Upload
judith-arnold
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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