Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online May 24, 2017
Request permissions

School Choice, Gentrification, and the Variable Significance of Racial Stratification in Urban Neighborhoods

Francis A. Pearman, II [email protected] and Walker A. SwainView all authors and affiliations
Volume 90, Issue 3
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040717710494

Abstract

Racial and socioeconomic stratification have long governed patterns of residential sorting in the American metropolis. However, recent expansions of school choice policies that allow parents to select schools outside their neighborhood raise questions as to whether this weakening of the neighborhood–school connection might influence the residential decisions of higher-socioeconomic-status white households looking to relocate to central city neighborhoods. This study examines whether and the extent to which expanded school choice facilitates the gentrification of disinvested, racially segregated urban communities. Drawing data from the Decennial Census, the American Community Survey, the National Center for Educational Statistics, and the Schools and Staffing Survey, this study finds evidence that college-educated white households are far more likely to gentrify communities of color when school choice options expand. In particular, the expansion of school choice increases the likelihood of gentrification by up to 22 percentage points in the most racially isolated neighborhoods of color—more than twice the baseline likelihood for such communities.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Get Access

Appendices

Appendix Table A1. Alternative Measures of Gentrification: Estimates of the Moderating Role of School Choice on the Effects of Neighborhood Racial Composition on the Likelihood and Extent of Gentrification.
 Likelihood of GentrificationExtent of Gentrification
 (Reported) White GentrificationSES-based GentrificationBlack Gentrification(Reported) White GentrificationSES-based GentrificationBlack Gentrification
Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
% Nonwhite−0.18−0.130.02−0.10−0.12−0.08
 (0.06)(0.05)(0.05)(0.04)(0.04)(0.04)
 [–0.05][–0.04][0.01][–0.10][–0.12][–0.08]
Charter school growth−0.08−0.03−0.120.020.02−0.02
 (0.09)(0.09)(0.10)(0.07)(0.06)(0.06)
 [–0.02][–0.01][–0.03][0.02][0.02][–0.02]
Magnet school growth−0.030.100.020.030.060.04
 (0.10)(0.08)(0.10)(0.07)(0.06)(0.06)
 [–0.01][0.03][0.01][0.03][0.06][0.04]
Voucher growth−0.18−0.09−0.17−0.09−0.08−0.09
 (0.12)(0.09)(0.10)(0.07)(0.08)(0.08)
 [–0.06][–0.02][–0.04][–0.09][–0.08][–0.09]
Open enrollment program−0.09−0.050.040.020.02−0.06
 (0.09)(0.07)(0.09)(0.06)(0.05)(0.06)
 [–0.03][–0.02][0.01][0.02][0.02][–0.06]
% Nonwhite ×  Charter school0.180.060.130.080.050.04
(0.07)(0.05)(0.07)(0.04)(0.04)(0.05)
 [0.05][0.02][0.03][0.08][0.05][0.04]
% Nonwhite × Magnet0.140.050.100.070.080.10
 (0.07)(0.05)(0.06)(0.03)(0.04)(0.04)
 [0.04][0.01][0.03][0.07][0.08][0.10]
% Nonwhite × Voucher0.030.130.140.080.130.18
 (0.09)(0.06)(0.06)(0.04)(0.04)(0.05)
 [0.01][0.04][0.03][0.08][0.13][0.18]
% Nonwhite ×  Open enrollment−0.03−0.01−0.010.00−0.030.02
(0.08)(0.05)(0.07)(0.04)(0.04)(0.05)
 [–0.01][–0.00][–0.00][0.00][–0.03][0.02]
Pseudo R20.130.100.060.240.220.14
N7,5487,5487,5487,5487,5487,548
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the school district level. Marginal effects are in brackets. Sampling weights are used in all SASS-based estimates and are computed as the product of 2000 SASS survey weights and attrition weights that account for any nonrandom attrition in 2012. The analytic sample includes neighborhoods whose median household income in 2000 was below the 50th percentile of its city average and whose proportion of housing supply built in the 20 years preceding 2000 was below the 50th percentile of its city. Neighborhoods that subsequently underwent white racialized