Holly Yettick is a doctoral student in the Educational Foundations, Policy and Practice program at the School of Education at the University of Colorado in Boulder.

Most of Colorado’s open enrollment students are transferring from school districts with high test scores to districts with even higher scores. This is one of several interesting findings reported in a new study by political scientists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Deven Carlson, Lesley Lavery and John F. Witte examined open enrollment in Colorado and Minnesota by analyzing data from the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years. Their test-score related findings are consistent with research conducted over the past 20 years, which suggest that districts with high test scores attract more open enrollers. What’s new and different about this study (published in the peer-reviewed journal, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis) is that researchers more closely examined the characteristics of the students’ home districts in two different states.

Also new: Using Geographic Information System software, researchers found that distance matters: Students in both states are more likely to transfer to districts closer to home. (The researchers state that “Virtual schools are undoubtedly an important topic of study, but are beyond the scope of this analysis.”)

Other results were mixed. Students in both states were less likely to leave high-spending districts. However, transfer students tended to move to districts that spent slightly less. Past studies suggest students are more likely to transfer to higher-spending districts but that test scores may be more strongly associated with student transfers. In Colorado, size also mattered: Students tended to transfer from smaller to bigger districts.

Past research indicates that demographics also play an important role. This can increase segregation because students tend to leave districts with higher percentages of low-income students and minorities.

The Wisconsin authors concluded that demographics were not a primary force driving interdistrict open enrollment:

“Any increase in segregation stemming from open enrollment is likely attributable to a desire by parents to increase the academic opportunities available to their children.”

However, they did find that “open enrollment may be causing greater segregation among social classes and racial groups in Colorado, but there is less evidence of such effects in Minnesota.”

This is consistent with the results of a 2009 study of the Denver metropolitan area published in the peer-reviewed Peabody Journal of Education. In that study, which actually uses more recent data from 2006-07, University of Texas researchers Jennifer Jennifer Jellison Holme and Meredith P. Richards found that “higher income students were far more likely to take advantage of interdistrict choice and to transfer to higher income school districts.” Additionally: “ On the whole, White students were more likely to transfer out of racially diverse districts into districts with higher proportions of White students.”

The impact of open enrollment is significant and growing because open enrollment is the most common form of choice in our country and our state. According to EdNews, 66,296 Colorado students  (8 percent of all students) open enrolled this school year. The pool of open enrollers is now larger than all but two Colorado school districts.

The authors of the Wisconsin and Texas studies suggest several policy implications. The authors of both studies found that the most disadvantaged students were less likely to benefit from open enrollment in Colorado. Further, the Wisconsin authors noted that districts with low test scores were losing per-pupil funding as students transferred out, which potentially contributed to a downward spiral in which these districts would increasingly lack the resources needed to improve.

Popularity: 26% [?]

This post was submitted by Cindy Barnard, a Douglas County school parent and taxpayer

Public education is a cornerstone of our nation’s democracy and strength. The Douglas County Board of Education is considering the implementation of a “Scholarship Program” that will subsidize up to 500 students currently enrolled in Douglas County public schools to attend a private religious or non-religious school. State and local public school tax dollars will be handed to the students’ parents to use as vouchers.

I keep asking the same questions of the program: For what purpose…For whom… At what cost?

Douglas County School District receives the lowest per pupil funding in the state and continues to outpace performance in state assessments as well as in college entrance exams. Success is accomplished through a vast array of choice programming: Neighborhood schools, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programming, charter, magnet, online, alternative, contract, and home school partnerships.

Because these programs run on public education tax dollars, each is designed to meet state testing standards. The programs provide equity and accessibility for all students and employ teachers who meet specific certification requirements.  Private schools do not share the same accountability and reporting requirements that our public schools do.  There is no public accountability for private schools, whether it’s the students they serve, who they employ, or the educational standards they must achieve and there is no accountability for spending tax dollars.

Yet the Douglas County school board is proposing that a “scholarship program” for students attending private schools is in the best interest of the district because the program offers “choice.”

