Does Participation in a School Choice Program Impact Student Achievement

and Attendance?

Joseph C. Capezzuto, Ed.D.,Director of Placement

Rochester City School District

Introduction: School Choice

• Definition varies

• U.S. government cites it as an important process

• Original purpose was desegregation

• Original intent has evolved into issues of socio-economic, and student achievement

Introduction: History

• 1896: Plessy v Ferguson: separate but equal

• World War I: Black citizens migrated to industrial North for jobs

• Depression: NAACP/ ACE study• 1954: Brown v Board of Education: separate

inherently unequal• 1964: Civil Rights Act• 1965: Voting Rights Act

Introduction: Choice in Rochester, NY

• 1969: Dr. Herman Goldberg, Superintendent at RCSD – three pronged approach; advent of Urban/Suburban

• 1980’s: Magnet programs and schools

• 1996: Board established School Choice Committee

• Parent Preference Policy adopted in 2003 for Kindergarten Registration

Situation with Kindergarten• Prior to 2004, no coherent strategy for

kindergarten registration

• Kindergarten pupils (five year-olds) just showed up at their neighborhood school

• Problem of “Structural Displacement”

• Late registration: key factor in early school failure

• Choice model has dramatically altered kindergarten enrollment – most enroll by September

Introduction: Rochester’s Choice Plan

• Hotly debated by neighborhood groups

• Offered “boosts” to students whose SES was different from the school they selected

• Gave a neighborhood preference

• Policy to keep siblings together

• Established parent centers for information and registration, rather than schools (initially three)

Introduction: “Libertarian Paternalism”

• Philosophy which provides motivation for school choice

• Organization’s goals

• Parents participate voluntarily

• Parents who participate gain an advantage

• Parents who do not participate suffer a small disadvantage

Introduction: Forms of Choice

• Magnet schools

• Charter schools• Controlled choice - Rochester, and 78% of

schools that use a choice model – in spite of widespread board of educations’ opposition

• Vouchers

Introduction: Other models

• Boston: all schools are desegregating schools of choice and parents rank options. Mixed methods study to determine if schools tried to increase their market share.

• Cambridge reserves seats by SES. Study measured parent participation and change in student demographic profile in schools. They are now moving to a new choice model.

Other models (continued)

• Milwaukee uses vouchers for private schools. Oldest program, many studies. Failed to prove vouchers increase achievement.

• Chicago offers magnet schools with each school holding their own lottery. Several studies: students who participated were more likely to attend and graduate, but not more likely to achieve on tests.

Problem Statement:

• School choice programs originally had desegregation goals.

• School choice programs are usually evaluated to determine if the desegregation goals are met.

• School choice programs are not usually evaluated to see if the children who participated had better attendance or achievement if they used the program to pick a school other than their neighborhood school.

Research questions

• Do Rochester City School District (RCSD) students who started kindergarten in 2005-06, who completed 3rd grade in 2008-09, and whose families chose a school other than their neighborhood school have better attendance than their RCSD counterparts whose families chose their neighborhood schools?

Research question, continued

• Do RCSD students who started kindergarten in 2005-06, who completed 3rd grade in 2008-09, and whose families chose a school other than their neighborhood school have better developmental and academic achievement than their RCSD counterparts whose families chose their neighborhood schools?

Purpose of study

Is the “original” (2004-05) RCSD School Choice “working” for District students?

Method

• Quantitative• Built database from three sources: 1. RCSD Student Placement data2. RCSD testing data (Office of Accountability)3. Parent Appraisal of Child’s Experience (PACE)

questionnaire, compiled by Children’s Institute

• Statistical analysis• Descriptive statistics• Over 200,000 data points total

Database

• Students who participated in School Choice for kindergarten in 2005-06

(Not 04-05 – needed to let the process mature)

• Two groups:

1. “Walkers” who chose a neighborhood school and walk to school

2. “Riders” who chose a school far enough from home that they ride a bus to school

Database included 1,879 students.