gentrification experienced (1) an inflow of white, college-educated residents between 2000 and 2012 that exceeded the growth of white, college-educated persons in the city overall and (2) an increase in real housing prices between 2000 and 2012. Neighborhoods that subsequently underwent SES-based gentrification experienced (1) an inflow of college-educated residents between 2000 and 2012 that exceeded the growth of college-educated persons in the city overall and (2) an increase in real housing prices between 2000 and 2012. Neighborhoods that subsequently underwent black racialized gentrification experienced (1) an inflow of black, college-educated residents between 2000 and 2012 that exceeded the growth of black, college-educated persons in the city overall and (2) an increase in real housing prices between 2000 and 2012. Measuring the extent of gentrification converts each binary indicator to a linear scale of the degree to which each criteria was met. SES = socioeconomic status; SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey.
Appendix Table A2. Estimates Using Reported Weights (Attrition Weights × Sampling Weights), Original Sampling Weights, and No Weights.
 Likelihood of GentrificationExtent of Gentrification
 Reported WeightsOriginal WeightsNo WeightsReported WeightsOriginal WeightsNo Weights
Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
% Nonwhite−0.18−0.16−0.17−0.10−0.09−0.10
 (0.06)(0.06)(0.06)(0.04)(0.04)(0.04)
 [–0.05][–0.05][–0.05][–0.10][–0.09][–0.10]
Charter school growth−0.08−0.08−0.080.020.01−0.00
 (0.09)(0.10)(0.09)(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)
 [–0.02][–0.02][–0.02][0.02][0.01][–0.00]
Magnet school growth−0.03−0.02−0.030.030.010.02
 (0.10)(0.10)(0.10)(0.07)(0.06)(0.07)
 [–0.01][–0.01][–0.01][0.03][0.01][0.02]
Voucher growth−0.18−0.15−0.16−0.09−0.08−0.08
 (0.12)(0.11)(0.11)(0.07)(0.07)(0.07)
 [–0.06][–0.05][–0.05][–0.09][–0.08][–0.08]
Open enrollment−0.09−0.09−0.060.020.010.02
 (0.09)(0.09)(0.09)(0.06)(0.06)(0.06)
 [–0.03][–0.03][–0.02][0.02][0.01][0.02]
% Nonwhite × Charter school0.180.160.170.080.080.08
 (0.07)(0.07)(0.07)(0.04)(0.04)(0.04)
 [0.05][0.05][0.05][0.08][0.08][0.08]
% Nonwhite × Magnet0.140.140.140.070.080.08
 (0.07)(0.07)(0.07)(0.03)(0.04)(0.03)
 [0.04][0.04][0.04][0.07][0.08][0.08]
% Nonwhite × Voucher0.030.020.020.080.080.08
 (0.09)(0.08)(0.09)(0.04)(0.04)(0.04)
 [0.01][0.01][0.01][0.08][0.08][0.08]
% Nonwhite × Open−0.03−0.03−0.060.000.00−0.01
 (0.08)(0.07)(0.08)(0.04)(0.04)(0.04)
 [–0.01][–0.00][–0.01][0.00][0.00][–0.01]
Pseudo R20.130.120.120.240.220.23
N7,5487,5487,5487,5487,5487,548
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the school district level. Marginal effects are in brackets. Sampling weights are used in all SASS-based estimates and are computed as the product of 2000 SASS survey weights and attrition weights that account for any nonrandom attrition in 2012. Neighborhood controls are measured in 2000 and include neighborhood poverty rates, proportion of residents who are children, percentage of residents receiving government assistance, proportion of adult residents age 25 and over who have received a high school degree, proportion of adult residents who have received a college degree, percentage of residents who are nonwhite, unemployment rates, proportion of families that are female headed, density of persons per square mile, median housing price, median rent, proportion of owner-occupied housing, proportion of vacant housing, total number of residents, and median income. Pre-2000 neighborhood controls capture trends in gentrification prior to baseline and are measured during the 1990 Census; they include the same neighborhood controls measured in 2000. School district controls are measured in 2000 and include annual expenditures per student, student–teacher ratio, percentage of children receiving free and reduced-price lunch, the proportion of district