The four newest board members (who ran as Republicans) have stated that they campaigned on a platform in support of choice and the electorate (traditionally Republican) elected them.  (I am, by the way, a registered Republican.)  Recently, when asked how many Douglas County families have called in to say they want a voucher, the answer was, “one student.”  Is this a program developed to actually improve education for all Douglas County kids, or is it an unnecessary, politically driven agenda?

The “scholarship” program, as the Board of Education is now calling it, would educate a chosen few.  The annual scholarship of $4,575 will not, in most cases, cover the cost of tuition, books and fees for a private school education.  Only families with adequate financial resources to afford the remainder of the costs will be able to use the “scholarships.”

A board member told me that the inequity of the program was not an issue because our schools are good. The proposed voucher program will create an elite two-tier education system without improving opportunities or performance for all.  Public tax dollars absolutely should not be a scholarship fund for a chosen few to attend private school.

The State of Colorado is about to experience the largest cut in funding to K-12 education in history. Douglas County’s share of the cut is forecast to be $30 million, approximately $500/student. The prudent financial management of past Douglas County school board managed to maintain a top bond rating. The district’s capital reserves are currently within legal limits, but at the lowest level they have ever been.  If the district needs to dip further into the reserves, it will likely have a detrimental effect on our bond rating, increasing the district’s capital and operational expenses—all at a pivotal budgetary time.

In the challenging economic times of the previous four years Douglas County School District’s budget has been slashed by $100 million. These cuts have lead to:

• a decrease in graduation requirement
• an increase in class size (my son’s AP Calculus class has 38 students)
• programming cuts
• increased activity fees
• a decrease in bus routes
• a fee to ride a school bus
• major cuts in teaching and classified staff positions
• and administration and counselor position reductions at district schools.

The district simply cannot afford the financial burden of an unproven scholarship program that will benefit a chosen few.

District staff acknowledges that the pilot program’s structure is built on assumptions and the financial and performance “details” will become known after the first year (or years) of the program. (If implemented the pilot program will divert 2.6 million public school tax dollars out of the Douglas County school system.)

Board members espouse that the program will be a financial success, reducing the number of students served by the district, but maintaining a portion of the funding attributed to the students who make the “choice” for a private school.  I suggest that the program will do the opposite.  It will add more administrative burden, diminish the financial resources for all public schools, and ultimately deal a lasting blow to the quality, efficiency, and accessibility that has been the admirable legacy of the Douglas County School District.

A program built on unsupported assumptions, coupled with the district’s low capital reserves simply creates too much risk for the long-term success for our district’s kids. For the Douglas County Board of Education to knowingly institute a program that has the potential to damage the quality, equity, and efficiency of our public schools is irresponsible.

I continue to ask: For what purpose…For whom… At what cost?  The board needs to drop this political agenda and fully focus on their charge as leaders:  Responsible stewardship for a great, endeared, successful school district in tough financial times.  It’s about the kids.  They are all our future!

Popularity: 27% [?]

Karin Piper is an author, speaker and education advocate

“Something of a public school paradise.” That is how the Los Angeles Times recently described the Douglas County School District (DCSD). So what merits this title of academic bliss?

Well, Douglas County is largely a suburban community between Denver and Colorado Springs and what research-type folks like to call largely homogeneous. Douglas County schools have roughly 60,000 children enrolled, the dropout rate is merely 1.3 percent, 89.1 percent of its students graduate and just  10.9 percent of the enrolled students receive free and reduced lunch.

Each year 15,000 Douglas County parents and community members contribute more than a half a million hours of volunteer service, and recent survey results show a satisfaction rating of more than 90 percent.

Perhaps it is this active and engaged role in our kids’ schools that also has created a highly informed parent community. Parents start “shopping” for schools very early, sometimes as part of a planned pregnancy. After all, schools aren’t just schools to involved parents; schools are selected based on fit for both student and family philosophy.

As a cultural result, this public Garden of Edu-n has a thriving flora of quality schooling options. There are online schools, charters, magnets, and naturally the traditional neighborhood schools. If you are wondering what makes each of these schools unique and attractive to the astute school shopping families, keep a keen eye on the Douglas County website www.dcsdk12.org. Over the next few weeks, Douglas County is going to reveal an online presence that will knock choosy parents’ socks off.

