recruitment are charter schools utilizing? For example, in printed
advertisements, are multiple languages represented to inform parents of the admissions process?
This factor is important given the stated objective of providing equal access, because parents who
cannot understand the information provided will unable to participate in the admissions process.
Also, requirements for parents in the admissions process of multiple California charter schools
should be considered for further study. Both El Sol and CECA required parents to volunteer if
their child was enrolled. Parents who might have limitations can be discriminated against in the
admissions process. As with conditions placed on applications, the conditions of enrollment can
work to directly turn away families as well as discourage families perceived as less desirable
(Welner, 2013).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 109
The conclusions drawn from Research Question 3 described how parents talked about
recruitment, counseling, and the admissions process. Parents share what factors led to their
decision to attend a charter school. Others who desire to expand this study should review the
specialized curriculum of other charter schools in the district, as well as the private and public
schools. Parent surveys should be used to determine how parents rank the schools within their
district and why they chose to enroll in the charter school. A focus group of parents who are
enrolled or those who may have been denied through the lottery would provide rich data for
further study. Data from parent surveys and focus groups are important because the data would
reveal the local school competition and what is missing in the current educational system. Also,
given the objective that charter schools try to be innovative when teaching curriculum, are charter
school students actually performing better in comparison to the local private and public schools?
Because the data obtained from a focus group are socially constructed within the interaction of
the group, a constructivist perspective underlies the data collection procedure (Merriam, 2009).
The finding in this study in relation to Research Question 4 explored what could be
gleaned from the data about the role of staff in the recruitment, selection, and admissions process,
as well as what seemed to be the key points in the process that explained what students decided
to attend a particular charter school. This study revealed that neither El Sol nor CECA were
openly strategizing to enroll a desired population of students. However, this study represented a
small population of charter schools and therefore should be expanded to include charter schools
around the state of California in order to provide a more accurate representation of the state’s
charter school recruiting, selection, and admission process. Investigators who want to further this
study should examine what resources, primarily funding, are available to these schools that
enable them to be innovative and implement specialty curriculum programs that are attractive to
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 110
parents. In addition, do these charter schools have the capacity to support both EL and special
education students in accordance to California charter school law? These questions are valuable
to consider because they provide insight on equal access for all students, despite language and
ability. A charter school’s funding situation can explain the drive for high-performing student
outcomes. Charter schools funded through EMOs have pressure to maintain high assessment
scores in order to obtain additional funding. The private portion of the charter school pie remains
a mystery because many charter schools are affiliated with privately held companies with no
requirements to provide the public with financial information, despite the fact that these schools
are funded with public money (Garcia, 2010, p. 42).
Conclusion
This aim of this study was to explore the recruiting and admission practices of charter
schools in Orange County to determine whether these schools creamed a specific student
population to boost school achievement. There have been few studies on creaming-skimming in
charter schools, but the preponderance of the available evidence indicates that charter schools do
not enroll a larger percentage of academically talented students than do district schools (Garcia,
2010). Other research has brought to light the fact that charter schools increase segregation as a
result of students who participate in school choice. Just as housing markets are segregated, partly
due to economic patterns and economic credit practices but also due to consumer choices, critics
of school charter schools argue that education markets will foster increased school segregation by
creating an escape route from efforts to desegregate schools (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009). On
the other hand, choice proponents assert that if parents are provided with the financial means and
a full range of schools from which to select, they can pull their children from the local schools
and search for a better alternative (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Opponents of charter schools
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 111
and school choice fear that low-income parents are less likely to have the time, money, and
knowledge to seek out and evaluate schools so as to identify the best schools for their children
(Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).
The recruiting–admission process in this study demonstrated no intentional student
selection practices. Both schools experienced a high volume of interested families who wanted
to enroll; therefore, recruiting for students was not necessary. Parents and the school administra-
tors relied on the communities’ social networks for their recruitment practices. Parents of all
social class backgrounds rely on friends, relatives, neighbors, and colleagues to help them figure
out where their child might be successful (Bell, 2006). Moreover, both schools in this study
practiced the lottery to promote equity in the admissions process. Although both strove to be
transparent in the admissions process, there were still some caveats in their practice. One
limitation was the interest form that parents were required to complete prior to entering the
