98 00683

Public Sector Choice In California

A Pace Working Paper

Michael W. Kirst
Stanford University

January 1990

 

 

 

 

 

Public Sector Choice in California

A PACE“ Working Paper
Michael W. Kirst, Stanford University
December 1989

Introduction“

The issue of choice in education has been prevalent for many years, but recently has
become a topic of renewed interest in California. Eleven choice bills, which would allow
parents to select, under varying guidelines, their children’s schools, were introduced in the
1989 legislative session. All were held over to 1990 for further study. What has caused
this upsurge of interest in choice? There are several reasons, but perhaps primary among
them has been the political consensus not to consider seriously public aid to private
schools. Vouchers or tuition tax credits have been defeated at the national level, and the
Bush administration did not mention the “V word” in its initial advocacy meetings on behalf
of choice. Moreover, a Democratic governor in Minnesota has led that state into a public
sector open enrollment bill that was emulated by Arkansas, Nebraska, and Iowa. In 1989,
California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig, who strongly opposes
vouchers or any form of aid to private schools, proposed his own bill, AB 2134, that

effectively would require parents each year to choose a public school within or outside of
their child’s assigned school district.

In short, the politics of choice have changed, and the most controversial components,
including public support for private schools, have receded into the background. Some
public choice approaches have become more popular because proponents assume they will
entail very small state costs. Low cost proposals, however, do little to promote the supply
of school site alternatives.

Many volumes and papers have been written on the subject of choice. Some of these
are included in the bibliography for this paper. Our objective here, however, is not to
provide a comprehensive analysis of the choice literature, but rather to analyze the
California bills and highlight particular implications of the California context for choice.
The companion document which PACE is distributing is a fine overview of much of the
general choice literature. Prepared by the Education Commission of the States, it is entitled
Choice: Options for State Policy Makers.

 

* Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) is a cooperative endeavor in the Schools of Education at
Stanford University, the University of California at Berkeley, and University of Southern California.

H The companion piece to this paper is an overview analysis published by the Education Commission of
the States entitled, Choice: Options for State Policy Makers, 1989.

What is Public Sector Choice?

A useful typology of public sector choice options includes:1

1. Open Enrollment. Families have the option of sending their children to the
neighborhood school, any other school within their district, or to another district that has
space. This plan would foster some competition among schools, particularly if schools
with space are obliged to accept applicants on a lottery basis. Open enrollment works best
when there are clearly differentiated choices and transport cost is low. The district of
residence could be required to provide a transfer of funds equal to the “marginal” cost of

creating an additional student in the receiving district, or the state could pay the added
costs. '

2. Magnet Schools. These are schools that have specialized themes and create attractive
options to the more standardized neighborhood schools. Magnet Schools feature arts,
sciences, business preparation, or other specialized programs.

3. Mini-Schools. Such schools within existing school buildings are designed to help
overcome the impersonal nature of large schools. Mini-schools may have magnet-type
special themes, but typically are merely “schools-within-schools.” Sometimes these
schools—within-schools are teacher-initiated and are then called “teacher-chartered mini-
schools.” Usually a section or wing of a large school is provided, giving the school-
within-a-school a separate identity.

4. Post-Secondary Options. These arrangements permit students to take courses at local
post-secondary institutions. The state assists with financial transfers and encourages a

menu of post-secondary courses. Most often these are community college and high school
link-ups.

5. Mini—Vouchers. These are certificates that students can use for a specified, limited
range of educational services. Usually, certificates are proposed for secondary students
(ages 16—18) who have completed a common public educational experience in grades 1-10
but may want to choose “enrichment areas” outside of the public school. These might
include computer programming, vocational education, or art. These private or public
supplementary services are most effective when closely integrated with the home schools’
curricula. Students may attend private vocational education schools as one example, or
attend special programs for compensatory education or special education away from their
normal school grounds.

9

 

1Henry M. Levin, The Theory of Choice Applied to Education (Stanford, CA: Center for Educational
Research at Stanford, Stanford University, 1989).

6. Private Contractors. Under this arrangement, particular portions of the school
curriculum or program are provided by a private contractor. In the 1970s, for example,

some schools contracted out remedial reading programs for low achieving pupils and paid
the contractor based on results.

7. Second Chance or Continuation Schools. Continuation schools have a long tradition in
California. They are small, flexible high schools that accept students who are at risk of

dropping out. The schools provide a more personal environment, and their curricula is
different from the typical comprehensive high school.

The Education Commission of the States summarized various choice options in Table I.

