When diversity is a goal, school choice can be a powerful tool for integrating schools—from charter schools that use weighted lotteries and strategic recruitment in Denver, Colorado; to a controlled choice plan that replaces attendance zones with parent choice and a diversity-conscious algorithm in Louisville, Kentucky; to inter-district magnet schools that mix urban and suburban students in Hartford, Connecticut.

Creating and maintaining integrated schools through systems of public school choice, however, requires careful planning and thoughtful, sustained effort on the part of education leaders and school communities. Research suggests that systems characterized by free market choice which do not consider diversity as a defined goal, tend to exacerbate school segregation.1

Building from TCF’s extensive research on district and charter schools that are committed to racial and socioeconomic integration, this toolkit aims to provide school and district leaders with an outline of the key strategies and considerations needed to create—and sustain—diverse student body in a choice-based public school setting, whether a charter school, magnet school, or any other school that builds its student body using lottery-based enrollment rather than a defined attendance zone.

The methods addressed in this toolkit can be used in the planning of new schools or to diversify existing schools. In addition, while the focus of this particular toolkit is on shaping enrollment at an individual school, many of the questions and tools outlined in the report are also applicable to scenarios in which school districts or charter school networks are attempting to integrate students across a number of different schools, such as under district-wide “equitable choice” or “controlled choice” programs. These strategies are divided into three sections: setting diversity goals, recruiting a diverse pool of applicants, and enrolling a diverse student body.

Setting Diversity Goals

Creating diversity goals generally requires starting with an understanding of the demographics of a school’s community. Here are some of the key questions schools should address when collecting information:

  • Geography: Is the school serving a school district, multiple districts, or a particular neighborhood or area within a district? The community may be defined to include all students who are eligible to apply for the school, or it may be defined as a smaller area the school sees as its target community.
  • Population: What are the demographics of public school enrollment in the area? What are the demographics of the total population more generally (using U.S. Census data)? In communities in which public school enrollment differs markedly from the general demographics of the community, schools should consider which population is the most relevant comparison to use.
  • School Landscape: What are the enrollment demographics of schools in the area? How might enrollment in the school in question affect the demographics of other schools?
  • Characteristics: Race and socioeconomic status are good places to start when looking at the demographics of the community. (It is worth noting that there are some legal restrictions pertaining to actions and policies schools might use to achieve diverse enrollment. These restrictions are discussed later in this toolkit in the section on weighted lotteries.) Schools may wish to consider other characteristics as well, such as home language and disability status.

Consider Research on the Benefits of Racial and Socioeconomic Diversity

In addition to setting diversity goals designed to make the student body reflective of the broader community, schools may also consider the available research on the benefits of learning environments with different levels of diversity as a guide in setting goals.

Research shows that when a single racial or ethnic group dominates more than 70 percent of the student body, students in the minority feel higher degrees of isolation and alienation, and cross-racial friendships are less likely to develop.2 Guided by this measure, TCF researchers have considered schools to be racially diverse if the largest racial or ethnic group in the school comprises no more than 70 percent of the student body. They have considered schools socioeconomically diverse if 30–70 percent of students are low-income (that is, eligible for free or reduced-price lunch).3

Although the 30–70 percent rule of thumb is a reasonable starting place, more research is needed to identify the thresholds for socioeconomic diversity in schools that provide for optimal learning. Research has repeatedly shown that students in lower-poverty schools outperform those in schools with higher concentrations of poverty, independent of their own socioeconomic backgrounds, but there is less known about the specific demographic “tipping points” past which the benefits of a lower-poverty environment or harms of a higher-poverty environment exist. University of North Carolina at Charlotte professor Roslyn Arlin Mickelson argues in a review of research on school poverty thresholds and student outcomes that there is “no reliable and valid body of evidence that points to specific thresholds of poverty concentration that can be used as the empirical basis for school assignment policies.” She therefore recommends that “educational decision makers should focus on reducing concentrations of school-level poverty to as low a level as is feasible given the available demographic mix.”4

The 30–70 percent rule of thumb may also be helpful when considering the geography and population served by a school to see if there are ways to define a community that fits within these parameters. For example, imagine that a school district enrolls a student population that is 80 percent low-income; however, among the total school-age population in the district—including students who attend private schools or transfer out of the district—the percentage is closer to 60 percent. In this context, creating a school designed to reflect the broader population by bringing some middle-class families back to the public system could be a reasonable goal. If an individual district is fairly racially or socioeconomically homogeneous, another approach is to look at opportunities to create inter-district schools.