lottery, because information provided by the family could be used for screening students prior to
the lottery. Charter schools, even under a lottery system, also choose, explicitly and sometimes
indirectly (Rotberg, 2014). Data from participant interviews and the CDE confirmed that both
charter schools carried out the admissions process within California charter law. Consequently,
there was no specific student selection in the admissions practices.
Charter schools are a popular school choice option because not only are they considered
independent public schools but also they are tuition free for students. Charter schools also can
establish the culture of their school by providing a specific niche or special educational programs.
This mix of increased choice and independence but within a public framework may explain the
surprisingly broad political appeal of charter schools and their explosive growth over the past
decade (Dee & Fu, 2004). In this study, parents revealed that a specialized curriculum was the
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 112
main reason that they applied to enroll in a charter school. Two of the parents had multiple
children, and funding a private school education was not possible for them. Charter schools
provide a private-school culture, tuition free. Proponents of market-oriented educational reforms
argue that parents will rationally select a school primarily on the basis of instructional quality and
strong student outcomes (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2009). In this study, parents also expressed how
their school had a sense of “family” that they did not find at the local public schools. Parents
were encouraged to participate in school events and committees that engaged them in their
child’s education.
The present study provides implications for charter schools. Research shows that parents
are looking for alternatives to failing neighborhood public schools. One of the most important
decisions that parents make regarding their children is the choice of their schools (Chakrabarti &
Roy, 2010). Charter schools are in a unique position to innovate or create a niche that helps
recruit academically talented students. The charter schools in this study, El Sol and CECA, had
specialized academic programs that established competition among the local district schools.
School choice is heralded as a key component of charter success in that charters must compete
for students with traditional public schools, and their survival is literally predicated on their
ability to implement programs that attract students (Zimmer & Buddin, 2010). Data evaluated
from parent interviews confirmed that the specialized programs were an incentive to apply to
these charter schools. El Sol implemented a bilingual curriculum; CECA, the IB program.
In conclusion, improvements must be made in future studies on southern California’s
charter schools’ recruiting and admission practices. More charter schools should volunteer to
participate in such a study to gain a better understanding of various recruitment and admission
practices. Teachers’ experiences should also be included in the study, for they could provide data
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 113
on student performance and the lack of resources that charter schools often encounter. Finally,
having an understanding of how parents receive knowledge of their school choice options would
provide insight on enrollment trends in charter schools. Interviews and surveys to measure quan-
titative data could provide an in-depth study on the recruiting and admissions practices of charter
schools. When charter schools are conceived primarily as competitors in educational markets,
they are likely to engage in practices similar to those found in other competitive markets, and
indeed, local districts in the competitive marketplace may do the same (Darling-Hammond &
Montgomery, 2008).
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 114
References
Belfield, C., & Levin, H. M. (2010). Educational privatization. In D. J. Brewer & P. J. McEwan
(Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 306–310). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bell, C. (2006). Real options? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. The Teachers
College Records. Available from http://www.tcrecord.org (ID #12277)
Booker, K., Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2005). The effects of charter schools on school peer
composition. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
Brewer, D., Hentschke, G., & Eide, E. (2010). Teacher supply. In D. J. Brewer & P. J. McEwan
(Eds.), Economics of education (pp. 3–7). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
California Department of Education. (n.d.a). Find a SARC. Retrieved from
http://www.sarconline .org/Home/Search
California Department of Education. (n.d.b). 2012–13 accountability progress reporting (APR):
Competitive Edge Charter Academy (CECA). Retrieved from http://api.cde.ca.gov/
Acnt2013/2012BaseSch.aspx?allcds=36679590124032
California Department of Education. (n.d.c). 2012–13 accountability progress reporting (APR):
El Sol Science and Art Academy. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2013/
2012BaseSch.aspx?allcds=30666706119127
California Department of Education. (2013a). Orange County charter schools. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/cs/ap1/countyresults.aspx?id=30
California Department of Education. (2013b). San Bernardino charter schools. Retrieved from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/si/cs/ap1/countyresults.aspx?id=36
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 115
California Department of Education. (2013c). 2012–2013 accountability progress reporting.
Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Acnt2013/2012BaseSch.aspx?allcds=
36679590124032
California Department of Education. (2014a). Facts about English learners in California—
CalEdFacts. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2014b). 2014 Adequate Yearly Progress report informa-
tion guide. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide14.pdf
California Department of Education, Academic Accountability Unit. (n.d.). Academic Perfor-
mance Index (API): 3-year average API school report. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/Acnt2014/apiavgSch.aspx?allcds=30666706119127
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. (n.d.a). DataQuest: K–12 public
