When Francis Pearman was studying at Vanderbilt,he and a fellow graduate student noticed a striking phenomenon in Nashville White,affluent families were moving into low-income neighborhoods without sending their children to the neighborhood schools We were really curious to see what that relationship looked like at the national level,said Pearman,now a professor at the University of Pitts burgh When he and that student,Walker Swain,looked at national data,a pattern emerged.The ability to opt out of the neighborhood school increased the likelihood that a mostly black or Hispanic neighbor hood would see an influx of wealthier residents."As school choice expands,the likelihood that low-in-come communities of color experience gentrification increases.”Pearman said To choice advocates,this separation of avilable school options from segregated housing systems is a key feature To critics like Shedd,it raises tough questions about whether those newcomers help or harm a community.What is a neighborhood without a school?she asks."What is a school without a neighborhood?”Pearman and Swain's national study,published in the peer-reviewed journal Sociology of Education,looked at four different types of school-choice programs:magnet schools,charter schools,private school vouchers,and open enrollment across school districts When school choices are limited,poor communities with more white people are the ones more likely to gentrify.When there are more school-choice options,though,it's the neighborhoods with more people of color that are most likely to gentrify.The effects were substantial A predominantly non-white neighborhoods chance of gentrification more than doubles,jumping from 18 percent to 40 percent when magnet and charter schools are available.The study found no impact of the open-enrollment initiatives that allow students to cross school-district lines to attend school.Voucher programs,perhaps the most divisive of the school-choice options,had mixed effects The researchers note that they didn’t examine gentrifiers'aversion to neighborhood schools,which could be based on accurate perceptions of school quality or misguided,racially biased assumptions The Charlotte study examines a similar phenomenon in one district in the early 2000s.Rules under the federal No child left behind law meant that that when schools failed to meet certain progress bench marks two years in a row,students in the schools attendance zone received priority to attend other popular schools in the district.This made those areas attractive to families looking to get into favored schools and therefore primed for gentrification The researchers--Stephen Billings,Eric Brunner,and Stephen Ross-found that the policy led to increases in housing prices and meant homes were bought by higher-income families,compared to near Dy areas where schools were not deemed failing The same school-choice programs that maintain or exacerbate school segregation can encourage residential integration.That could be a real positive,as there is evidence that growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods can hurt kids.But what do these changes mean for existing schools,students,and residents?Neither paper offers answers to how the newcomers affect those communities

Which of the following could be inferred from Paragraph 5?

• A.The gentrification is closely connected with the number of wealthy families
• B.Wider school choices enable communities with more white people to gentrify easily
• C.Magnet and charter schools facilitate the non-white community gentrification
• D.Open enrollment schools have mixed effects on the poor community gentrification