Set Your Goal

The following schools and districts created diversity goals based on socioeconomic status, race, or geography, informed by both community demographics as well absolute diversity targets:

  • Blackstone Valley Prep Mayoral Academy (BVP), a charter network in Rhode Island, serves four communities—two lower-income cities and two higher-income suburbs—which are each fairly economically and racially homogeneous on their own but which together encompass a diverse region. BVP sets a goal of having proportional representation of students from all four communities; it also seeks to have at least and 50 percent of its students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
  • Dallas Independent School District (DISD) in Texas operates nine “Transformation Schools,” themed schools with no academic entry requirements, seven of which have a goal of socioeconomically diverse enrollment.5 Nearly 90 percent of students enrolled in district schools are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, but the actual population within the district, as well as the greater Dallas metropolitan area, are both much more socioeconomically diverse. DISD was inspired by research on the benefits of school integration to create new, socioeconomically diverse schools by trying to attract more middle-class families who were choosing private schools or moving out of the district to enroll in DISD instead. In order to help set diversity goals for its transformation schools, DISD sorted all census blocks in the city into four quartiles of socioeconomic advantage, based on median household income, percentage of single-parent families, home ownership rate, and adult educational attainment. DISD set a two-part diversity goal for its transformation schools: to enroll 50 percent economically disadvantaged and 50 percent non-economically disadvantaged students (with those labels determined based on eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch), and ensure that, based on their neighborhood analysis, at least 12.5 percent of students come from the bottom socioeconomic quartile and at least 12.5 percent of students come from the lower-middle socioeconomic quartile.6
  • Citizens of the World Charter Schools (CWC) operates five charter schools in Los Angeles and one in Kansas City, Missouri; all of its campuses are intentionally located in diverse areas. CWC defines the neighborhoods to be served by each school with an explicit eye to capturing a racially and socioeconomically diverse population. In Kansas City, for example, this means that the school’s target area straddles Troost Avenue, the historic dividing line for the city’s white and black populations. CWC then sets the goal of having each school mirror the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the population in that area based on census data, not district school enrollment, since some of the communities that they serve currently have high proportions of families opting for private and parochial schools.
  • New York City’s Community School District 15, which serves the Brooklyn neighborhoods of Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, and Sunset Park, recently created a new diversity plan for all middle schools in the district.7 Middle school student assignment in District 15 is based on choice, and while 52 percent of middle school students enrolled in the district are low-income, at the time of creating the plan, the percentage of low-income students of individual middle schools in the district ranged from 20 percent to 97 percent. The new plan creates a four-year goal for all schools to fall within 40–75 percent low income enrollment. The district intentionally set a goal with a higher range above the district average (schools can fall up to 23 percentage points above the district average of 52 percent low-income) than below (schools can only fall 12 percentage points below district low-income average). The working group that developed the plan made this decision in order to ensure that two of its middle schools located in a lower-income area, which at the time of creating the plan had 96 percent and 97 percent low-income enrollment, respectively, would have more time to shift enrollment and would not have to undergo much more dramatic changes than other schools which started out closer to the district average.8

Recruiting a Diverse Pool of Applicants

Once diversity goals are in place, the work of recruiting a diverse pool of applicants begins.

Conduct an Equity Audit of School Application Process

In order to identify and address any potential barriers that might limit access based on socioeconomic status, language, disability, or culture, schools should start by examining their current application process with an eye toward equity.9 Questions to ask include:

  • When and where are applications available?
  • How much time and what resources are required to complete the application process?
  • Is the application for the school part of a unified application process, or otherwise aligned with the processes for other choice schools in the district?
  • What supports are there for families that do not speak English?
  • How does a family’s access to technology influence the application process?
  • What information are families required to supply for the application? Are there any questions on the application that could deter particular categories of families, such undocumented or homeless families?
  • Are families required to visit the school in order to apply?
  • Are there parent participation requirements, uniform costs, or other school fees required for enrollment that could pose barriers for low-income families?
  • Does the school participate in the federal free and reduced-price lunch program (or provide a comparable program)?
  • Does the school provide transportation for enrolled students?
  • Are students admitted at all grade levels? That is, does the school “backfill” vacated seats in higher grades?
  • Are there any admissions requirements, such as academic screens, auditions, or application essays, that could limit access based on students’ prior experiences or achievement?