Table l

Priorities Addressed by Various Public-School Choice Plans

 

Type of Choice Plan

Family Freedom

Equity

School Improvement

 

Interdistrict
Open Enrollment

Postsecondary Options

Second Chance
Continuation Schools
and Mini-Vouchers

Teacher Initiated
Mini-Schools

Controlled Choice or
Open Enrollment

Magnets

Emphasizes the right to
choose a public school in
any district.

Allows High school
students to choose
between high schools and

postsecondary institutions.

Allows poorly performing
students and dropouts to
choose other educational
settings.

Attracts families to diverse
schools whose goals they
share.

Makes all families choose
among all district schools
subject to racial balance
guidelines.

Allows a small number of
families to attend a
handful of special schools.

Must be protected by
providing parent infor-
mation. transportation for
poor families and non-
selective admissions.

Protected by insuring
nondiscriminatory
admissions and extending
options to at-risk youth.

No special provisions.
Can isolate and label “at-
risk” students in marginal
alternative programs if
program standards are low.

Must be protected by
providing nonselective
admissions, parent
information and
transportation.

Strives to insure that all
elements of the plan are
fair so that voluntary
desegregation will have
wide support.

Power to attract premised
on the difference in
quality between magnet
and all other schools.

Assumed to result from
competition. Can be
enhanced by providing
technical assistance,
planning, grants, staff
development, waivers.

Follows from competition.
Can be enhanced with
technical assistance
planning grants, staff
development, waivers.

Does not address causes
of schools not meeting
student needs.

Implemented by allowing
teachers to create and
manage diverse schools
and by supporting school—
based improvement in all
schools.

Must provide support to
help schools develop the
capacity to attract and
retain families.

The magnet schools
receive special resources
and the ability to create a
distinctive program. Other
schools are not affected.

 

Source: Education Commission of the States

Choice in California: The Current Status

California has been incrementally moving into various types of school choice programs.
The state funds a large desegregation program ($363 million) in school districts which have
state-approved court orders or voluntary plans. Part of this state funding is used by
districts for specialized “magnet” schools. The federal government also has a magnet
school program which made grants to six California schools in 1989. All of these federal
grant recipients were in urban school districts.

The state provides over two million dollars for nine educational “clinics” that provide
dropouts with intensive, individualized instruction in order to prepare them for reentry into
another education program or the military. In addition, there are 425 continuation high
schools in California that are part of local school districts.

Section 48204 of the Education Code allows students to attend a school in another
district if the parent works in that district The admission decision is made by the receiving
district and is based on space availability. State aid is provided to the student in the
receiving district Many local distiicts provide options within their boundaries and use state
funds for this purpose.

Appendix I includes a summary of the major choice bills introduced in the 1989
legislature. These bills all propose major expansions in current choice mechanisms, yet are
characterized by divergent and conflicting approaches.

The Positions of Education Interest Groups on 1989 Choice
Bills

Many education organizations have not taken specific positions on all of the bills. Table 11
presents the views as of Summer 1989.

A better understanding of interest group views on choice is embodied in their formal
policy statements which follow Table II.

Table II Legislative Positions

 

CSBA

 

CPA CFI‘ ACSA
AB 149 no
Allen position
AB 175 support watch
La Follette (w/amend.)
AB 375 oppose o ose o ose o 05
LaFollette pp pp pp e
AB 1086 approve
Hughes
AB 1411 oppose
Quackenbush
AB 2007 oppose oppose
Frizzelle
AB 2134 oppose oppose
Bader
ACA 37 oppose no oppose
La Follette position
SB 1274 watch
Hart

 

SOURCE: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)

Position

We believe choice promotes greater parental participation in their children’s
educational opportunities and that this participation would encourage schools to
become more effective. We are committed to increased parental involvement in
schools. We believe choice may expand academic options and possibly allow
programs to be more tailored to the needs of pupils. We believe choice can result in
increased community support for education.

The Association’s support is conditional upon resolution of the following

social, political and economic issues embodied in the previous statement.

A locally-elected school board is in the best position to decide if the school
district can implement a choice plan and must be allowed to make that decision.
Any choice plan must have clearly identified goals that can be easily
communicated to the community.

Any locally adopted choice plan must ensure that all students have equal access
to all of the available programs.

Any locally adopted choice plan must provide information to all parents to
ensure their ability to choose the best school or program for their children.

Adequate human, financial, and physical plant resources must be available to
ensure the appropriate implementation of any choice plan.

Districts must address the issue of transportation to ensure that choice or open
enrollment is available to all students.

Choice plans should facilitate integration and must never be allowed to increase
segregation.

Parental participation is key to the success of any school and such participation
should be encouraged in the adoption and implementation of any choice plan.

Any choice plan must provide a fair system of enrollment in every school and
the skimming of any particular group of students must not be allowed.