Just as in any other district in the United States, Dougco families can also opt to send their children to private schools. Or can they?

You see, many families in areas like Douglas County do have the option of private education, because they can afford it. To others, this is not a financial possibility. Remember 10.9 percent of Douglas County’s students receive a free or reduced lunch. Many other families fall somewhere in between. There are plenty of families in Douglas County who do not qualify for financial aid for private schools, but cannot afford adding tuition costs to their budget.

This would make non-public academic options for some, well, the forbidden fruit.

It also raises the question about kids whom the current schools could not serve well. Even in an overall high-performing district, being everything to everyone is still impossible. What about the 1.3 percent that dropped out? Or the 10.1 percent that did not graduate? These statistics do not represent numbers, but real children with beating pulses, names and futures. Could an additional type of education provider have made a difference? How will we know without actually offering it?

That’s what the elected Douglas County Board of Education would like to do.

In response to public demand for choice, and based on task force recommendations, the board voted in December to accept a proposal to make non-public education available to public school families through exercising local control. Parents, the board had said, should be given the power to choose where their kids go to school and should have as many options as possible. The program would allow parents to spend a portion of their children’s per pupil revenue toward tuition costs at a participating private school.

Since then the DCSD staff has been working hard on creating a program which is viable within this space and current laws. That is both an arduous and sizable task.

There is pressure on staff and education leaders from all sides. Some are hopeful for a design that has so little accountability that it is unlikely to be created under current laws. Others won’t like it even if it was dipped in chocolate. And it sort of is.

In a perfect scholarship world per-pupil revenue ought to follow the student all the way. In the current Dougco scholarship program only 75 percent would follow the child. The remaining 25 percent would stay in the district to pay for overhead costs and a “contingency fund,” to alleviate any financial burden if “too many students from one public school would leave.” How many kids are we really talking here? The 2011-12 pilot program is suggested to permit up to 500 kids to sample this new concept. To clarify, that is 500 children in a district of 60,000, or less than 1 percent. According to the district financial staff, the pilot program at capacity would net the school district $400,000.

Personally I am a supporter of this program, but not due to possible revenue gains or political reasons. As a matter of fact, if you thought I was a political zealot you may just as well put away your label-gun now. I can guarantee that you have me all wrong, regardless of which brand you had in mind.

No, I am just a mom and my motives are very simple: The Douglas County Scholarship Program will make private schools a possibility for more families who seek it.

Is it perfection? Nope. Until all children truly have equal access to a free education regardless of schooling type, it won’t be. But take it from someone who gets giddy over a coupon for free coffee or 10 cents off my gap, a $4,000 discount will make a significant difference for many, many families. And hopefully this creative approach to bridging public and private education will invite investors with the purpose of providing additional support for the neediest families.

Are private schools better than Douglas County public schools? That depends on whom you ask. I can sit here and regurgitate data all day long, but in the end who gets to decide if one is better serving a child or not? The parent.

Until the day that we have found the magic bullet of education, even the best schools—regardless of type–will continue to see drop-out rates, lack-of graduation, or dissatisfaction for one reason or another. Better from an educrat’s standpoint isn’t always better in the eyes of a parent.

Why should this be done in a high performing district? Why not? Wouldn’t we want districts that already do well for the majority of kids to try innovative ideas and lead? It would be great if this program had already been introduced by districts where needy children are stuck in failing schools. But haven’t we waited long enough for those leaders to take action? Certainly another district being first out of the gate won’t stop those districts for developing such programs too, if it so behooves them.

Do public education dollars belong to the district or the student? We can argue this until pigs fly, so here is the argument from me, the parent. To be brief: It is called per pupil revenue. That implies the education dollar belongs to the pupil, in translation, the child. The child definitely belongs to the parent. Not your neighbors. Not the neighbor’s grandpa. And in most cases, our kids are not wards of the state. Therefore, the parent decides where the student goes to school and the funds come along.

Will the scholarship program cause DCSD to lose families to private schools? They already do.