Listen to Family Priorities

Reaching all families requires understanding a community’s diverse needs. Surveying families in the community can help school leaders understand how to address parents’ priorities in the design and marketing of their school.

There are a number of schools that do this well. For example:

  • DSST Public Schools, a network of charter middle and high schools in Denver, Colorado, surveyed more than 2,000 local families across the socioeconomic spectrum to understand what parents were looking for in choosing schools for their children. Working with a local research firm, the network conducted a phone survey, followed by focus groups with parents, some of whose children attended DSST and some whose did not. The results helped the network develop new language to appeal to families of different backgrounds. For example, leaders discovered that emphasizing their schools’ close-knit, supportive community was a more effective recruitment tactic than focusing on their college prep curriculum.
  • Dallas Independent School District used an online survey, available in both English and Spanish, to solicit feedback from parents (both in the district and the surrounding area) to analyze interest in different types of school models and degree of willingness to enroll their children in other schools outside the district. The district then used this information to build a strategy for creating new choice schools that fulfilled some of the parents’ wishes, such as having Advanced Placement coursework and Montessori pedagogy.

Many schools lack the resources to engage in community surveys of this scale, but there are ways to solicit feedback from families on a smaller scale as well. Schools could consider a more informal process of holding group discussions or one-on-one interviews with parents from a variety of different backgrounds; they could also survey the current school community to seek answers to questions such as parents found out about the school, why they chose it, and how the application process was for them.

Spread the Word

With a fair and accessible admissions process in place, choice schools must share information about their school with a wide range of families.

Some of the strategies that successful diverse schools have used include:

  • Enlisting Current Families: City Garden Montessori School in St. Louis, Missouri, holds an annual tradition called “Romp and Stomp,” during which volunteers, including current families, students, and staff, canvass local neighborhoods to spread information about the school and its application process by handing out flyers, yard signs, and door hangers. Blackstone Valley Prep creates information cards for current families to hand out to friends and family.
  • Holding Community Events: Morris Jeff Community School in New Orleans holds an annual outdoor school fair, an annual Children’s Mardi Gras parade led by its middle and high school band, and community fish fries; each are opportunities to share information about the school with new families.
  • Partnering with Local Organizations: Citizens of the World Kansas City partners with Operation Breakthrough, a local nonprofit that provides early childhood education and afterschool care for lower-income families. Operation Breakthrough shares information about the school with local families and helps them navigate the application process. Other schools in the Citizens of the World network have also partnered with Head Start centers, local clinics, churches, the YWCA, and Big Brothers Big Sisters to share information about the school with families. Elsie Whitlow Stokes Community Freedom Public Charter School in Washington, D.C.—which seeks a racially, culturally, and linguistically diverse group of students to enroll in its Spanish and French immersion programs—shares information about the schools with the embassies of French- and Spanish-speaking countries.
  • Advertising Strategically: For schools with adequate budgets, one of the best ways to reach families is to place advertisements in a variety of different formats, such as newspaper ads, direct mailings, yard signs, radio spots, social media advertisements, and bus stop advertisements. DSST Public Schools, for example, runs advertisements on both Spanish-language radio stations and Colorado Public Radio. As part of its effort to attract families from multiple school districts, suburban and urban, to integrated, inter-district magnet schools, Hartford Public Schools uses radio, social media, and television advertisements.10

Monitor Applicant Pool Diversity

Some schools have found it helpful to track the diversity of their applicant pools throughout the recruitment season to make sure that they are reaching families of different backgrounds and allow them to adjust strategies as needed. Citizens of the World, for instance, looks for geographic diversity among applicants by mapping families’ addresses as application forms roll in to ensure that all neighborhoods are represented. When regulations allow, CWC schools also ask parents to provide optional information on free and reduced-price lunch eligibility on their applications, which also allows the school to monitor the socioeconomic diversity of the applicant pool as it builds.

Enrolling a Diverse Student Body

For schools with lottery-based admissions, building a diverse applicant pool lays the foundation for diverse enrollment. But additional enrollment policies and school practices, such as implementing a weighted lottery and instituting programs to encourage admitted families to enroll, can help to ensure that final enrollment is diverse year after year.