The enrollment procedures used by a district which has adopted a choice plan
must be available to and understood by all parents, and must be structured to
provide for continuity and stability in the students’ education.

While intra-disuict choice options may be limited by the size of the school
district, small districts can achieve parental involvement through other means
identified by the local school board.

Any successful choice program must provide transportation for the pupils who
have chosen to attend a distant school and state aid must be provided for the
increased transportation.

School districts must have adequate financial resources before implementing
any choice programs; current program funding must not be supplanted.

. The difference in revenue limits between school districts, including basic aid
districts, must be addressed in consideration of a choice plan.

. Choice plans would have to be evaluated in terms of their effect on current state
programs and funds for special needs students.

0 Since choice could require significant staff reallocations and changes in working
conditions, school districts must have flexibility in education code requirements
and collective bargaining agreements.

California Teachers Association (CTA-NEA) Position

On closer inspection, choice is not a solution but a sham. Let’s look at some
realities:

- Affluent parents already have “choice.” They move to communities with good
schools or enroll their children in good private institutions.

- Poor families-—and even most middle-class parents—don’t have that option.
Nor could many of them afford transportation costs to send their children across
district boundaries. And, in all likelihood, relatively few youngsters would
want to spend an extra hour, or two, or more, commuting to school each day.

. Almost all of California’s 1,028 public school districts are plagued by
overcrowding. Offering students the opportunity to enroll in a good school is
not going to work if the good school cannot accommodate them—or can accept
them only by packing even more students into each classroom and jeopardizing
the already precarious quality of education.

- Worst of all is what would happen to all the students left behind—the 50, 75, or
99 percent unable to enroll in a good school. Their already poor school would
now have even less money than previously. And these lower funds cannot
purchase additional or updated textbooks, equipment, or supplies, let alone hire
more or worthier teachers.

CHOICE will probably fall flat on its face. In Minnesota, where some 400,000
public school students were eligible to take advantage of the Berman, Weiler
CHOICE program for the fall of 1989, fewer than 1,000—less than one-fourth of
one percent—actually signed up for schools outside their home districts.

At the same time, CHOICE poses a danger to education. It gives elected
officials an easy way out. “There is no need to put more resources into the
schools,” they might say. “Students who really want to get a good education can
get one. All they have to do is get on a bus.”

It looks to me, in fact, as if the Business Roundtable has been taken for a ride.
(Remarks by Ed Foglia, CTA President, Sacramento Bee, March 21, 1989.)

California School Boards Association (CSBA) Position

In response to this renewed interest [concerning choice] in mandated attendance
programs such as open enrollment, the California School Boards Association has
conducted an in-depth study and concluded that current statutes provide local
educational agencies with the authority and flexibility they need to successfully
implement alternative attendance programs that best meet the needs of students and
their families, while also maintaining a quality and equitable educational program
for all. These current statutes allow districts to respond to the individual needs of
their constituencies and include district-wide open enrollment programs, transfers
based on the employment of parents and the families’ child care needs, schools,
independent study, and community college concurrent enrollments for high school
students, to name a few.

The flexibility provided in current statutes must be maintained The California
School Boards Association remains steadfast in its belief that decisions on
appropriate student enrollment patterns should be based upon a local assessment of
student needs through a community-based approach. These decisions must be
responsive to student needs, parental desires, and communal expectations if schools
are to be effective. Such programs cannot be successful, however, unless they are
developed and implemented by the local community.

The California School Boards Association supports maintaining the flexibility
for providing local options in open enrollment which exists under current statutes,
and sees no need for additional state or federal mandates which limit individual
districts from devising plans to meet the unique needs of their community.

The California School Boards Association has and will continue to encourage
local governing boards, in partnership with parents, professional educators and
communities, to explore these attendance options, as well as other mechanisms, in
order to further involve parents in the education of their children and the system
itself.

Based on the current availability of alternative enrollment options and locally
developed programs which involve parents and communities in our public schools,
the California School Boards Association believes that a statewide mandatory open
enrollment program is unnecessary and may in fact prove detrimental to our
educational system overall. Local needs should dictate local decisions. As a result,

the California School Boards Association Board of Directors approved a motion
stating:

“The California School Boards Association Board of
Directors opposes state or federally mandated open
enrollment other than the flexibility that currently exists
within statutes.”

In addition, the California School Boards Association Board supports local

creativity in designing enrollment options that are best suited to the individual needs
of each local school site, district, and community.

And further, the association supports pilot programs, the creation of other
locally generated options under existing statutes, and the full examination of current
alternatives available to school districts. The association is committed to the use of
such programs by districts, while also expanding knowledge of “choice” issues
among parents as well as federal, state and local decision makers.

