School choice crucible: A case study of Boulder Valley

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 83, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 137-146

  Howe, Kenneth ^a,b   Eisenhart, Margaret ^a,b   Betebenner, Damian ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^b Public Interest Center   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0042279715     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170108300209     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Arizona, for instance, the state with the largest charter school movement by far, has a mere 4% of its students enrolled in charter schools. See The State of Charter Schools 2000, Fourth-Year Report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 2000), available at http://www. ed.gov/pubs/charter4thyear/.
2. But see Casey P. Cobb and Gene V Glass, "Ethnic Segregation in Arizona Charter Schools," Educational Policy Analysis Archives, January 1999, available at http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n1.
3. We were unable to investigate skimming in the elementary schools because we had no entering test data (the vast majority of open enrollment in elementary schools occurs at kindergarten). In the case of high schools, we lacked comparable test data. Also, because most high schools are relatively large, open-enrolled students constitute a relatively small proportion of the population, and, because we were limited to school-level data, we could not tease out the special programs (or "tracks") into which they enroll.
4. This discussion is based on scores on reading tests, but the results were the same for writing.
5. This analysis excluded high schools for considerations similar to those discussed in note 3. The total number of elementary, middle, and K-8 schools fluctuated because of the opening of new schools and the closing or consolidation of others. There were 39 in 1994, 40 in 1995, 44 in 1996, 45 in 1997, 45 in 1998, 46 in 1999, and 47 in 2000.
6. Edward Fiske and Helen Ladd, When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2000).
7. Kenneth Howe and Margaret Eisenhart, "A Study of the Boulder Valley School District's Open Enrollment System," available at http:// education.colorado.edu/EPIC (then click on the "Research and Publications" link).
8. Boulder Valley School District, "October Count," November 2000.
9. The 1998-99 Colorado Charter Schools Evaluation (Denver: Colorado Department of Education, 2000), available at http://www.cde.state.co. us/cdechart/download/ch99eall.pdf.
10. This kind of motivation has been documented in New Zealand. One official remarked, "Choice is like a neurosis . . . parents are motivated by fear. They feel that they have to look around to make sure they will not destroy their children's futures" (Fiske and Ladd, p. 183).
11. Howe and Eisenhart, op. cit.
12. This requirement is set forth on the district's website: http://www. bvsd.k12.co.us/eduprograms/bv_openenroll.html#special (accessed on 4 February 2001).
13. An analysis of the practice of steering special education students away from choice schools is developed more fully in Kevin Welner and Kenneth Howe, "Steering Toward Separation: The Evidence and Implications of Special Education Students' Exclusion from Choice Schools," in Janelle Scott, ed., School Choice and Diversity (New York: Teachers College Press, forthcoming).
14. A controversial school consolidation involving five elementary schools was carried out for the 2000-01 school year. One school with a high percentage of special education students and two schools with ESL programs, high percentages of students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunches, and high percentages of minority students were consolidated into one building and given a new name. The remaining two schools were focus schools with relatively few at-risk students. Each had previously shared a building with one of the three schools that was closed, and both moved into one of the buildings that had become available. Each retained its previous name, curriculum, student body, and separate identity.
15. Hugh Lauder and David Hughs, Trading in Futures: Why Markets in Education Don't Work (Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1999).
16. See, for example, Martin Carnoy, "School Choice? Or Is It Privatization?," Educational Researcher, October 2000, pp. 15-20.
17. See also the recent exchange in Education Week between Alex Molnar and Charles Achilles, "Voucher and Class-Size Reduction Research," 25 October 2000, p. 64;
18. and William Howell et al., "In Defense of Our Voucher Research," 7 February 2001, pp. 52, 32-33.
19. As researchers have moved beyond large-scale surveys (e.g., The State of Charter Schools 2000) to more fine-grained analyses of individual states, the stratification by race, income, and special needs and the lack of innovation are being increasingly documented.
20. See, for example, Amy Stuart Wells, Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts (Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles, 1998);
21. David Arsen, David Plank, and Gary Sykes, School Choice Policies in Michigan: The Rules Matter (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 2000);
22. Kenneth Howe and Kevin Welner, "The School Choice Movement: Déjà Vu for Children with Disabilities?," Journal of Remedial and Special Education, in press;
23. and Cobb and Glass, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, op. cit.
24. The market rationale also won out in New Zealand. See Fiske and Ladd, Journal of Remedial and Special Education, op. cit.
25. In this vein, the Boulder Valley School District has taken the step of centralizing open enrollment to help mitigate the inequities. Moreover, fund raising is ongoing, and the district is considering the provision of free transportation and changes in funding.