I should start by saying I'm referring to large urban school districts here. One of their hallmarks is that a minority of the residents of the district have ever used them.
Take Chicago, the example I know best. If you look at census data for Chicago you get a different demographic pattern than you do if you look at CPS data.
e.g. Chicago census 2010 demographics:
White 45%
Black 32.9%
Latino 28.9%
Asian: 5.5%
Mixed 2.7%
Native .5%
Chicago Public School demographics:
African American 41.6%
Latino 44.1%
White 8.8%
Asian Pacific Islander 3.4%
Native .4%
Poverty from the 2010 census:
20.9% are defined by the census as living in poverty.
Poverty CPS:
87% from low income households.
Note these two stats may be disparate for reasons having to do with what is being calculated and what methodology is used. CPS uses free/reduced lunch qualification which includes those at 130% (free) up to 185% (reduced) of the poverty level.
Now there are differences in ages, percent with children etc. that will explain some of these statistics, but not nearly enough.
And this causes disengagement problems:
more after the squiggle
For instance, when a minority of the citizens feels any engagement at all with the public schools, do they care when there's a strike? Do they care who's on their Local School Council? Are they motivated to make sure funding is equitable?
One of the oddities you'll see when you look further at the data is that whites, that are only 8.8% of CPS students, makes up a sizeable minority of Selective Enrollment school students. This is really not a mystery. It's understood that students will take the exams and if they get in great, if not then a private high school will be selected or the family will move, this is true for all demographics that can afford it. With real estate prices where they are right now, I'm not surprised the Archdiocese has had an increase in enrollment.
So what to do to increase engagement? I have an idea. It's loosely based on the http://www.donorschoose.org/ Donors choose charity where donors can view a list of projects being done by teachers and choose which one to which to donate.
So here's the plan. Raise the school tax by $200 per family per year, but, and this is crucial, have the families themselves choose which school the money should go to. Have a web site with a list of schools and what they're doing that is deserving of the money. Have open houses at the schools where prospective donors can visit and see what the school is like and have an opportunity to speak with the faculty. Have the LSC speak with prospective donors.
This gives the folks completely unengaged with the public school skin in the game. If it got just 20% of the population who don't currently have students in the schools engaged, I think it would be excellent and system changing.
And I don't think (and I could be wrong) that it would be class privilege reinforcing because, with Donors choose, for instance, one can select schools that are the neediest and I think a school serving poor students who is doing great things with them would be quite popular.