California Federation of Teachers (CFT-AF T) Position

The California Federation of Teachers, AFT, AFL—CIO, supports an expansion of
parental and student choice within the public schools. Thus, the CFT does not
support vouchers for private school tuition, but it does support parental/student
choice within districts and within schools. At this time, the CFT supports only
limited choices across district lines; however, the CFT is willing to explore how
such choices might work within a metropolitan consortium of several suburban
districts and an urban center. For example, teacher transfers and shared financing
might also be part of inter-district choice plans.

The CFI‘ believes that an expansion of parental and student choice must first
include more diversity within the public system. What is the value of choice if all
of the schools are the same? To get more diversity, the CFI‘ advocates an increase
in decision-making at the school site, including a waiver process for setting aside
disuict, state, and union regulations or agreements. The CFT supports efforts to
give the school site more authority in hiring.

Second, the CFT believes that parents must have adequate consumer
information in order to make choices. This means that school sites must have data
about their school, requiring that district data be reported site-by-site and that new
“authentic” assessments be developed at the school site.

Third, the CFT supports efforts to “re-structure” those schools that are not
chosen and that are not satisfying the public interest.

Summary of The Political Outlook for Choice

Choice remains very controversial with strong advocates supporting and opposing various
aspects of choice proposals. California’s education interest groups demonstrate a striking
lack of consensus toward the 1989 legislative proposals, with no apparent coalition
emerging among the various educational lobbies. The California Business Roundtable
strongly supports choice among public schools. State Superintendent Honig supports AB
2134 (Bader), which would require every school district to establish an open enrollment

policy, but opposes many other choice bills and concepts, particularly those that aid private
schools.

Various legislative authors have widely divergent views about basic choice concepts.
Governor Deukmejian supports the general concepts of choice, but has expressed concern
about the impact on racial and ethnic integration. At this point, his position depends on the
specifics of the legislation rather than on any ideological view. If choice legislation is to be
enacted in California, the task remains for the legislature and governor to create some kind
of compromise among disparate interest group positions.

Public Sector Choice in the California Context

The general arguments about choice provided in the companion paper by the Education
Commission of the States are useful, but often need to be modified substantially to fit the
California context. In the following section, we examine several California educational
system characteristics and their impact on potential choice options.

10

California Characteristics That Facilitate Choice

School Finance Tax and Spending Disparities. A problem that has arisen in Massachusetts
and Minnesota concerning inter-district choice is caused by widely differing local property
tax rules and consequent differences in per pupil spending. In many states, school districts
receiving pupils from nearby low property tax districts complain that they are subsidizing
low effort taxpayers who are able to keep their property taxes low, but send their children
across district lines to districts that have a higher property tax and spend much more per
pupil.

This problem does not apply in California because, as a result of Proposition 13, all
property tax rates have been equalized across the state. Moreover, 95.6 percent of
California pupils attend schools in districts in which the state per pupil revenue limit is
within a band of $240. This highly equalized state finance system means that choice rarely
will be based on the ability to move a child from a very low spending school district to a
nearby high spending district. Consequently, the state will not frequently be asked to
provide extra funds either to the sending or receiving district in order to compensate for
large tax and spending disparities between neighboring school districts.

Another unusual California school finance formula feature is the “basic aid” district.
These districts have so much property tax per pupil that they are exempt from the revenue
limit formula and receive only the constitutionally mandated $120 per pupil from state
funds. They rely on their property tax yield for almost all of their revenue limits. The total
amount of their state and local general aid budgets are not affected by the number of pupils
they have. Other districts in California will gain or lose about $2,400 per pupil as pupils
exit or enter their boundaries under an inter-district choice system. This could be a
significant financial incentive to compete. But the basic aid districts do not gain or lose any
state general aid or suffer from enrollment loss. Currently, there are 16 districts under the
basic aid formula but more are eligible each year.

District Boundaries. California has 1,026 school districts. Nearly half of these enroll
fewer than 1,000 pupils. Many of these small districts are in urban areas. Moreover,
several small districts are often in close proximity to one another within the same city or
town. San Jose, for example, has 21 separate districts within its city limit. Elementary
districts (K-8) are often particularly geographically close to one another. The population
explosion in Orange County, for example, has created a crazy quilt of school boundaries
that bears no relationship to city or town boundaries. A sense of community is lacking in
many school districts that are separated by freeways and have no relationship to any other
political jurisdiction.

11

Many California children reside in at least two school districts (elementary and high
school) and have a mailing address in a town that is not the same name as either school
district. These school district boundary characteristics may serve to enhance inter-district
choice.

County Inter-District Transfer Appeal Procedures. Califomia has a long-established
procedure at the county level for hearing appeals concerning inter-district transfers. These
procedures could be expanded without significant changes to accommodate inter-district
choice. The administrative work load would increase, but there would be little conceptual
change in the appeal procedure.

