Summaries for Keeping School Choices Traditional (Return to the Topic Agenda)

Magnet Schools

To facilitate public school desegregation, many states and school districts have created magnet schools, which provide specialized curriculums and instructional approaches to attract students from a variety of neighborhoods in a metropolitan area.

* Have magnet schools facilitated the desegregation of public schools?
* What are the achievement levels of students who attend magnet schools as compared to students at non-magnet schools?
* Should policymakers continue to focus magnet schools on desegregation efforts or should they focus them on a different role in the public education system?

This discussion on magnet schools raised questions about the consequences of magnet schools vs. the intentions, and how these consequences have shifted not only the perception but also the reality of what magnet schools are about. One participant made the point right off that many magnet schools, even though publicly funded, are not truly public as they require admission tests and thus do not admit all students, a comment that generated discussion from other participants.



One of the expert panelists responded that while magnets should not be selective, they should be of high quality and should provide what they say they provide. Indeed, all schools in a district should be carefully evaluated on how well standards are maintained and objectives are achieved. Magnet schools should be one part of the array of school choices open to the public. And these choices should accommodate a variety of learning styles and preferences, and have adequate input from the community they serve.



An offshoot of this discussion led one participant to argue in favor of Thomas Jefferson's concept of meritocracy in public schools, educating the "best subjects" at public expense. Jefferson's ideas around public education "served an America that was a melting pot," and this participant urged public education be continued under that premise or face the "balkanization" occurring in some regions of the country. Magnet schools in some districts already serve specific ethnic groups or other specialized populations of students, he said. One of the panelists, however, questioned the prevalence of charter schools catering to racial or cultural preferences. This is a perception, he noted, but asked if there really is evidence to support it.



Many participants weighed in on whether or not magnet schools have facilitated desegregation. Some pointed out that the opposite, in fact, has happened in some districts. While magnet schools may keep white and middle-class families from fleeing an urban district, many operate in isolation from the rest of the district and have little interaction with the neighborhood in which they are located. Magnets within schools are even segregated from the rest of the school, said another participant. One panelist questioned whether it's time to consider other options, especially in urban areas.



One participant related her own personal experience as a student of a magnet school in California. She was offered an opportunity to attend a magnet school to escape the violence, low achievement and "burned-out" faculty of her regular school, but creation of the magnet also created a gulf and resentment between the two student bodies. She concluded that magnets do not truly address the problems and challenges of urban schools, but rather perpetuate "the stereotypes of race, class and learning."



A participant from Delaware added how magnet schools, as well as charter schools, are viewed as segregating students in that state. More than 20% of the state's students attend private schools, and as the magnet schools and charter schools tend to attract high-achieving students, this leaves lower-achieving students in the overcrowded, traditional schools. By contrast, a participant in New Mexico described how the magnet schools there, located in densely populated minority neighborhoods, offer a diverse selection of choices in program design for serving both minority and non-minority populations, thereby strengthening the concept of choice.



Another participant pointed to Connecticut as having made a "major step forward" by providing state funding initiatives for both per-capita funding and facilities, resulting in suburban students attending inner-city schools in minority school districts. He suggested these and other successful magnet schools be examined to determine the cause(s) for success and held up as models not only for desegregated education but for education in general.



Several participants weighed in on the issue of charter schools vs. magnet schools. One said school districts might want to sponsor their own magnet schools based on successful charter school models to reach more students.

Open Enrollment

To one degree or another, open-enrollment policies allow a student to transfer to the public school of his or her choice. There are two basic types of open-enrollment policies in place across the country – intradistrict and interdistrict. Intradistrict policies allow a student to transfer to another school within his or her school district. Interdistrict policies allow a student to transfer to a school outside his or her home district.

* How effective are open enrollment policies in facilitating the transfer of students to different schools within and outside their home school district?
* A major consequence of inter-district choice in several states has been increasingly intense competition among districts as they strive to attract students and the revenues they bring. What are the benefits of such competition? What are the costs?
* How should open enrollment policies address the transportation of students from their home to their chosen school, particularly if the new school is in a different district?
* How should open enrollment policies address the funding of students who choose a school different than their assigned school, particularly if the new school is in a different district?

The panelists began a robust discussion around how competition plays out in both urban and rural districts and whether open enrollment does, in fact, promote and make choice possible. More than once, participants referred to the presentation that framed this discussion and the three essential components for open enrollment: (1) freedom for families to move (choices), (2) creation of new options and (3) support for turning around the "left-behind" schools.



