Senior Thesis Spotlight: Sophie Sharps ’16 Researches NYC Charter Schools

“I am and always have been a firm believer in public education,” Sophie Sharps, ‘16, stated when discussing her honors thesis on charter schools. Born and raised in Brooklyn, the sociology major always felt deeply invested in public education. However, her specific interest in charter schools and the privatization movement did not fully blossom until she traveled abroad in Chile. After discovering that over 60% of students in the country were served by the private educational sector, she decided to investigate the country’s rapidly changing educational landscape through
her final independent study. This piqued an interest in the privatization of education, which Sharps quickly carried over to her PICA internship with the New York City Department of Education. Intrigued by the heated educational politics of her home city, Sharps decided to conduct her thesis research in New York, which currently houses over 200 charter schools and remains at the epicenter
of the charter school debate.
As a sociology major, Sharps has spent the year working with
Professor of Sociology Ronald Flores to conduct quantitative analysis on charter schools and their positioning in New York. Focusing on data from the New York City Department of Education and The US Census Bureau, she has examined when charter schools opened, where they are, what they look like demographically and how these demographics compare with local neighborhood statistics.
When discussing her research, Sharps described how in many conversations surrounding charter schools and their implementation in underserved communities, corporate reform marketers will promote the schools as a means of providing families with “choice” when faced with decisions about the education of their children. In her thesis, however, she asserts that such statements often disguise the inequality that charter schools frequently perpetuate. “For-profit and nonprofit groups are exploit- ing low-income communities because they don’t have any other options,” Sharps said. She added that charter school reformers frequently enter underserved neighborhoods because given limited access to other promising educational opportunities, there is a market need to do so.
The barriers children and families face in accessing well-re- sourced schools is inextricably tied to disparities in taxes and public school funding. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, many northeastern states designate over 50% of property taxes to elementary and secondary schools. This means that a school in a low-income community will receive fewer educational funds than one in a middle or upper-class area. Such a statement holds broad implications, not just for Sharps’ research in New York City, but also for our
local community. Here, non-tax- able land from Conn, the Coast Guard and Mitchell College pose enormous obstacles in acquiring public school funding in New London.
In the argument for school choice, Sharps also highlighted the consequences of competition. She explained that charter school advocates frequently argue that “if you create a lot of good schools, then the bad ones will close. But if the failing schools are closing in areas that desperately need education, you’re not serving the needs of that community. This competition often breeds inequality and is especially exacerbated at the neighborhood level.”
These privatization efforts sharply dissent from the original conception of public schools in serving the public good within our democracy. “Historically, Horace Mann’s ‘common school movement,’ at the foundation of our public education system, was in- tended to serve as society’s ‘great equalizer.’ The fact that public education relies on taxpayer dollars means that citizens have stake in this public good and thus are able to hold the public education system accountable. When our educational system is placed in the hands of private organizations and corporations, particularly elite members outside of the education- al arena, we strip communities of one of the fundamental tenets of democracy,” Sharps detailed.
Although Sharps maintains this critical stance towards privately run public schools, she does highlight that not all charters are created equal. In New York City, many residents will instantly recognize Success Academy as a corporately sponsored charter school network that currently mar- kets 34 charter schools throughout the City’s boroughs, with the exception of Staten Island. Utilizing a grocery store metaphor, Sharps refers to these expansive charter networks as the “chain stores” of charter schools. Primarily run by management organizations, these networks go into very specific communities that primarily serve low-income students and students of color. Similarly to many public educators, Sharps expressed significant reservation about these forms of charters and their outside corporate involvements. “I don’t understand how someone outside of education can serve the educational needs of students,” she said in frustration.
Sharps emphasizes, however, that although “chain store” charters like KIPP and Success Academy make up the majority of charter schools in the United States, there are some that continue to run independently. Again referencing the grocery store metaphor, Sharps describes these charter school models as “ma and pop” schools, which frequently function within the community while serving neighborhood students. These charter schools are far more likely to represent and welcome community voices and recognize the needs and values of neighborhood students. Such char- ters provide a stark contrast from “chain store” network models where wealthy white executives frequently dominate over charters serving disadvantaged youth.
Walking out of my conversation with Sharps, one thing became increasingly clear: charter schools are complicated. As a prospective teacher who feels deeply invested in public schools and their original purpose, I hold similar reservations about charters and their potential in creating and sustaining educational equity. However, in order to truly understand the impact of these privately run educational systems, it is imperative that we look from the ground up.