School-Based Information Systems. Choice proponents agree that specific and
comprehensive school-based information systems are essential to good choice systems.
California has arguably the best school site information system in the nation. The ready
availability of information should help to inform potential consumers.

California initiated school performance reports in 1985 and has made significant
improvements since then. The California Assessment Program (CAP) and the California
Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) have provided a wealth of standardized
information on school inputs, processes, and outcomes as well as parental background
variables. This system was made even more robust by Proposition 98, enacted in June
1988. Proposition 98 mandates a School Accountability Report Card for each school. The
report card is required to contain the following information:

0 Student achievement in and progress toward meeting reading, writing, arithmetic
and other academic goals

' Progress toward reducing dropout rates

0 Estimated expenditures per student, and types of services funded

- Progress toward reducing class sizes and teaching loads

0 Any assignment of teachers outside their subject areas of competence
0 Quality and currency of textbooks and other instructional materials

0 Availability of qualified personnel to provide counseling and other student support
services

. Availability of qualified substitute teachers

- Safety, cleanliness, and adequacy of school facilities

0 Classroom discipline and climate for learning

- Teacher and staff training, and curriculum improvement programs

- Quality of school instruction and leadership

12

School districts have been urged by the state since 1984 to supplement state-
standardized indicators with locally-based indicators such as school climate, amount of
high school writing, parental involvement, and other unique local context variables. Many

districts have developed expanded local school site reports and choice might spur additional
such efforts.

The availability of detailed school site information does not mean that all consumers
equally will seek and use such information. As Levin has demonstrated, the use of
complex school site information tends to be biased toward more educated parents.2 Supply
of good school information does not eliminate the equity issue of information use. The

large number of immigrant and limited English proficient parents in California makes the
use of school site information highly variable and unequal.

California Characteristics that Inhibit Choice

The characteristics cited earlier tend to make choice somewhat easier to implement in
California than in many other states. But there are several unique California characteristics
that would inhibit choice programs from operating equitably or effectively.

Threat of Increased Racial or Ethnic Segregation. Minnesota is a leader in state—mandated
open enrollment, but it is one of the least racially diverse states in the United States, with
only 8 percent of its population representing racial or ethnic minority groups. California is
the most racially and ethnic diverse state in the nation. Currently, minorities make up more
than half of California’s school children. The fastest growing of the minorities are
Hispanics and Asians. By the year 2,000, 42 percent of California children will be white,
36 percent Hispanic, over 13 percent Asian, and 9 percent black. The latest racial and
ethnic survey for California reports that over 70 percent of California’s minority children
attend racially isolated schools. Seventy—seven percent of black students attend racially
isolated schools, defined as over 50 percent minority enrollment.

A requirement that choice not increase racial segregation may lessen the possibility of a
choice plan being approved. State Superintendent Honig’s proposed bill, for example,
implies that in many localities, choice will be restricted to areas that are all one race or
ethnicity.

 

2Henry M. Levin, m.

13

Pupil Enrollment Growth and Lack of Facilities. Public sector choice is made easier when
space is available in receiving schools. It is unlikely that many districts will build new
schools to accommodate transfers out of the normal attendance area. This is particularly
true when one considers that since Proposition 13, most school districts must use state
school construction funds. The state building fund was completely exhausted in summer
1989, and there is a very long line of requests for new state school facilities assistance.

Future California enrollment growth will cause even more crowded schools with few
spaces for choice-based transfers. California’s school enrollment will grow by 140,000
pupils a year for at least the next five years, and probably beyond. In 1988, 7.3 million
children lived in California; by the year 2,000, this number will rise to 8.7 million—a
growth of 20 percent. This enrollment growth, coupled with the costs of inflation, will
necessitate an annual increase in current operating expenditures of 8 percent, or nearly $23
billion over the next decade, just to maintain the current system. The fastest growth
districts will be in Southern California counties, such as Riverside, San Bemardino,
Ventura, San Diego, and the Sacramento area. Pupil spaces for choice will be extremely
limited in these counties, but will be available in slow growth counties such as San Mateo
and Marin.

State Categorical Funding for Magnet Schools. Many choice proposals create a parental
demand for choice, but no added supply of differentiated schools. Some successful choice
programs include categorical funding for magnet schools. These specialized theme schools
provide more options with specific characteristics. Senate Bill 813, enacted in 1983,
authorized magnet schools, but these have never been funded. It is unlikely that a large
state-fmanced magnet school program can be funded given the requirements for statewide
enrollment growth outlined previously.