In many states, urban districts do not fare well with open enrollment policies, as they lose thousands of students - and state dollars - to suburban districts, panelists and participants noted. And the increasing number of poor and special needs students in urban districts makes their challenges all the more daunting. While high-achieving urban schools do exist, of course, one panelist argued that urban systems do not strategically or systemically change what they do, so their problems continue. Open enrollment policies as well as No Child Left Behind provisions allow urban students in low-performing schools to choose to attend a different school. That choice, however, is often meaningless when it is limited to schools in a district where all schools are in need of improvement, a fact of life in some urban districts, one panelist said.



Interdistrict choice is one answer to this dilemma, but has its own problems. For one thing, many suburban districts, for various reasons, do not always accept the urban transfers. And, while No Child Left Behind encourages interdistrict choice, it doesn't require it, meaning surrounding districts asked to accept transfers may simply be "well-wishers" rather than "takers," a panelist noted. Iowa was cited as one state with an open enrollment system for public school choice that provides the same amount of funding for each child. State dollars must support open-enrollment policies for them to be successful and to promote choice, participants said.



In many states, such as Texas and other states with large rural areas, transportation is a critical issue affecting open enrollment. Rural districts are so far apart geographically that it is virtually impossible to offer or afford interdistrict open-enrollment options. One panelist said making the commitment to attend a better school is what choice is all about, and providing the opportunity for that choice is empowering. But, for rural districts especially, this is an almost insurmountable problem because "the distance trumps choice...."



Lack of space is another hindrance cited. Districts that have open enrollment policies must ensure that true options are available along with those policies, participants said. In many districts where students can choose to transfer to a better school, long waiting lists exist at the higher-performing schools. One panelist suggested public schools do not want the competition of other choices, so they do not promote them. Overseeing all choice options in public schools might be a responsibility that the state embraces, one participant suggested.



From this thread of the discussion, participants moved into a dialogue about the reasons for poor options and ineffective open enrollment policies, among them: schools and school policies still are built around 19th- and 20th-century economic and social structures. Systems are entrenched and bureaucratic and not responsive to the needs of a 21st century society, some participants said. Solutions suggested included Incentives for creating new choice options, new missions for school districts and revised governance structures.



This Web dialogue included a brief discussion on the Blaine Amendment (which prohibits the use of public funds for religious schools). Parochial schools have long provided successful academic programs, but cannot participate in public school open enrollment arrangements in the 22 states with the Blaine Amendment. One suggestion put forth was for church-run schools to create an interfaith coalition using their expertise in education to establish nonreligious schools. This solution would preserve the quality of the academic program and its proven success, not the religious school.



One participant pointed specifically to regulation as stifling creativity in schools and leading to a proliferation of micromanagement, erosion of local control and unfunded mandates. He agreed with panelist Paul Hill that high funding and loose regulation might benefit all schools.



Returning to the idea that open-enrollment policies promote competition between schools and districts, participants discussed the "winners" and "losers" in this contest. Ideally, there should be no losers in the public education system -- all children should have choices and opportunities to succeed, but the reality is otherwise. Families who are too poor or disenfranchised to move to districts with better-achieving schools are the "losers," participants said -- they are left behind in low-performing or failing schools, or in districts that do not intervene on their behalf.



Clearly an unintended consequence of open-enrollment policies is the problem of a child being left behind in a district that offers no choices for success. One panelist suggested these students have always been the losers in the public education system and perhaps it is on these children that policies should focus. Participants pointed out that the availability of choice and options encourages parents to become engaged in their children's education. If they do not, do they become losers as well?



Families, however, do not always have a lot of options from which to choose. Some districts have an array of specialized programs and activities that will attract students, while others do not. Not all schools offer equivalent products, and, moreover, if they could, should they? This dialogue pointed out the disparity among schools within a district as well as between districts. A question was raised about how states decide how public dollars should be allocated to districts. And, it was suggested that the state bear the responsibility for ensuring that the system provide choice to all families.



Panelists and participants also cited the benefits of open enrollment. The ability to exercise choice, to make an informed decision about where to send a child to school, is empowering, they said. The value of engaging parents in the school community and fostering pride in their children cannot be overestimated. A Minnesota participant said the best programs help stimulate improvements. He pointed to Minnesota's Postsecondary Options law, which allows high school students to take courses, full or part time, in colleges and universities, with funds following students. The response to the law has been the addition of new Advanced Placement and other courses which have resulted in improved high schools overall, he said.