Implement a Weighted Lottery

Adding diversity-based preferences to a school’s admissions lottery is a powerful tool for promoting diverse enrollment. Weighted lotteries are especially helpful when diversity of the applicant pool becomes imbalanced in a way that is hard to correct through recruitment alone. For example, if many middle-class families find out about a given school through their social networks, that school may still end up with a lottery pool tilted heavily toward more advantaged families, even if it devotes significant energy to recruiting low-income families.

Additionally, it is important to note that not all weighted lotteries are created equal.11 Successful weighted lotteries have certain characteristics in mind:

  • Diversity goals should be established before creating the lottery mechanism.
  • Lottery procedures should be adaptable. Mechanisms may need to change if they are no longer effective at helping a school reach its diversity goals; additionally, diversity goals themselves should evolve when needed.
  • Algorithms must be coupled with recruitment. Weighted lotteries do not work unless school leaders (1) create attractive schools that entice families of many different backgrounds and (2) ensure they are conducting outreach to a diverse array of families.

Policy Limitations

There are several policy limitations on the use of weighted lotteries that are worth noting. First, schools and districts are limited in the ways in which they can consider students’ race or ethnicity in enrollment. The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 limited the ability to voluntarily consider race in K–12 school integration policies (when districts or schools are not under legal desegregation orders). (However, school districts may still voluntarily adopt race-based integration strategies, using either generalized or individual student data, under certain circumstances.) School districts are generally required first to consider whether workable race-neutral approaches exist for achieving their integration goals.12

Second, charter schools face a number of limitations based on both state charter school laws and federal guidance. Not all states permit weighted lotteries, and admissions procedures for charter schools that receive money through the federal Charter Schools Program are typically limited to weighted lotteries that give “slightly better chances” for admission to educationally disadvantaged students.13

Diversity Factors

A variety of different diversity factors can be used in a weighted lottery. While an individual student’s eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch is the most commonly used factor in socioeconomic integration plans identified by The Century Foundation, there are important (and increasing) limitations to using this as a measure of socioeconomic status.14 Table 1 lists examples of many different factors that have been used in weighted lotteries, including both student-level characteristics (typically determined either by family self-reporting or by matching student information with district records) and neighborhood-level characteristics (typically determined by matching a student’s home address with an analysis of data for that census block). The factors that are available to a particular school to use in their lottery likely depend on local and state policies as well availability of data.

Table 1

Diversity Factors for Weighted Lotteries

Student-Level Characteristics

Neighborhood-Level Characteristics

  • Disability status
  • Eligibility for free or reduced-price lunch
  • Eligibility for TANF, SNAP, and/or Medicaid
  • English language learner status
  • Foster care status
  • Having an incarcerated family member
  • Head Start attendance
  • Home language
  • Household income
  • Parents’ educational attainment
  • Participation in Section 8 or residence in public housing
  • Temporary housing status
  • Adult educational attainment
  • Median family income
  • Percentage of households in which a language besides English is spoken
  • Percentage of minority residents
  • Percentage of owner-occupied homes
  • Percentage of single-parent homes
  • Performance of zoned school

Table 2 lists examples of charter and district schools that use weighted lotteries to promote diversity.15

Table 2

Examples of Schools with Weighted Lotteries



Lottery Policy

Brooklyn Prospect Charter School Charter Network in Brooklyn, NY Preference is given in the elementary and middle schools admissions lotteries for students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch; the weight of the preference is reviewed annually for adjustments needed to achieve a 50–50 distribution of economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students.16
Chicago Magnet Schools Chicago Public Schools, IL After accounting for sibling preference and geographic preference, remaining seats are divided evenly between students from four socioeconomic tiers, which are determined by matching students’ home addresses with an analysis of U.S. Census data on a wide range of factors: median family income, adult educational attainment, percentage of single-family households, percentage of home ownership, percentage of population that speaks a language other than English, and the performance of public schools in that neighborhood.17
Community Roots Charter School Charter School in Brooklyn, NY Lottery reserves 40 percent of seats in the kindergarten admissions lottery to be filled by students living in public housing, students who attend Head Start, and/or students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. (Low-income students not chosen for these reserved seats enter the general lottery.)18
Dallas Transformation Schools Dallas Independent School District, TX Lottery reserves 50 percent of seats for students who are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch and 50 percent of seats for students who are not eligible.19
High Tech High Charter Network in San Diego, CA Lottery is weighted by home zip code, seeking a proportionate distribution of students from across San Diego, including a statistical advantage for students eligible for free or reduced lunch.20

Follow Up with Admitted Families

In many school admissions systems, once students are admitted to a school, their families still have to decide whether they will enroll. While some number of families declining offers or switching to a new school at the last minute is to be expected, it should be noted if there are demographic patterns among the students who decline enrollment and those who end up filling the seats, as such attrition patterns can impact a school’s overall diversity

Also, when possible, schools using weighted lotteries should ensure that diversity factors are considered when admitting students from the waitlist.