California does, however, fund magnet schools under its categorical programs for
voluntary desegregation. Consequently, choices that create more desegregation might
include some support from state desegregation assistance. However, the racial and ethnic
balance of some school districts probably would have to change substantially to trigger
these state funds in some geographic areas.

Availability of Student Transportation. Choice within and among districts has been
inhibited in some states by the lack of school district-provided transportation beyond the
neighborhood or close to other district boundaries. But the problem takes a different form
in California. After Proposition 13, many school districts eliminated all pupil
transportation in the name of cost savings. Students were left to make their own
transportation arrangements or use city or county public transit systems. While the
unavailability of transport may restrict the exercise of public sector choice in some areas of
California, the lack of school buses is not the issue. Only 21 percent of California’s school
enrollment is transported in school buses, and 20 percent of students use public

14

transportation. The remainder walk or use private transport. The impact of choice on

school transport may be a non-issue in some school districts, but will be a significant
concern in others.

County transit systems sometimes are better suited to cross school district boundaries
than to provide direct routes within California districts. For instance, Santa Clara County
transit routes have no logical relationship with the twenty-one individual school districts
within San Jose or the surrounding suburban districts. Transit routes, however, do
encompass the entire geographic area. Thus, lack of transport may have greater impact on
choice within districts than inter-district choice between districts. Lack of public transport
will most seriously inhibit the options of low income families, and thus could present a
serious problem for many school districts.

Funding Uncertainty. Choice systems are resisted by some school officials because
unexpected pupil inflows or outflows inhibit education planning and budget projections.
California’s schools have a particularly difficult problem in budget planning because of
their overwhelming reliance on state funds. Often the legislature and governor do not agree
on school funds until August, when school is to start in September. California school
districts rely on state legislation and allocations for approximately 90 percent of their
operating budgets. Proposition 98 may reduce this fiscal uncertainty somewhat, but likely
not significantly.

Consequently, choice options could exacerbate the already high uncertainty level
surrounding local school budgets. Currently, local school districts can project their
enrollments but not their state aid. With the advent of choice programs, enrollments might
also be uncertain, particularly if the state has some role in funding choice through
categorical programs such as desegregation, compensatory education, or bilingual
education. The issues raise additional questions: does the state categorical aid for
compensatory education follow the child to the new school or district? What if the
compensatory education pupil chooses to attend a school that has very few other
compensatory education pupils and the school is not otherwise eligible for federal Chapter I
or the California Economic Impact Aid Program? All of these uncertainties could make
local planning under choice plans difficult.

15

Concluding Comments

The ECS companion paper to this PACE working paper highlights several points that bear
attention:

Choice is not a panacea. Choice must be linked to other school improvement
strategies if the purpose is to achieve the long-run goal of restructuring schools.

Choice is not low-cost school improvement. When choice plans are constructed
carefully, and when choice is linked to other school improvement strategies, it will
involve new investments in education.

Choice must ofi'er diversity and quality. If families are offered a choice among
uniform and mediocre schools, choice will do nothing but stir the fires of
discontent.

Choice must be well planned. When choice policies are carefully designed and
attention is paid not only to family freedom, but also to school improvement and
educational equity, the positive outcomes may outweigh any negative ones.

Choice must be carefidly implemented. When a change of this magnitude is
contemplated, a phased-in process of implementation will do much to avoid
potential pitfalls and to assuage political opposition.

Choice is also for students who do not move. The success of choice is not
measured by the number of children who change schools, but by the improvements
that schools make in order to be attractive to retain the students they currently serve.

Joe Nathan, a choice advocate, provided the following list of characteristics necessary
for successful choice programs:

A clear statement of the goals that all schools are expected to meet

Information and counseling for parents in selecting among the various programs
available to their children

School admissions procedures that are fair and equitable—not based on “first come
first served” or on the past achievement or behavior of students

9

Help for all schools in developing distinctive features, rather than simply
concentrating resources on a few schools

Opportunities for teachers and principals to create programs

16

- Transportation for all students within a reasonable geographical area

0 Requirements that state dollars follow students

0 Procedures for ensuring racial balance and promoting integration

- Oversight and modification of the plan as necessary.

Public sector education choice is an issue that has increasing political visibility in
California. It is certain to garner more legislative attention, but it is unclear at this point

whether any workable compromise can emerge from the host of divergent political and
educational viewpoints now contributing to the California debate.

17

Appendix I

Following is a short description of each of the parental choice bills introduced in the 1989
California legislative session.

Allen Bill Sunset Extension — AB 149, Allen (R-Cypress), would extend the sunset date
for the provisions of current law which allow elementary school pupils to attend school in the
district in which their parents are employed.