Would parents take their kids out of DCSD neighborhood schools because the cost went down? I find that doubtful. Remember that Dougco parents are savvy shoppers and know what they want. If they are happy with their children’s school, as 90 percent said they are, then they are going nowhere.

What would make parents enthusiastic about staying in their current schools? I am so glad you (hypothetically) asked! The Douglas County School Choice Plan is packed with exciting programs. The scholarship program is only a fraction of it. Again, I strongly encourage you to visit Douglas County’s website and often over the next few weeks. You don’t want to miss Education Paradise 2.0.

Popularity: 32% [?]

Editor’s note: On Tuesday we will be publishing a point-counterpoint by two parents on opposite sides of the Douglas County “Option Certificates” (or vouchers) proposal. The piece below was submitted to Education News Colorado by Justin D. Williams, a member of the Douglas County Board of Education.

Answers to the eight common opposition comments to Douglas County Scholarships:

1)  Issue: You can’t use taxpayer dollars for private schools.

Response: It’s being done in 17 states currently at the K-12 level. The courts have ruled that the money goes to the families and the families decide where to send their child. It would be illegal to require a student to attend a private school. Also, our taxpayer dollars are currently going to BYU, Notre Dame, Gonzaga and most other accredited, religious-based universities via Pell Grants and the GI Bill. Those are tax dollars going to educate a student at a religious-based school. Also, we use taxpayer dollars at religious hospitals. We do this every day on many different levels.

2)   Issue: Our school district has cut $100 million out of its budget over the last four years. We have to pay to have our kids ride the bus. We can’t take money out of our budget and give to rich, private-school kids.

Douglas County school board member Justin Williams listens during a break at a recent community meeting on choice.

Response: First of all, all private-school kids are not rich. And our proposed program is going to keep 75 percent of the money from the state ($6,100) and give it to the family for their choosing. The district keeps 25 percent. At 500 kids in the program, we make $400,000. That’s $400,000 that we don’t have now. This is NET NEW money. It will reduce cutbacks.

3)   Issue: The BOE is spending too much time on this and not focusing on an election.

Response: We have to form a product if we are going to go out for an election. We spend most of our time on the “meat and potatoes” of education.

4)   Issue: This is just rich, white Republicans trying to fund their religious schools.

Response: No, these are taxpayers who have a right to send their kids, and their tax allocation, to the school of their choice. It’s fair. Some are Republicans, some are white, some are neither. It’s not about race or being on one side or the other. It’s about being fair.

5)   Issue: What happens if 500 kids all leave from one school? (As hypothetical as this is, many demand an answer to this question)

Response: It is unlikely that they would all leave from one school. But if they did, we would really examine what’s going wrong at that school. But we would use some of the PROFIT from this program to provide subsidies to those schools that lose too many kids.

6)   Issue: By counting new students, you are making the pie smaller at the capital, thus taking money out of the educational fund.

Response: We are growing by over 1,300 students per year. This program will only have 500 students for the fall. We are still growing and receiving a net-new amount of students. In addition to that, Douglas County is a net-payer into the state. Other counties/school districts are net-receivers from the system. I’m okay with school districts like DPS getting more money. But how much is too much? We have reached that point. We finally had the money to put in a WAN this year. That’s about eight years later than it should have been.

7)   Issue: 93 percent of our families are happy. That’s a great percentage. Why are we focusing all of our time on this small  percentage?

Response: I have spent 100 percent of my time on the “core” students up until now. If you add up all of the time I have spent on this issue, it won’t add up to 7 percent of my time. And isn’t it about time we address these families/students who want something different? We can speculate why families want a different option. But you can’t deny that there is a demand for something different. We are just trying to meet that demand.

8)   Issue: What happens if it fails? Where’s the data that shows that it will work? We need to see hard data to see that it will work. We also demand that the district take a poll to see if this is what they want.

Response: We don’t have data that will show it will work. We also don’t have data that show it won’t. How could we get data for this? This country (and every company) has been started with a risk. This has a risk, but it is a mitigated one. And we are not going to poll. We just had an election a while ago and the county voted in favor of three new board members that were very clear on their intentions.

