Does Participation in a School Choice Program Impact Student Achievement and Attendance?

1. Does Participation in a School Choice Program Impact Student Achievement and Attendance? Joseph C. Capezzuto, Ed.D., Director of Placement Rochester City School District

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. Purpose of study Is the “original” (2004-05) RCSD School Choice “working” for District students?

15. Method • Quantitative • Built database from three sources: • RCSD Student Placement data • 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

16. Database • Students who participated in School Choice for kindergarten in 2005-06 (Not 04-05 – needed to let the process mature) • Two groups: • “Walkers” who chose a neighborhood school and walk to school • “Riders” who chose a school far enough from home that they ride a bus to school

17. 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

18. Database: Exclusions • Special Education students • Bilingual or English Language Learner students • Students who did not have a recorded COR or Terra Nova score

19. Database: Final numbers • 115 “walkers” who met all criteria • 217 “riders” who met all criteria

20. Findings: Gender Gender Walkers Riders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- p = .147* Female 32% 68 % Male 39% 61% Note, *p < .5

21. 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

22. 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

23. Findings: Asthma Diagnosis Status Walkers Riders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- p = .157* Did have asthma 12% 18% Did not have asthma 88% 81% Note. *p < .5

24. Findings: Attendance District attendance goals Walkers Riders ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not Meeting 33% 27% Meeting 67% 73%

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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.)

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. 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

36. 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?

37. 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