School Board Hearing 0n Schools of Choice — Assembly Member Marian La Follette
(R-Northridge) has introduced several bills on choice. This bill, AB 175, would require all school
districts to notify parents that they may request the district to hold formal hearings regarding the
establishment of public schools of choice. It would require school boards to hold such hearings if
requested by thirty or more parents in the district.

Mandated Interdistrict and Intradistrict Choice Plan — AB 375, La Follette (R-
Northridge) would allow any pupil to apply to attend any school district in the state. ADA would
follow pupils to the receiving district and be allocated to the school or program the student chooses
to attend. The bill would allow a receiving district to reject an application for specified reasons
only (such as inadequate capacity or increased segregation). This bill would also require receiving
districts to ensure that at least 25 percent of the students admitted under this application process be
children receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). AB 375 would also mandate
intradistrict choice by requiring every school district to allow open enrollment within the district,
subject to criteria similar to that proposed for the interdistrict plan.

Interdistrict Transfer Information and Choice Study — Assembly Member Teresa
Hughes (D-Los Angeles), Chair of the Assembly Education Committee, has introduced AB 1086,
to require school districts to report information on the race, socioeconomic status, and academic
standing of pupils currently transferring into and out of a district under interdistrict attendance
agreements. It would also provide for a study of the issues involved in parental choice of schools.

Optional Interdistrict and Intradistrict Choice Plan — AB 141 1, Quackenbush (R-
Saratoga), would authorize any school board to allow pupils from other districts to attend its
schools. Districts adopting such a policy would be required to ensure that pupils are admitted
through a fair selection process and would require that at least twenty-five percent of the pupils so
admitted be children from AFDC families. The receiving district would be required to provide
pupil transportation within the boundaries of the district, and to provide transportation to AFDC
recipients from home to the school of choice. Transportation is contingent upon funding in the
budget. AB 1411 would also allow pupils to apply to attend any school within a school district,
prohibiting the rejection of transfer applications based on criteria such as race, sex, scholastic or
athletic achievement, or parental income. It would require that criteria used by each school district
in determining whether to accept or reject applications for pupil intradistrict transfer be adopted by

18

 

resolutionof the school board and, if such transfers are permitted, districts would be obliged to
comply With the twenty-five percent AFDC children provision noted above.

. Finally, the bill would require each school district to approve or reject each application for
mterdrstrrct or mtradrstrict transfer within sixty days of receiving the application. Reimbursement

for mandated costs would be provided from the State Mandates Claims Fund, up to one million
dollars statewide.

Transfers From “At-Risk Schools” — AB 2007, Frizzelle (R-Huntington Beach) is
similar to AB 1411 except only students in high schools that have been designated “at-risk
schools” by the State Department of Education would be allowed to apply to transfer to another
district or school. Districts would be required to notify the parents of pupils enrolled in “at-risk
schools” of their right to apply for a transfer. Also, the bill requires twenty-five percent of
students admitted to a district be from AFDC families, prohibits transfers that disrupt desegregation

plans, provides funding for transportation if money is included in the budget, and stipulates that
ADA must follow the students.

Mandated Intradistrict and Optional Interdistrict Choice Plan — AB 2134, Bader
(R-Pomona), was introduced at the request of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill
Honig. It would require every district to establish a district open enrollment policy; parents not

receiving the placement they requested would be given a written statement of the reasons for
denial.

AB 2134 would also rewrite and expand the law regarding interdistrict attendance. It would
allow districts to limit the number of pupils transferring out of the district each year. Conversely,
districts could elect not to accept any students from other districts, but would be required to
establish an impartial system for admittance if they chose to accept any students at all. Thus, the
bill would impose new requirements on districts that chose to receive pupils from outside districts.
Final stipulations of the bill include requirements that priority for attendance go to students living in
the school’s attendance area, no funding for transportation be provided, ADA would follow the
students, and a “cap” based on district size be put on the number of students who are eligible to
leave any district

Vouchers, Independent Schools, and Mandated Open Enrollment — ACA 37, La
Follette (R-Nonhridge), is a proposed constitutional amendment which would need to be passed
by the Legislature and then by the voters at a statewide election in order to take effect. It would
create two new classes of schools (in addition to current public and private schools): “private
independent schools” and “public independent schools” which would be authorized to redeem state
educational scholarships. Public independent schools would be schools organized by school
districts, community college districts, and public postsecondary educational institutions as public
corporations.

19

Every school-age child in the state would be entitled to receive, free of charge, a state
educational scholarship redeemable at any independent school. The average face amount of the
scholarships would be equivalent to approximately ninety percent of the average public cost per
pupil for public school pupils. Independent schools would be required to accept the scholarships as
full payment from low-income pupils, but could impose an additional charge on other pupils,
based on the parents’ ability to pay.