Most other objections are variations of these eight. Just one other thing: Please don’t think that I am anti-teacher. It is a poor conclusion. I don’t believe you will feel that way after we get this completed.

Popularity: 34% [?]

Cross-posted from the Failing Schools blog

Like thousands of observers around the country, I was outraged over the decision in the case of Kelley Williams-Bolar this week. Williams-Bolar is single mother from Akron, Ohio who was charged and convicted as a felon for lying about her daughters’ residency status in order to send them to the highly-regarded Copley-Fairlawn schools. As a result of the conviction, her future as a teacher is in jeopardy, and she faces possible eviction from the public housing project where she and her daughters live. Her father, whose Copley address she used to unlawfully gain access to the Copley-Fairlawn school district, also faces charges of grand theft for his role in the affair.

Though I don’t condone lying, I agree with those who believe her punishment was excessive and thatshe should be pardoned. More importantly, this woman should never have been put in the position of having to commit a felony in order to secure a decent education for her children.

It should be our goal as a nation to ensure that every school, in every neighborhood, is a high-quality school. As I’ve said before, parents should not have to “move, or pay extra money, or have to struggle to ensure that their child gets a quality education.” And they certainly shouldn’t have to risk their livelihoods, the roof over their heads, or incarceration to ensure that their children are safe and well-served at school. But as this case makes clear, as we work toward improvement in all schools, there is a pressing need for real choices for families who cannot afford to move or pay private school tuition.

The last time I wrote about school choice, I tried to clarify some disingenuous speech around the issue. Though I am a supporter of school choice, I do not support the way the idea of “choice” has been used to cover actions that actually take choices away from some families and communities. Instead, I believe a true movement toward school choice for all families should:

• extend to greater parental input in school-based decision-making. Families’ agency in the schooling process shouldn’t begin and end with the act of choosing a school. After all, while “voting with one’s feet” should always be an option, it can’t be the only way to resolve problems. It’s disruptive to children’s educations, and it’s not always possible (especially for those who live in an area without many high-quality choices, or who live in more remote places). I’ve heard stories ofpublic and charter schools with abysmal practices regarding parental input; that needs to change.
• be part of a movement to improve all schools, not a way to get around that responsibility. Current school choice schemes in low-income communities essentially give a few kids the chance to escape under-funded, low-performing schools, without improving the overall system to which the remaining children are still consigned. Given that private schools aren’t required to accept anyone, and that charter schools aren’t reliably better than traditional neighborhoods, choice alone will never create great schooling experiences for all children. (And it’s cruel to continually repeat that “public schools should compete for their students” without giving them the resources they need to do so. That’s not an improvement strategy; that’s a cop-out.) But choice, combined with efforts to ensure an equitable distribution of resources among all schools, can, by allowing students and families to choose (or have input into creating) schools that suit their learning needs and desires.
• be multi-dimensional. When we discuss public school choice, especially for parents in low-income communities or communities of color, the conversation focuses primarily on just two elements of school quality: achievement (primarily performance on state tests) and safety. More affluent families get to decide among schools with different philosophies and foci (“Montessori, Reggio Emilia, integrated/theme-based, or traditional?”). Meanwhile, in less affluent communities, it’s often the case that “choice” for these families is between a traditional school that feels like a prison, or a charter school that feels like boot camp. (And in both kinds of schools, instruction is often too focused on test preparation.) Parents in all communities deserve to have more information than just dry statistics, and they deserve more choices than this. Why not create school reporting systems that highlight different schools’ strengths and specialties, instead of just ranking them based on their scores? A holistic appraisal of schools would not only be more helpful to schools trying to improve their performance, but the information could also be used to allow families to make a truly informed choice about which school is best for their kids.

Rather than criminalizing parents who use the only means they can to access quality schooling options, we should be thinking about why someone would find it necessary to take such a drastic action in the first place– and taking action to make it unnecessary. We should also be working to make sure that all families can choose for positive reasons, among different positive options– “Will this school help my budding artist? Will they sustain and nurture her creativity?”– instead of seeing school choice as an escape valve.

Popularity: 16% [?]