students who are nonwhite, and district urbanicity. County controls include the number of violent and property crime arrests at baseline per 100,000 residents as well as the proportion of votes during the 2004 presidential election cast for the Republican Party. City controls include the amount of racial segregation, income segregation, and income inequality within metropolitan statistical area boundaries at baseline (2000). To facilitate interpretation, the percentage of nonwhite residents, the interacting term, is standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1. SASS = Schools and Staffing Survey.
Appendix Table A3. Estimates of the Moderating Role of School Choice on the Effects of Neighborhood Racial Composition on the Likelihood and Extent of Gentrification, 40th Percentile Threshold.
 Probit EstimatesOLS Estimates
 No ControlsFull ControlsNo ControlsFull Controls
Variable(1)(2)(3)(4)
% Nonwhite−0.13−0.19−0.03−0.10
 (0.06)(0.07)(0.03)(0.04)
 [–0.04][–0.06][–0.03][–0.10]
Charter school growth0.04−0.090.110.05
 (0.09)(0.10)(0.08)(0.07)
 [0.01][–0.03][0.11][0.05]
Magnet school growth−0.06−0.06−0.020.02
 (0.09)(0.10)(0.07)(0.07)
 [–0.02][–0.02][–0.02][0.02]
Voucher growth−0.18−0.28−0.04−0.10
 (0.12)(0.13)(0.11)(0.08)
 [–0.06][–0.08][–0.04][–0.10]
Open enrollment program−0.04−0.050.020.03
 (0.12)(0.10)(0.11)(0.06)
 [–0.01][–0.02][0.02][0.03]
% Nonwhite × Charter school0.270.200.120.05
 (0.09)(0.08)(0.05)(0.04)
 [0.09][0.06][0.12][0.05]
% Nonwhite × Magnet0.190.170.100.09
 (0.08)(0.08)(0.05)(0.04)
 [0.06][0.05][0.10][0.09]
% Nonwhite × Voucher0.000.030.060.08
 (0.07)(0.09)(0.07)(0.04)
 [0.01][0.01][0.06][0.08]
% Nonwhite × Open enrollment−0.11−0.08−0.03−0.02
 (0.09)(0.08)(0.05)(0.04)
 [–0.03][–0.02][–0.03][–0.02]
Pseudo R20.030.140.040.26
N5,5355,5355,5355,535
Note: Standard errors are in parentheses and are clustered at the school district level. Marginal effects are in brackets. Sampling weights are used in all SASS-based estimates and are computed as the product of 2000 SASS survey weights and attrition weights that account for any nonrandom attrition in 2012. Neighborhood controls are measured in 2000 and include neighborhood poverty rates, proportion of residents who are children, percentage of residents receiving government assistance, proportion of adult residents ages 25 and over who have received a high school degree, proportion of adult residents who have received a college degree, percentage of residents who are nonwhite, unemployment rates, proportion of families that are female headed, density of persons per square mile, median housing price, median rent, proportion of owner-occupied housing, proportion of vacant housing, total number of residents, and median income. Pre-2000 neighborhood controls capture trends in gentrification prior to baseline and are measured during the 1990 Census; they include the same neighborhood controls measured in 2000. School district controls are measured in 2000 and include annual expenditures per student, student–teacher ratio, percentage of children receiving free and reduced-price lunch, the proportion of district students who are nonwhite, district urbanicity, and the degree of racial segregation, income segregation, and income inequality among district schools. County controls include the number of violent and property crime arrests at baseline per 100,000 residents, a binary indicator of whether a district experienced growth in the number of private schools, and the proportion of votes during the 2004 presidential election cast for the Republican Party. City controls include the amount of racial segregation, income segregation, and income inequality within metropolitan statistical area boundaries at baseline (2000). To facilitate interpretation, the percentage of nonwhite residents, the interacting term, is standardized to have a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.