school enrollment, 0124032-Competitive Edge Cha. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/DQ/EnrTimeRptSch.aspx?cYear=2013-14&Level=School&cName=Competitive
+Edge+Cha&cCode=0124032&dCode=3667959
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. (n.d.b). DataQuest: K–12 public
school enrollment, 6119127-El Sol Santa Ana Sci. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/DQ/EnrTimeRptSch.aspx?cYear=2013-14&Level=School&cName=El+Sol+Sant
a+Ana+Sci&cCode=6119127&dCode=3066670
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. (n.d.c). DataQuest: Teachers in
California public schools by ethnic designation 2013–14. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca
.gov/dataquest/DQ/StaffOther2.aspx?TheYear=2013-14&SortBy=a&cCounty=30&RptType
=S&cAgencyType=char&GroupKey=T
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 116
California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. (2015). Selected school level data:
Competitive Edge Charter Academy (CECA)—Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified—
3667959-0124032 for the year 2013–2014. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/
Cbeds4.asp?Enroll=on&PctEL=on&PctFEP=on&PctRe=on&cSelect=Competitive+Edge+C
harter+Academy+%28CECA%29--Yucaipa-Calimesa+Joint+Unified--3667959-0124032&c
Choice=SchProf1&cYear=2013-14
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit. (2013). Enrollment by
ethnicity, 2013– 2014. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/Enrollment/EthnicEnr
.aspx?cType=ALL&cGender=B&cYear=2013-14&Level=School&cSelect=Competitive+Ed
ge+Cha%2D%2DYucaipa%2DCalimes%2D%2D3667959%2D0124032&cChoice=SchEnr
Eth
California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit. (2015). Enrollment by
ethnicity 2013%14: School enrollment by ethnicity. Retrieved from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/
dataquest/Enrollment/EthnicEnr.aspx?cType=ALL&cGender=B&cYear=2013-14&Level=S
chool&cSelect=El+Sol+Santa+Ana+Sci%2D%2DSanta+Ana+Unifi%2D%2D3066670%2D
6119127&cChoice=SchEnrEth
Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Lawrence, M., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust up:
Examining the Evidence on enrollment and achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press and Economic Policy Institute.
Chakrabarti, R., & Roy, J. (2010). The economics of parental choice. In E. Baker, B. McGaw, &
P. Peterson (Eds.), International encyclopedia of education (pp. 336–342). Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 117
Christensen, J., Meijer-Irons, J., & Lake, R. (2010). The charter landscape, 2004–2009. In R. J.
Lake (Ed.), Hopes, fears, & reality: A balanced look at American charter schools in 2009
(pp. 1–14). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528666.pdf
Competitive Edge Charter Academy. (2013). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.ycjusd.ceca
.schoolfusion.us
Competitive Edge Charter Academy. (2014). 2013–14 School Accountability Report Card pub-
lished during the 2014–15 school year. Retrieved from http://ycjusd.ceca.schoolfusion
.us/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/138422/File/Educational%20Services%20Documen
ts/SARC%202013-2014/_2014_SARC%20CECA.pdf?sessionid=77c1497a2a16b463f81993
f6f5d57823
Competitive Edge Charter Academy. (2015). International Baccalaureate. Retrieved from http://
www.international-baccalaureate.ycjusd.ceca.schoolfusion.us
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Montgomery, K. (2008). Keeping the promise? The debate over
charter schools. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Dee, T. S., & Fu, H. (2004). Do charter schools skim students or drain resources? Economics of
Education Review, 23, 259–271. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2003.10.001
Dorer, M. J. (2002). The first charter school: Spotlight, Montessori diversity—charter schools.
Montessori Life, 14(3), 40–41.
Eckes, S. E. (2010). Charter school legislation and the potential to influence student body diver-
sity. In C. A. Lubienski & P. C. Weitzel, The charter school experiment: Expectations,
evidence, and implications (pp. 51–71). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 118
El Sol Science and Arts Academy of Santa Ana. (2013a). About us. Retrieved from http://www
.elsolacademy.net/about_us.html
El Sol Science and Arts Academy of Santa Ana. (2013b). Academics. Retrieved from http://
www.elsolacademy.net/academics.html
El Sol Science and Arts Academy of Santa Ana. (2015). California Department of Education:
School Accountability Report Card, reported using data from the 2013–2014 school year.
Retrieved from http://www.sarconline.org/SarcPdfs/ Temp/30666706119127.pdf
Ericson, J., & Silverman, D. (2001). Challenge and opportunity: The impact of charter schools
on school districts. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/ district_impac
t.pdf
Fiore, T. A., Harwell, L. M., Blackorboy, J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2000). Charter schools and
students with disabilities: A national study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Garcia, D. R. ( 2010). Charter schools challenging traditional notions of segregation. In C. A.
Lubienski & P. C. Weitzel, The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and
implications (pp. 33–50). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Gastic, B., & Coronado, D. (2011). Latinos and school choice. Journal of School Choice, 5(1),
139–142.
Hartley, M. (1999). A voice from the state legislature: Don’t do what Arizona did. In R. Maranto,
S. Millman, F. Hess, & A. Gresham (Eds.). School choice in the real world: Lessons from
Arizona charter schools (pp. 198–221). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 119
Haynes, K. T., Phillips, J. R. P., & Goldring, E. B. (2010). Latino parents’ choice of magnet
school: How school choice differs across racial and ethnic boundaries. Educational and
Urban Society, 42, 758–789. doi:10.1177/0013124510370943
Henig, J. R., & MacDonald, J. A. (2002). Locational decisions of charter schools: Probing the
market metaphor. Social Science Quarterly, 83, 962–980. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.00126
Hill, P. T., & Lake, R. J. (2010). The charter school catch-22. Journal of School Choice, 4, 232–
235.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public school. New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Huerta, L., & d’Entremont, C. (2010). The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence,
and implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
International Baccalaureate. (n.d.). Primary years programme. Retrieved from http://www.ibo
.org/en/programmes/primary-years-programme/
Institute on Race and Poverty. (2008). Failed promises: Assessing charter schools in the twin
cities. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Keegan, L. G. (1999). The empowerment of market-based school reform. In R. Maranto, S.
Milliman, F. Hess, & A. Gresham (Eds.). School choice in the real world (pp. 189–197).
Boulder, CO: Westview.
Kluver, J., & Rosenstock, L. (2003). Choice and diversity: Irreconcilable differences? Principal
Leadership, 3(8), 12–18. Retrieved from https://www.principals.org/portals/0/content/
46851.pdf
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 120
Lacireno-Paquet, N., Holyoke, T. T., Moser, M., & Henig, J. R. (2002). Creaming versus crop-
ping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to market incentives. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145–158.
Lee, J., & Lubienski, C. (2011). Is racial segregation changing in charter schools? International
Journal of Educational Reform, 20, 192–209.
Levin, H. M. (2012). Some economic guidelines for design of a charter school district. Econom-
ics of Education Review, 31, 331–343.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy, 30th annual edition: Dilemmas of the individual in
public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lubienski, C., & Weitzel, P. (2009). Choice, integration, and educational opportunity: Evidence
on competitive incentives for student sorting in charter schools. Journal of Gender, Race,
and Justice, 12, 351–375.
Lubienski, C. A. & Weitzel, P. C. (Eds.). (2010). The charter school experiment: Expectations,
evidence, and implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
Mathematica Policy Research. (2011). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse
strategies and diverse student impacts. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/
%28cmo_final%20_report%2011%2002%2011.pdf
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller-Kahn, L., & Smith, M. L. (2001). School choice policies in the political spectacle. Educa-
tion Policy Analysis Archives, 9, 50.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 121
Miron, G. (2010). Performance of charter schools and implications for policy makers. In C. A.
Lubienski & P. C. Weitzel (Eds.) The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence,
and implications (pp. 73–92). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education.
Moe, T. (2001). Schools, vouchers, and the American public. Washington, DC: Brookings Insti-
tution Press.
Nathan, J. (1996). Possibilities, problems, and progress: Early lessons from the charter move-
ment. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 18–23.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). NAEP overview. Retrieved from http://nces.ed
.gov/nationsreportcard/about/
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Olzak, S. (1994). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Olzak, S., Shanahan, S., & West, E. (1994). School desegregation, interracial exposure, and
antibusing activity in contemporary urban America. American Journal of Sociology, 100(1),
196–241.
Osberg, E. (2006). Charter school funding. In T. H. Paul (Ed.), Charter schools against the odds:
An assessment of the Koret Task Force on K–12 education (pp. 45–69). Stanford, CA:
Hoover Institution Press.
Premack, E. (1996). Charter schools: California’s education reform “power tool.” Phi Delta
Kappan, 78(1), 60, 62–64.
Rabovsky, T. (2011). Deconstructing school choice: Problem schools or problem students?
Public Administration Review, 71(1), 87–95.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 122
Renzulli, L. A., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and White flight. Social
Problems, 52, 398–418.
Rogosa, D. (2003). Student progress in California charter schools (Working Paper). Stanford,
CA: Stanford University.
Rotberg, I. C. (2014). Charter schools and the risk of increased segregation. Phi Delta Kappan,
95(5), 26–30.
RRP International. (2001). Challenge and opportunity, the impact of charter schools on school
districts: A report of the National Study of Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed
.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/district_impact.pdf
Schneider, M., & Tice, P. (2007). School of choice: What the NCES can and cannot tell us. In M.
Berends, M. G. Springer, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Charter school outcomes (pp. 267–281).
New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Simon, S. (2013). Special report: Class struggle—how charter schools get the students they
want. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/16/us-usa-charters-
admissions-idUSBRE91E0HF20130216
Sizer, T., & Wood, G. (2008). Charter schools and the values of public education. Retrieved
from https://criticaltep.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/charterschools2008-rethinkingschools1
.pdf
Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of
racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1–40.
Stewart, B. I. (2002). Charter schools: Opportunities to extend educational models—a positive
view. Education, 122(4), 777–784.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 123
Stoddard, C., & Corcoran, S. (2006). The political economy of school choice: Support for charter
schools across states and school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 62(2007), 27–54.
doi:10.1016/j.jue.2006.08.006
Swinehart, L. (2005, September-October). Charter schools don’t solve real problems. The
Humanist, 65(5). Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Charter+schools+
don%27t+solve+real+problems.-a0135814554
Tovey, R. (1995). School choice and racial/class inequities. The Education Digest, 61(1), 14–14.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014a). Santa Ana (city), California. Retrieved from http://quickfacts
.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0669000.html
U.S. Census Bureau. (2014b). Yucaipa (city), California. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census
.gov/qfd/states/06/0687042.html