Participants offered some ideas for moving forward on policies around open enrollment. One participant pointed to three things: accountability practices that encompass rewards for increased performance; helping students to take pride in their communities; and improving the quality of education through teacher training. Students in these communities would benefit most from change within the entire community. Taking students out of their school districts sets up a system "where the students with the most assertive parents/guardians get out first and the students who may need the most help are the last ones to get help when their schools are closed and they are forced to go elsewhere," he said. Panelist Susan Uchitelle suggested that models of schools that are working well with a diversity of children are needed.



One participant pointed to New Jersey as an example of a state in which choice is working, albeit on a small scale. The state's interdistrict school choice program allows for a limited number of choice districts in each of the state's 21 counties. These programs, supported legislatively, provide funding for both the sending and receiving districts. Programs have been offered primarily in smaller districts seeking to enhance revenues via this program. But expansion is unlikely because of budget issues.



A few panelists and participants noted regardless of any strides made, that open enrollment, by its nature, will always be available to limited numbers of students. The real issue is improving all schools so no parent will think the school his or her child attends is "inferior." As one panelist said: "Why can't we provide quality in our schools? What is keeping this from happening -- lethargy, difficulty, pay, etc.? Schools which should be businesses are not; good performers need truly high pay and incentives; curriculum must be evaluated; children must be treated as human beings.... There is not the incentive in this country to do that; just a lot of talk."
Panelist David Plank added: "We have nothing effective that would turn around low-performing schools.... These children are simply being left behind."

NCLB Public School Choice Requirements

Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), school districts are required to offer students who attend schools that do not make "adequate yearly progress" for two consecutive years the option to transfer to higher-performing schools in the district. But two years after NCLB was enacted, it appears that only a small percentage of the students eligible to transfer are doing so.

* What is happening in districts around the nation regarding NCLB public school choice requirements? Will these early results change in the future?
* How many students are transferring to a different school because of this provision?
* What are the major barriers to student transfers?
* How can districts, states, and the federal government do to address these barriers?

The consensus among participants in this discussion was that parents' and students' ability to take full advantage of transfer options mandated by NCLB has been stymied by a variety of problems that will require sustained attention and commitment on the part of school districts, states and the federal government.



Participants agreed the NCLB requirements clearly pose major challenges for school districts, ranging from transportation costs to the resistance of successful schools to accepting transfers from low-performing schools. Several participants said school districts in their states had made little if any effort even to inform families of the transfer option, let alone provide them the means to exercise it.



While some districts -- notably the Chicago Public Schools -- are "starting to take the obligation to offer transfer options seriously," one panelist said, the vast majority are not. He pointed out that a similar problem occurred in the early stages of implementation of Title I, when some states and districts wouldn't provide required services for eligible children in nonpublic schools. The U.S. Congress responded by creating a bypass provision that redirected funding to institutions other than the district.



A similar action might be necessary this time around, he said; namely, creating a statewide school district that provides options (via chartering or direct operation of new schools) for students in districts that fail to provide the alternatives required by NCLB.



States and the federal government also need to fulfill their obligation to see that the NCLB choice provisions are effectively implemented, several participants said. One cited a recent report by the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights, "Choosing Better Schools" (www.cccr.org), that recommends amending NCLB in several ways to increase incentives and thus supply, including (1) making interdistrict transfers a requirement where the capacity of a district to offer sufficient choices is severely limited, and (2) eliminating disincentives for schools to accept transfer students.



Another panelist suggested state agencies and the U.S. Department of Education undertake a statistical review of school districts' implementation of NCLB choice provisions by collecting and examining (1) the number and percentage of students eligible to transfer under NCLB, and (2) the number and percentages of students who actually transfer. This would lead to the identification and investigation of districts with low percentages of transfers -- a process she said would "put all districts on notice about the importance of making an effort to make NCLB choice work."



Still another panelist suggested financial incentives be provided to schools and districts willing to take on the challenge of educating underachieving, special-needs and other "high-cost" students.



Another suggestion was to give greater visibility to school districts that had found ways of providing students in low-performing schools with the chance to attend better-performing schools. Two model programs were mentioned: the Voluntary Interdistrict Transfer Program in St. Louis, Missouri, and the Monadnock Region Public Schools of Choice Program in southwestern New Hampshire .

A Nanotechnology Primer

This first session of the dialogue included an overview discussion of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Panelists and participants were asked to talk about: What is nanotechnology? What are nanomaterials? What makes them different from other materials? How are these materials being used? What are the benefits of this technology, and are there potential risks? We encouraged participants to ask questions and share their interest in this topic.

primer summary