References

Bader Michael. 2011. “Reassessing Residential Preferences for Redevelopment.” City & Community 10(3):311–37.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Baum-Snow Nathaniel, Hartley Daniel. 2016. “Causes and Consequences of Central Neighborhood Change, 1970–2010.” Paper presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change, Philadelphia, PA.
Google Scholar
Bayer Patrick, Ferreira Fernando, McMillan Robert. 2007. “A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods.” Journal of Political Economy 115(4):588–638.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Bifulco Robert, Ladd Helen F. 2007. “School Choice, Racial Segregation, and Test-score Gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s Charter School Program.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 26(1):31–56.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Brown-Saracino Japonica. 2013. The Gentrification Debates: A Reader. New York: Routledge.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Brunner Eric J., Cho Sung-Woo, Reback Randall. 2012. “Mobility, Housing Markets, and Schools: Estimating the Effects of Inter-district Choice Programs.” Journal of Public Economics 96(7):604–14.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Charles Camille Zubrinsky. 2003. “The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation.” Annual Review of Sociology 29(1):167–207.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Clapp John M., Nanda Anupam, Ross Stephen L. 2008. “Which School Attributes Matter? The Influence of School District Performance and Demographic Composition on Property Values.” Journal of Urban Economics 63(2):451–66.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Clotfelter Charles T. 2011. After ‘Brown’: The Rise and Retreat of School Desegregation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Clotfelter Charles T., Ladd Helen F., Vigdor Jacob. 2005. “Who Teaches Whom? Race and the Distribution of Novice Teachers.” Economics of Education Review 24(4):377–92.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Clotfelter Charles, Ladd Helen F., Vigdor Jacob, Wheeler Justin. 2006. “High-poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals.” North Carolina Law Review 85:1345–79.
Google Scholar
Couture Victor, Handbury Jessie. 2016. “Urban Revival in America, 2000 to 2010.” Paper presented at the American Economic Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Google Scholar
Cucchiara Maia Bloomfield. 2013. Marketing Schools, Marketing Cities: Who Wins and Who Loses When Schools Become Urban Amenities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Dhar Paramita, Ross Stephen L. 2012. “School District Quality and Property Values: Examining Differences along School District Boundaries.” Journal of Urban Economics 71(1):18–25.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Elacqua Gregory. 2012. “The Impact of School Choice and Public Policy on Segregation: Evidence from Chile.” International Journal of Educational Development 32(3):444–53.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Ellen Ingrid Gould, Horn Keren Mertens, Reed Davin 2016. “Has Falling Crime Invited Gentrification?” Paper presented at the Research Symposium on Gentrification and Neighborhood Change, Philadelphia, PA.
Google Scholar
Freeman Lance. 2005. “Displacement or Succession? Residential Mobility in Gentrifying Neighborhoods.” Urban Affairs Review 40(4):463–91.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Freeman Lance. 2009. “Neighbourhood Diversity, Metropolitan Segregation and Gentrification: What Are the Links in the US?” Urban Studies 46(10):2079–2101.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Goldring E. G., Swain Walker. 2014. “The School Attendance and Residential Location Balancing Act: Community, Choice, Diversity, and Achievement.” Pp. 92–116 in Education, Land, and Locations, edited by Ingram G. K., Kenyon D. A. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Google Scholar
Grady Sarah, Bielick Stacey, Aud Susan. 2010. “Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 2007.” Statistical Analysis Report. NCES 2010- 004. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Google Scholar
Holme Jennifer Jellison. 2002. “Buying Homes, Buying Schools: School Choice and the Social Construction of School Quality.” Harvard Educational Review 72(2):177–206.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Hwang Jackelyn, Lin Jeffrey. 2016. “What Have We Learned about the Causes of Recent Gentrification?.” Cityscape 18(3):9–26.
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Hwang Jackelyn, Sampson Robert J. 2014. “Divergent Pathways of Gentrification: Racial Inequality and the Social Order of Renewal in Chicago Neighborhoods.” American Sociological Review 79(4):726–51.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Johnson Heather Beth, Shapiro T. 2003. “Good Neighborhoods, Good Schools: Race and the ‘‘Good Choices” of White Families.” Pp. 173–88 in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Race, edited by Doane A. W., Bonilla-Silva E. New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Keels Micere, Burdick-Will Julia, Keene Sara. 2013. “The Effects of Gentrification on Neighborhood Public Schools.” City & Community 12(3):238–59.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Kennedy Maureen, Leonard Paul. 2001. Dealing with Neighborhood Change: A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Google Scholar
Krysan Maria, Couper Mick P., Farley Reynolds, Forman Tyrone A. 2009. “Does Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences? Results from a Video Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology 115(2):527–59.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Lareau Annette, Goyette Kimberly. 2014. Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Google Scholar
Lauen Lee Lauen. 2007. “Contextual Explanations of School Choice.” Sociology of Education 80(3):179–209.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Lee Barrett A., Lee Barrett A., Reardon Sean F., Firebaugh Glenn, Farrell Chad R., Matthews Stephen A., O’Sullivan David. 2008. “Beyond the Census Tract: Patterns and Determinants of Racial Segregation at Multiple Geographic Scales.” American Sociological Review 73(5):766–91.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Lewis Valerie A., Emerson Michael O., Klineberg Stephen L. 2011. “Who We’ll Live With: Neighborhood Racial Composition Preferences of Whites, Blacks and Latinos.” Social Forces 89(4):1385–1407.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Ley David. 1986. “Alternative Explanations for Inner- city Gentrification: A Canadian Assessment.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 76(4):521–35.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Liebowitz David D., Page Lindsay C. 2014. “Does School Policy Affect Housing Choices? Evidence from the End of Desegregation in Charlotte– Mecklenburg.” American Educational Research Journal 51(4):671–703.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Lloyd Richard. 2010. Neo-bohemia: Art and Commerce in the Postindustrial City. New York: Routledge.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Logan John R., Alba Richard D. 1993. “Locational Returns to Human Capital: Minority Access to Suburban Community Resources.” Demography 30(2):243–68.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Logan John R., Molotch Harvey. 2007. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Massey Douglas S. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review.” Sociology and Social Research 69(3):315–50.