Programs designed to engage families after the admissions lottery can also help close these gaps. At Citizens of the World Charter School Mar Vista, for example, enrollment and lottery data showed that low-income students were less likely than their higher-income peers to enroll in the school after being accepted. The school’s principal started a recruitment and engagement program to stay in touch with low-income families after the lottery in the spring and throughout the summer. Some of the school’s current parents began serving as parent ambassadors to answer questions and share information with admitted families. The school offered opportunities to organize play dates among prospective students and created other events for parents to meet each other. The school intentionally held many of these events in the neighborhoods where low-income families lived in order to eliminate transportation barriers and create a welcoming environment.

Additional Resources


Enrolling a diverse group of students lays the foundation for a learning environment with the potential to cultivate the many benefits that racially and economically mixed settings can deliver. Studies have shown that students in socioeconomically and racially diverse schools, regardless of their individual backgrounds, have higher test scores, higher graduation rates, stronger critical thinking skills, reduced racial bias, and increased appetite for diverse settings later in life, on average, than peers in schools with concentrated poverty or racial isolation.21 Achieving integrated enrollment requires a clear vision, careful planning, and ongoing effort. The strategies outlined in this toolkit are designed to help school and district leaders follow this path.

However, at the same time, it is important to keep in mind that enrolling a diverse population is just the beginning of what is needed to create a truly integrated school that meets the needs of all of its students. The other toolkits in this series address some of these challenges, such as creating integrated classrooms and encouraging students to form meaningful relationships across lines of difference.