ACA 37 would also require the Legislature to mandate an open enrollment policy under which
the state’s students could attend any school in any district. Districts with available space would be
required to admit pupils and to give priority to low-income pupils.

Demonstration Program — Senator Gary Hart (D-Santa Barbara), chair of the Senate
Education Committee, has introduced SB 1274 to allow school districts, or consortia of school
districts, to apply to establish demonstration programs to restructure public education. The
applicant districts would design their own plans to restructure education, but each plan would be
required to include six core components, one of which is providing parents the choice of schools
within the district If the demonstration program is operated by a consortia of districts, the districts
involved may offer interdistrict choice.

20

References*

Boyd, William L. (1987). “Balancing public and private schools: The Australian experience and
American rmphcations,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 (3), 183—197.

Boyd, William L. and Charles T. Kerchner, editors. (1988). The Politics of Excellence and

Choice in Education, 1987 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association. New York:
Palmer Press.

Bredo, Eric. (1988). “Choice, constraint, and community,” in The Politics of Excellence and
Choice in Education. New York: Falmer Press.

Chaukin, Nancy F. and David L.Wi11iams, Jr. (1987). “Enhancing parent involvement:

Guidelines for access to an important resource for school administrators,” Education and
Urban Society, 19 (2), 164—168. '

Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Sheila N. Kirby. (1985). Tuition Tax Deductions and Parent
School Choice: A Case Study of Minnesota.

Davies, Don. (1987). “Parent involvement in the public schools: Opportunities for
administrators,” Education and Urban Society, 19 (2), 147—163.

Education Commission of the States. (1987). Drawing in the Family: What States Can Do.
Denver, CO: ECS.

Elmore, Richard F. (1986). Choice in Public Education. Santa Monica, CA: Center for Policy
Research in Education, The RAND Corporation.

Epstein, Joyce L. (1987). “Parent involvement: What research says to administrators,” Education
and Urban Society, 19 (2), 119—136.

Fehrmann, Paul G., Timothy 2. Keith, and Thomas M. Reimers. (1987). “Home influence on
school learning: Direct and indirect effects of parental involvement on high school grades,”
Journal of Educational Research, 80, 330—337.

Finn, Chester E., Jr. (September-October, 1987). “Education that works: Make the schools
compete,” Harvard Business Review, 63—68.

 

* PACE acknowledges the assistance of the Education Commission of the States, Denver,
Colorado.

21

Goldberg, Kirsten. (May 18, 1988). “Vermont’s ‘Tuitioning’ is nation’s oldest brand of choice,"
Education Week, p. 9.

Goldberger, Arthur S., and Glen G. Cain. (1982). “The causal analysis of cognitive outcomes in
the Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore report,” Sociology of Education, 55, 103—122.

Governor’s 1991 Report on Education: Results in Education. (1988). Washington, DC:
National Governors Association.

“Human capital: The decline of America’s workforce.” (September 19, 1988). Business Week,
100—141.

Lamm, Richard D. (1986). “Can parents be parmers?” Phi Delta Kappan, 68 (4), 211—213.

Moles, Oliver C. (1982). “Synthesis of recent research on parent participation in children’s
education,” Educational Leadership, 40 (2), 44—47.

Mumane, Richard J. (1986). “Family choice in public education: The roles of students, teachers,
and systems designers,” Teachers College Record, 88 (2), 169—189.

Mumane, Richard J. (1984). “A review essay—comparisons of public and private schools:
Lessons from the uproar,” Journal of Human Resources, 19, 263—277.

Nathan, Joe. (January 1989). “A careful look at educational reform,” Fine Print, 6 (1).
Perry, Nancy J. (July 4, 1988). “The education crisis: What business can do,” Fortune, 71—81.

Raudenbush, S. and A. S. Bryk. ( 1986). “A hierarchical model for studying school effects,”
Sociology of Education, 59, 10.

Raywid, Mary Anne. (1985). “Family choice arrangements in public schools: A review of the
literature,” Review of Educational Research, 55 (4), 435—467.

Raywid, Mary Anne. (1984). “Synthesis of research on schools of choice,” Educational
Leadership, 41 (7), 70—78.

Rothman, Robert. (August 3, 1988). “Dukalcis vetoes parental ‘choice’ bill, cuts budget,”
Education Week, 19.

“Saving the schools: How business can help.” (1988). Fortune, 118 (11), 42—46, 50.

Snider, William. (May 28, 1988). “School choice: New, more efficient ‘sorting machine’?”
Education Week, 2.

22

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

1lllilllWNWlll‘llll‘llflllWWII“IIHHIWNIlllli

Cll‘ibll70‘fi'4