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Massey Douglas S., Denton Nancy A. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Google Scholar
Milner H. Richard. IV. 2015. Rac(e)ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and Classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Google Scholar
Orfield Gary. 2013. “Housing Segregation Produces Unequal Schools.” Pp. 40–60 in Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, edited by Carter P., Welner K. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Owens Ann. 2016. “Inequality in Children’s Contexts Income Segregation of Households with and without Children.” American Sociological Review 81(3):549–74.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Pais Jeremy, South Scott J., Crowder Kyle. 2012. “Metropolitan Heterogeneity and Minority Neighborhood Attainment: Spatial Assimilation or Place Stratification?” Social Problems 59(2):258–81.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Pattillo Mary. 2008. Black on the Block: The Politics of Race and Class in the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Google Scholar
Rich Peter. 2017. “Race, Resources, and Test Scores: What Schooling Characteristics Motivate the Housing Choices of White Parents?” Paper presented at the 2017 Population Association of America Meeting, Chicago.
Google Scholar
Ross Stephen L. 2005. The Continuing Practice and Impact of Discrimination. Working Paper No. 2005–19, Department of Economics, University of Connecticut.
Google Scholar
Ross Stephen L., Turner Margery Austin. 2005. “Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan America: Explaining Changes between 1989 and 2000.” Social Problems 52(2):152–80.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Rugh Jacob S., Albright Len, Massey Douglas S. 2015. “Race, Space, and Cumulative Disadvantage: A Case Study of the Subprime Lending Collapse.” Social Problems 62(2):186–218.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Rugh Jacob S., Massey Douglas S. 2010. “Racial Segregation and the American Foreclosure Crisis.” American Sociological Review 75(5):629–51.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Rumberger Russell W., Palardy Gregory J. 2005. “Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School.” Teachers College Record 107(9):1999–2045.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Sampson Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Sharkey Patrick. 2012. “An Alternative Approach to Addressing Selection into and out of Social Settings: Neighborhood Change and African American Children’s Economic Outcomes.” Sociological Methods & Research 41(2):251–93.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Sharkey Patrick. 2013. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Shertzer Allison, Twinam Tate, Walsh Randall P. 2016. “Race, Ethnicity, and Discriminatory Zoning.” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 8(3):217–46.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Smith Neil. 1982. “Gentrification and Uneven Development.” Economic Geography 58(2):139–55.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Smith Neil. 1998. “Gentrification.” Pp. 198–99 in The Encyclopedia of Housing, edited by van Vliet W. London: Taylor & Francis.
Google Scholar
South Scott J., Crowder Kyle, Pais Jeremy. 2008. “Inter-neighborhood Migration and Spatial Assimilation in a Multi-ethnic World: Comparing Latinos, Blacks, and Anglos.” Social forces 87(1):415–44.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
South Scott J., Crowder Kyle, Pais Jeremy. 2011. “Metropolitan Structure and Neighborhood Attainment: Exploring Intermetropolitan Variation in Racial Residential Segregation.” Demography 48(4):1263–92.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Stullich Stephanie. 2011. The Potential Impact of Revising the Title I Comparability Requirement to Focus on School-level Expenditures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Google Scholar
Teske Paul, Schneider Mark. 2001. “What Research Can Tell Policymakers about School Choice.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20(4):609–31.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Weiher Gregory R., Tedin Kent L. 2002. “Does Choice Lead to Racially Distinctive Schools? Charter Schools and Household Preferences.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21(1):79–92.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Weisburd David, Groff Elizabeth R., Yang Sue-Ming. 2014. “The Importance of Both Opportunity and Social Disorganization Theory in a Future Research Agenda to Advance Criminological Theory and Crime Prevention at Places.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51(4):499–508.
Crossref
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Wilson William Julius. 2012. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crossref
Google Scholar
Wodtke Geoffrey T., Harding David J., Elwert Felix. 2011. “Neighborhood Effects in Temporal Perspective: The Impact of Long-term Exposure to Concentrated Disadvantage on High School Graduation.” American Sociological Review 76(5):713–36.
Crossref
PubMed
Web of Science
Google Scholar
Zuk Miriam, Bierbaum Ariel H., Chapple Karen, Gorska Karolina, Loukaitou-Sideris Anastasia, Ong Paul, Thomas Trevor. 2015. Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review. Working Paper No. 2015-55, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
Google Scholar

Biographies

Francis A. Pearman II is an assistant professor of urban education in the Center for Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. His research focuses on the intersection of urban schooling, social inequality, and racial stratification.
Walker A. Swain is an assistant professor of educational administration and policy at the University of Georgia. His research focuses on evaluating the impacts of education and social policy on traditionally disadvantaged populations.
|

Also from Sage