  1. Priscilla Wohlstetter, Joanna Smith, and Caitlin C. Farrell, Choices and Challenges: Charter School Performance in Perspective (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Education Press, 2013), 126.
  2. Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, A Smarter Charter: Finding What Works for Charter Schools and Public Education (New York: Teachers College Press, 2014), 122; Madeleine F. Green, Minorities on Campus: A Handbook for Enhancing Diversity (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1989), 116; Jacinta S. Ma and Michal Kurlaender, “The Future of Race-Conscious Policies in K–12 Public Schools: Support from Recent Legal Opinions and Social Science Research,” in School Resegregation: Must the South Turn Back? ed. John Charles Boger and Gary Orfield (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 249; John B. McConahay, “Reducing Racial Prejudice in Desegregated Schools,” in Effective School Desegregation: Equity, Quality, and Feasibility, ed. Willis D. Hawley (Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1981), 39; and Kevin G. Welner, “K–12 Race-Conscious Student Assignment Policies: Law, Social Science, and Diversity,” Review of Educational Research 76, no. 3 (2006): 349–82.
  3. See Halley Potter and Kimberly Quick, “A New Wave of School Integration,” The Century Foundation, February 9, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/report/a-new-wave-of-school-integration/; and Halley Potter and Kimberly Quick, “Diverse-by-Design Charter Schools,” The Century Foundation, May 15, 2018, https://tcf.org/content/report/diverse-design-charter-schools/.
  4. Roslyn Arlin Mickelson, “Is There Systematic Meaningful Evidence of School Poverty Thresholds?” The National Coalition on School Diversity, Research Brief 14, September 2018, p. 2, https://school-diversity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/NCSD_Brief14.pdf.
  5. “2019-20 SY Choice School Selection Process Frequently Asked Questions and Answers,” Office of Transformation and Innovation, Dallas Independent School District, https://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001475/Centricity/Domain/14055/19-20%20SY%20Choice%20School%20Selection_Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20and%20Answers.pdf.
  6. Carole Learned-Miller, “Dallas Independent School District: Integration as Innovation,” The Century Foundation, October 14, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/report/dallas-independent-school-district/; and Jennifer Jellison Holme, “Dallas, TX: Dallas ISD, SES Diversity through Specialty (‘Transformation’) Schools,” Center for Education and Civil Rights, Penn State College of Education, https://cecr.ed.psu.edu/sites/default/files/Dallas%20ISD%20-%20SES%20Diversity%20Through%20Specialty%20Schools.pdf.
  7. “Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Carranza Announce District 15 Middle School Diversity Plan and Launch $2M School Diversity Grant Program,” New York City Office of the Mayor, September 20, 2018, https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/478-18/mayor-de-blasio-chancellor-carranza-district-15-middle-school-diversity-plan-and#/0.
  8. “D15 Diversity Plan: Final Report,” D15 Diversity Plan, July 2018, 8–9, http://d15diversityplan.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/180919_D15DiversityPlan_FinalReport.pdf.
  9. See also Nora Kern, “Intentionally Diverse Charter Schools: A Toolkit for Charter School Leaders,” Safal Partners, 2016, https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attachment/NCSRC%20Intentionally%20Diverse%20Charter%20School%20Toolkit.pdf.
  10. Casey Quinlan, “How This Small Office Is Working to Desegregate Hartford Public Schools,” ThinkProgress, October 26, 2015, https://thinkprogress.org/how-this-small-office-is-working-to-desegregate-hartford-public-schools-7f87ff14ee2/?gi=652ee8b5dc59#.excraghcx.
  11. See, for example, Nicole Mader, Abigail Kramer, and Angela Butel, Promising Outcomes, Limited Potential: Diversity in Admissions in New York City Public Schools, The Center for New York City Affairs, 2018, https://www.centernyc.org/promising-outcomes-limited-potential.
  12. For more information on the voluntary consideration of race to promote school diversity, see https://school-diversity.org/postpicsresources/.
  13. Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), Pub. L. No. 114–95 §4303 (2015), https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ95/PLAW-114publ95.pdf.
  14. Individual students’ free and reduced-price lunch eligibility is becoming less available as more schools use the “Community Eligibility Provision” for providing free meals. In 2010, Congress approved a new process to allow whole schools or entire districts to qualify for free meals for all students by meeting a certain number of other criteria based on the percentage of students participating in other public assistance programs. In schools or districts using this option, families no longer have to fill out forms for the federal lunch program, meaning that eligibility for the program is no longer an available marker of individual students’ socioeconomic status or a useful measure of school poverty levels (since schools that might have before had 70 percent of students eligible will now show up as 100 percent eligible). See Will Huntsberry, “True or False? Free and Reduced-Price Lunch = Poor,” nprEd, January 30, 2015, http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2015/01/30/379330001/true-or-false-free-and-reduced-price-lunch-poor; and Joseph Williams, “There’s an Unexpected Downside to more Kids Getting Free Meals at School,” takepart,May 6, 2015, http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/05/06/unexpected-downside-more-kids-getting-free-meals-school.
  15. More examples can be found in Halley Potter, Updated Inventory of Socioeconomic Integration Policies: Fall 2016, The Century Foundation, October 14, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/updated-inventory-socioeconomic-integration-policies-fall-2016/.
  16. “Admissions,” Brooklyn Prospect Charter School, n.d. https://www.brooklynprospect.org/admissions/ (accessed December 14, 2018); and Penny Marzulli, personal communication, December 11, 2018.
  17. Chicago Public Schools, Office of Access and Enrollment, “Magnet Schools – Elementary,” October 4, 2018, https://cps.edu/AccessAndEnrollment/Pages/MagnetSchoolsElementary.aspx.
  18. Community Roots Charter School, “Community Roots Charter School Lottery & Admissions Policies,” n.d., https://1.cdn.edl.io/LY6ljbi3ILoVKsZS4MW0B2Mqc8q1DE68uuUMdJbffWxa085u.pdf.
  19. Office of Transformation and Innovation, “2019-20 SY Choice School Selection Process Frequently Asked Questions and Answers,” Dallas Independent School District, n.d., https://www.dallasisd.org/cms/lib/TX01001475/Centricity/Domain/14055/19-20%20SY%20Choice%20School%20Selection_Frequently%20Asked%20Questions%20and%20Answers.pdf.
  20. Halley Potter, Updated Inventory of Socioeconomic Integration Policies: Fall 2016, The Century Foundation, October 14, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/updated-inventory-socioeconomic-integration-policies-fall-2016/.
  21. See “The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially Diverse Schools,” The Century Foundation, February 10, 2016, https://tcf.org/content/facts/the-benefits-of-socioeconomically-and-racially-integrated-schools-and-classrooms/.