• Student ID number• Student’s gender• Student’s socioeconomic status• Student’s race/ ethnicity• Student’s asthma diagnosis or not• COR scores entering kindergarten• Terra Nova scores end of second grade• Students’ attendance in kindergarten

Database: Exclusions

• Special Education students

• Bilingual or English Language Learner students

• Students who did not have a recorded COR or Terra Nova score

Database: Final numbers

• 115 “walkers” who met all criteria

• 217 “riders” who met all criteria

Findings: Gender

Gender Walkers Riders-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p = .147*

Female 32% 68 %

Male 39% 61%

Note, *p < .5

Findings: Socioeconomic status

Lunch status Walkers Riders-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p = .350*

Free 32.5% 67.5%Reduced price 38.7% 61.3%Paid 43.6% 56.4%

Note. *p < .5

Findings: Race and ethnicity

Ethnicity Walkers Riders-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p = .284*

Asian 1.0% 1.0%Black 77.4% 70.1%Hispanic/Latino 12.0% 12.0%Native American .5%White 9.2% 17.1%

Note. *p < .5

Findings: Asthma Diagnosis

Status Walkers Riders-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p = .157*

Did have asthma 12% 18%

Did not have asthma 88% 81%

Note. *p < .5

Findings: Attendance

District attendance goals

Walkers Riders------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-

Not Meeting 33% 27%

Meeting 67% 73%

Description of COR assessment

“Child’s Observation Record”• Entering K• Fine motor skills • Gross motor skills • Cognitive abilities in math and reading • Behavioral and social skills • Normed locally – very robust statistics – high

rates of validity and reliability• Skilled assessor observes and scores

Findings: COR

Test Walkers Riders n m sd n m

sd-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORTot 117 2.64 .66 217 2.56 .07

t p

1.02 ns

Description of Terra Nova test

• Towards end of second grade• Nationally normed • Measures mathematics and reading ability• Paper-and-pencil• Administered in class • Considered an excellent program evaluation tool

(e.g., can be used for studies like this, and the results can be believed.)

Findings: Terra Nova

Test Walkers Riders

n m sd n m sd

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Terra Nova 117 594 32 217 585 34

t p

2.22 .03

Findings: Descriptive

• Walkers and riders are similar demographically and academically at start of K.

• More females ride.• More children with asthma ride.• More students with free/reduced lunch ride.• Riders have better attendance.• Walkers have better test scores in 3rd grade.

Limitations of study

• Choice plan under study never fully implemented

• One cohort of students

• RCSD student body is not balanced with respect to race or ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.

• No data on why parents made their choices

Implications for parents using a school choice plan

• Children do slightly better in school when they go to a neighborhood school.

• Often a poorly performing school offers hidden options, such as free tutoring provided by federal NCLB money.

• A choice of a school away from the neighborhood may compromise parents’ relationship with school.

Implications for schools depending on a choice plan

• Consider a magnet or other high-profile program.

• Parents need before- and after-school care: consider community partnerships, so families are not using long bus rides as child care.

• Recruit from the surrounding neighborhood, based on findings.

Implications for districts considering a choice plan

• Consider recent Supreme Court decision

• Consider literature on academic results of desegregation (like this study)

• Plan for evaluations that include measures of student outcomes.

Additional considerations

• Consider a study of implementation of choice plan and make course corrections

• Re-consider neighborhood and magnet schools, given lack of students to integrate.

• Re-consider how choice money is being spent.

• Build on other RCSD success stories.

Recommendations for future research

• More than one cohort

• Study whether the change in demographic profile as a result of choice affects school achievement overall

• Analysis of full PACE database to seek correlations between achievement and early childhood experiences

Conclusion: School Choice Promises

• The promise: a school choice plan will deliver equal opportunities by providing choice to parents.

• The reality: parents may be using choice for something other than academic opportunity.

• With no big academic advantage to choice, why spend the money?

Thank you to

• Dr. Michael Wischnowski, Chair

• Dr. Katrina Arndt, Committee member

• Dr. Arthur “Sam” Walton, advisor and founder of the program

• Dr. Steve Million, the other founder of the program

• Friends and family, especially Megan and Christopher