Welner, K. G. (2013). The dirty dozen: How charter schools influence student enrollment.
Teachers College Record (Online). Available from http://www.tcrecord.org/
Wells, A. S. (1998). Charter school reform in California: Does it meet expectations? Phi Delta
Kappan, 80, 305–312.
Wells, A. S., Artilles, L., Carnochan, S., Cooper, C. W., Grutzik, C., Jellison, H., . . . Vasudeva,
A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California districts.
Los Angeles, CA: University of California.
West, A., Ingram, D., & Hind, A. (2006). “Skimming the cream”: Admissions to charter schools
in the United States and to autonomous schools in England. Educational Policy, 20, 615–
639. doi:10.1177/0895904805284054
Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the
performance of traditional public schools? Public Administration Review, 69, 831–845.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 124
Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2010). The economics of charter schools. Economics of education.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 125
Appendix A
Informed Consent
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Student Demographics, Recruitment and Admission Practices of Charter School in
Orange County, Southern California
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Zoe Schellenberg, doctoral
student, at the University of Southern California, because you are a charter school admissions
counselor or school administrator. Your participation is voluntary. You should read the infor-
mation below and ask questions about anything you do not understand before deciding whether
to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. You may also
decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to participate, you will
be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to examine the student demographics, recruitment, and admissions
practices of charter schools from the perspective of admissions counselors and administration in
Orange County, California.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in a recorded inter-
view. The interview will be held privately and all information provided in the interview will
remain confidential.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
The potential risks of participating in the interview may be communicating information that may
be a conflict of interest with the school or school’s philosophy.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The benefits of participating in the interview is for society to gain a better understanding of how
charter schools policies unfold in the recruitment and admissions practices of charter schools.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be paid for participating in this research study.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 126
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
The data will be stored in a secured office space and locked laptop program. Recorded audio will
be transcribed by a professional service. The researcher will be the only individual coding the
data provided in the interviews. Your recorded interview and transcriptions will be destroyed
once the study is complete or less than twelve months from the date of the interview.
CERTIFICATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential,
except if necessary to protect your rights or welfare (for example, if you are injured and need
emergency care). A Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained from the Federal Govern-
ment for this study to help protect your privacy. This certificate means that the researchers can
resist the release of information about your participation to people who are not connected with
the study, including courts. The Certificate of Confidentiality will not be used to prevent disclo-
sure to local authorities of child abuse and neglect, or harm to self or others.
When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable infor-
mation will be used.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Zoe Schel-
lenberg at (949) 233-0717 or zschelle@usc.edu, or Dr. Patricia Burch, Student Advisor,
pburch@usc.edu.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT—IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 127
AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS
Q I agree to be audio/video-recorded/photographed (remove the media not being
used)
Q I do not want to be audio/video-recorded/photographed (remove the media not
being used)
_____________________________________
Name of Participant
_____________________________________ _______________________
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to partici-
pate.
_____________________________________
Name of Person Obtaining Consent
_____________________________________ ________________________
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 128
Appendix B
Interview Questions: Del Sol Charter School
Director of Community Life and Early Childhood Education
1. What factors make your school unique in comparison to a traditional public school?
2. Describe the demographics of your student body.
3. What are some of the marketing and recruiting practices of your school?
4. Does your school have limitations on capacity? For example, class size, special education
students, English language learners (ELLs)?
5. How does your school support special education students?
6. What resources does your school have for ELLs?
7. What is the admission process for students who want to enroll in your school?
8. What steps do families/students follow to ensure they are enrolled in your school?
9. What expectations are set for students by both faculty and staff?
10. How do you maintain high expectations while also fostering a nurturing learning environ-
ment?
11. Describe some of the challenges you experience during the recruiting and admissions process
at your school.
12. Is there strong parent involvement at your school?
— If yes, how does the school encourage parent involvement?
— If no, what are the challenges your school experiences in terms of including parents in
the school community?
13. What interventions are in place to support students who are not academically performing?
15. Describe the culture both the faculty and staff have created in order to facilitate student
learning.
(Prepared by Zoe Schellenberg.)
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 129
Appendix C
Interview Questions for Director, Competitive Edge Charter Academy
