« The Turning Point | Main | Stimulus Package: One Goal Too Many »

January 15, 2009

The Problem with Ethnic Charter Schools

Richard Kahlenberg

On Monday, a committee of the New York State Board of Regents approved a proposal to create a Hebrew-language charter school in Brooklyn.   The school is part of a growing movement among charter schools to target specific ethnic or racial groups.  As Sara Rimer noted in a front page New York Times story on Saturday, there are 30 ethnic charter schools in Minnesota alone, catering to groups such as Somali, Ethiopian and Hmong immigrants.  Some regular public schools have gotten into the act, too, most notably the Khalil Gibran International Academy, a public school in Brooklyn that emphasizes Arabic language and culture, which drew strong conservative opposition but continues to operate.

Some liberals, like The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein, have noted conservative hypocrisy: why the vociferous opposition to an Arabic language school but silence on the Hebrew language school?  Klein says he supports both schools.  But is that the right position for anyone, much less a liberal?

Most liberal critics appropriately object to public funding of religious schooling, but once a school avers that it won’t teach religion per se – as the Arabic, Hebrew and East African Schools contend – many liberal critics are satisfied.  But, as Dana Goldstein notes, the objection to ethnic schools goes deeper than the church/state concern.

For many years, liberals were strong supporters of economically, racially and ethnically integrated public schools – schools that would provide equal opportunity to children from all backgrounds and would teach students to be tolerant citizens in a democracy.  It was entirely appropriate for parents to instill in children pride in their ethnic or religious heritage, but the public schools were meant to counterbalance that tendency with efforts to teach children what united us as Americans.

That’s not what Michael Steinhardt, the philanthropist behind the Hebrew Language Academy Charter School, has in mind.  According to a story in The Forward back in May, Steinhardt’s aim is to “strengthen Jewish communal identity.”  He envisions “a nationwide system of Jewish charter schools focusing on ...the elements of Jewish culture that make us strong.” Steinhardt, the New York Times notes, has a “passion for encouraging young Jews to marry one another.”  The East African school in Minneapolis, likewise, is seen by supporters as “havens where their children are shielded from ...American youth culture.”   In these sentiments, multiculturalists find common ground with supporters of private school vouchers who believe that the ultimate value is maximizing parental choice and control.

But the purpose of public schools is not to satisfy the individual preferences of parents.   The fundamental justification for taxpayer funding of public schools, as the late Albert Shanker noted, is to teach children what it means to be an American.

If American schools should generally try to educate children in integrated environments, should there be an exception made for marginalized ethnic groups, or small religious minorities, as a form of affirmative action?  This was the theory behind “community control” of public schools in the 1960s: black-run schools, with black students, black teachers, and black principals, would instill pride, raise student self-esteem, and boost achievement.  The program was an utter failure.  Segregated schools, even run with good intentions like those catering to low income East Africans in Minneapolis, will, on average, cut students off from social and cultural networks that are critical to success in American society.

President-Elect Barack Obama has been a strong supporter of charter schools, as is the Education Secretary-designee Arne Duncan.  Charter schools are supposed to respond to market demand; and in theory, charter schools will pop up to meet the demand of ever narrower segments of society.  At base, the question becomes: is it okay for public tax dollars to provide separate charter schools for each and every ethnic group that wants it? 

Americans once had two institutions that served as glue in our diverse population – the military (for males) and the public schools.  Once the military went to an all-volunteer force, we lost that source of cohesion.  We would be wrong to forfeit it among public charter schools as well.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Problem with Ethnic Charter Schools:


Joachim Martillo

I object to the Hebrew Language Charter School because its curriculum according to its application is dedicated to inculcating a voelkisch nationalist consciousness as I discuss in "Hebrew Nationalism in Public Schools" ( http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/01/jewish-nazism-in-public-school.html ).

The Khalil Gibran International Academy would have been something quite different under Debbie Almontaser's stewardship because it was teaching students, who were not assumed to be Arabs or Muslims, about Arab language culture and would have been no different from a school teaching about Spanish or German language culture.

BTW, I have looked at the target Jewish student population that the Hebrew Language Charter School is supposed to serve. The parents would be much more interested in a quality Russian or French Language Charter School than in a Hebrew Language Charter School.



I serve on the Community Advisory Board of the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn, New York. The purpose of KGIA is not to segregate Arab students, or to foster an Arab identity among Arab students who attend. Rather, it is one of many schools in the New York City Public School system with a particular academic focus. In this case that focus is the language and culture of the Arab World. Most of the students who attend the school are not Arab, reflecting the aim of the school to have a diverse student body, one reflecting the diversity of the city itself.

One can argue that it's not a good idea to narrowly childrens' focus on particular subject areas in the way New York City does. Perhaps there should be no High School of the Arts, no Fashion High School, and no Aviation High School. But to single out ethnic-oriented schools based on the false assumption that they will segregate children is off the mark. If we are content to graduate thousands of students who are somewhat qualified to repair and maintain jetliners, we should be just as happy to graduate students proficient in the language and culture of one hundred million of the world's people, people with whom this nation will be dealing in the fields of diplomacy, business and the arts for many years to come.

It's true that segregating school children is a bad idea, and the Khalil Gibran International Academy doesn't do it.


This was the theory behind “community control” of public schools in the 1960s: black-run schools, with black students, black teachers, and black principals, would instill pride, raise student self-esteem, and boost achievement. The program was an utter failure.

Do you have any actual evidence of this point? The linked article doesn't even mention achievement, pride, etc. In fact, the linked article has literally nothing to do with how the students at such schools did.


This article seems very poorly researched and lacking in nuance. It has been well established that Black students, specifically, do better in schools wherein they make up the ethnic/racial majority than they do in schools wherein they are the minority. Furthermore, Black-run private schools have been popular among upper middle class Black people for decades, now, and have proved to be very successful. And, today, in cities like Houston, some of the best-performing public schools are majority minority charter schools.

The comments to this entry are closed.