1. What factors make your school unique in comparison to a traditional public school?
2. Describe the demographics of your student body.
3. What are some of the marketing and recruiting practices of your school?
4. Does your school have limitations on capacity? For example, class size, special education
students, English language learners (ELLs)?
5. How does your school support special education students?
6. What resources does your school have for ELLs?
7. What is the admission process for students who want to enroll in your school?
8. What steps do families/students follow to ensure they are enrolled in your school?
9. What expectations are set for students by both faculty and staff?
10. How do you maintain high expectations while also fostering a nurturing learning environ-
ment?
11. Describe some of the challenges you experience during the recruiting and admissions process
at your school.
12. Does the school district place restrictions on Competitive Edge Academy during the admis-
sions and enrollment process?
13. Is there strong parent involvement at your school?
— If yes, how does the school encourage parent involvement?
— If no, what are the challenges your school experiences in terms of including parents in
the school community?
14. What interventions are in place to support students who are not academically performing?
15. Describe the culture both the faculty and staff have created in order to facilitate student
learning.
(Prepared by Zoe Schellenberg.)
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 130
Appendix D
Interview Questions: El Sol Science and Arts Academy
PTA President and PTA Board Member
1. In which school district is your local elementary school located?
2. What grade is your child(-ren) enrolled at El Sol Academy?
3. How long has your child(-ren) been enrolled in El Sol?
4. What factors influenced your family to apply for admission into El Sol?
5. Can you describe your admission experience?
6. If your child transferred from another school, what were some differences you noticed
between their previous school and El Sol?
7. Can you describe the parent involvement at El Sol?
8. How to the faculty and staff support students in their learning?
9. What challenges do you see administrators, faculty/staff, and parents encounter in a charter
school community?
10. Can you please describe the benefits of attending a charter school?
11. In what ways does El Sol market and recruit students for admission?
12. Do parents help in the recruitment process at El Sol? If yes, what are their practices?
13. What makes El Sol unique and a popular school choice for parents?
14. Will you seek admission to a charter school for your children for high school? If yes, why?
(Prepared by Zoe Schellenberg.)
CHARTER SCHOOL ADMISSIONS 131
Appendix E
Interview questions: Competitive Edge Academy
PTA President
1. In which school district is your local elementary school located?
2. What grade is your child(-ren) enrolled at Competitive Edge Academy?
3. How long has your child(-ren) been enrolled in Competitive Edge Academy?
4. What factors influenced your family to apply for admission into Competitive Edge Acad-
emy?
5. Can you describe your admission experience?
6. If your child transferred from another school, what were some differences you noticed
between their previous school and Competitive Edge Academy?
7. Can you describe the parent involvement at Competitive Edge Academy?
8. How to the faculty and staff support students in their learning?
9. What challenges do you see administrators, faculty/staff, and parents encounter in a charter
school community?
10. Can you please describe the benefits of attending a charter school?
11. In what ways does Competitive Edge market and recruit students for admission?
12. Do parents help in the recruitment process at Competitive Edge Academy? If yes, what are
their practices?
13. What makes Competitive Edge unique and a popular school choice for parents?
14. Will you seek admission to a charter school for your children for high school? If yes, why?
(Prepared by Zoe Schellenberg.)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Charter schools are a popular option in school choice reform. Parents often choose to enroll their children in charter schools because they are disenchanted with traditional public schools. Many charter schools are independent from local school districts and promise to be innovative when implementing their curriculum. Despite charter schools’ mission to provide equal access to all students, there is criticism that these schools are encouraging segregation in race, ethnicity, and students with disabilities. Another argument is that charter schools are “creaming” high‐performing students because they boost school performance and promote competition with public schools. This study examined the history of school choice, charter schools, and common recruiting and admissions practices of charter schools. Two high‐performing charter schools in southern California were the focus of this investigation. Interviews of parents and the charter school administrators as well as examination of public documents were used to determine whether these schools were abiding by California charter laws by allowing equal access to all students. Patterns of enrollment trends were examined, along with admission practices, to determine whether the two schools were creaming a specific student population. Data obtained from the interviews and from public documents were coded to verify whether the two charter schools studied were siphoning off a particular student population in order to create a high‐performing charter school. The results indicated that parents who participated in school choice set high expectations for their children and made education a priority. The outcome of this study pointed to the effects of school choice and how these effects related to segregation of students within a school district. The results should provide charter schools, school districts, and policymakers with implications for future study. Finally, questions were suggested for future research that outlined a more in‐depth study of how charter schools develop a high‐performing student population and the relationship between student achievement and admissions practices.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Contracting for special education: a case study of a charter school contract for special education

PDF

The intersection of technology, pedagogical beliefs, and constructivism: a case study of teachers in 1:1 computing classrooms

PDF

Resource allocation practices in start-up charter schools in relation to identified school reform strategies

PDF

A benchmark analysis of Hardy Brown College Prep

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

School connectedness: a comparison of students' and staff school connectedness perceptions

PDF

Reallocating resources to reform schools: a case study of successful school turnarounds in five Los Angeles charter schools

PDF

Through the eyes of art: uncovering promising practices in arts-themed learning in California charter elementary schools

PDF

Growing leaders in charter schools

PDF

A closer examination of resource allocations using research based best practices to promote student learning: case studies of Hawaiian-focused charter schools in Hawaii

PDF

What factors play a role in making the District of choice program fit a school district's educational mission?

PDF

Program elements for special needs students in a hybrid school setting

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Examining parent involvement activities in two mmigrant-impacted schools: a comparative case study

PDF

The missing voice: graduate students' perceptions of the school counseling profession

PDF

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

Second-generation Korean-American students' mental health experiences in high school

PDF

The effect of traditional method of training on learning transfer, motivation, self-efficacy, and performance orientation in comparison to evidence-based training in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu

PDF

Closing the achievement gap for marginalized students using the college-going culture: a promising practices study

Asset Metadata

Creator Schellenberg, Zoe Carolyn (author)

Core Title "Creaming" students in the charter school admission process: a case study of admission practices in charter schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 06/22/2015

Defense Date 03/31/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag charter schools,Education,OAI-PMH Harvest,school choice

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Burch, Patricia E. (committee chair), Green, Alan Gilford (committee member), Hyde, Corinne (committee member)

Creator Email zoe.schellenberg@yahoo.com,zschelle@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-576164

Unique identifier UC11299058

Identifier etd-Schellenbe-3503.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-576164 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Schellenbe-3503.pdf

Dmrecord 576164

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Schellenberg, Zoe Carolyn

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA