' I
damn L
”.3111

. v
3.: ianA-MUKJ‘
v ‘aqwkxumr

0 {hand .

 

7.3!;

I I} .1):

r! 5. .333
t .

u..- ..
3a.“:

.Wu. .3. u.
@V).W.M$P.§2 .1

3a
. . 41%“
. . 1.143”
. i». .l. .3... .
#62... in... 3.. o!
O. I...

 

 

.¢

a . ‘ .
. ol. 9'!-
aorfiw: 1""??ng
r?:.fl‘5m%o1.yflrg
.Rflfl 4 2.1 .., t .;

l’HES’S

‘~ .z‘

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PARENTS'- DECISION
TO CHOOSE NONRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
THROUGH A SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM

presented by

Joseph L. Koenigsknecht

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Ph 0 D 0 degree in Ed o Admin 0

 

Dme November 25, 1998

 

MSU LI an Affirmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0‘ 12771

lllllll lllllllll

o m llll

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

_ .3...“ rs APR. 9.2 £095.

‘v

 

 

 

 

 

 

OCT1820 1011"”
N‘R 333812901)

 

   

z6%20w

 

 

 

‘_SEP 15 2005

 

 

’65 867 W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m chlRCJDubDu..p65—pt4

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PARENTS’VDECISION
TO CHOOSE NONRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS

THROUGH A SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM

BY

Joseph L. Koenigsknecht

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1 998

ABSTRACT

A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PARENTS’ DECISION
TO CHOOSE NONRESIDENTIAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS
THROUGH A SCHOOL CHOICE PROGRAM
By

Joseph L. Koenigsknecht

The researcher's purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education.
Twenty families who participated in a public school choice program were given semi-
structured interviews to determine to what extent, and in what combinations, the
issues of free will, educational reform, school quality/characteristics, and
family/personal needs were reflected in their choice decision. The choice process
that families followed also was examined, along with how the decision to choose a
nonresidential public school by families with high schoolers compared to the decision
by families with elementary students.

Of the four construct areas examined regarding school of choice (free will,
educational reform, school program/characteristics, and family/personal needs), the
school program/characteristics andthe family/personal needs areas were most Often
reflected in the parents’ decision to participate in a school choice program. Parents'

decision to change schools more Often was brought about by their dissatisfaction or

concerns with their residential school than it was by their attraction to the
nonresidential (receiving) school. In general, the decision to participate in school
choice was related to very real and personal issues directly concerning the child or
the family circumstances, such as wanting a safe school or net wanting to move the
child to a new school midyear. In fact, families were more likely to change schools
under a school choice program because of safety and discipline issues rather than
issues of instructional quality. In this study, parents of both elementary and high-
school-age students cited lack of a safe environment in the residential school as a
major factor in and reason for changing schools. However, whereas the parents of
elementary students then focused on school quality issues such as wanting good
teachers or better school programs, the parents of high schoolers focused more on
convenienceissues or those related to the extracurricular activities available to their
children. Finally, the parents in this study who participated in school choice did not

regret their decision to do so.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to take this Opportunity to thank Dr. Janet Alleman, chairperson of my
dissertation committee. She believed in me early in my graduate studies and
provided me with the support and encouragement to persevere in this endeavor.
Special thanks also to Dr. Douglas Campbell, who challenged my practitioner’s
mind” and helped me visualize and crystallize the critical components of my study.
My thanks also to Dr. Samuel Moore II and Dr. Philip Cusick, members of my
committee, whose suggestions and advice were most helpful and sincerely
appreciated.

I am also thankful that I had two wonderful typists and proofreaders. Judy
Hughes gave countless hours, was patient beyond belief, and always was
encouraging as she helped me organize and type this document. She is a dear
friend whose support and loyalty I shall always value. My appreciation also goes to
to Sue Miller, who helped with the final editing. I am very grateful for her
suggestions and professional expertise, along with her genuine desire to support my
efforts.

Finally, and most important, I want to acknowledge and thank members of my
family. First, to my wife, Polly, I extend my deepest thanks and love. She never
pressured me, yet quietly and patiently she was always there to listen, encourage,
and support. My love and thanks to my two sons, Nathan and Matthew, of whom no

father could be prouder. They both always encouraged me and wished me well,

iv

even though they were not always sure why I had to 'go to the Office to work” rather

than remain home to spend time with them.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................ ix
Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM ....................................... 1

Introduction .......................................... 1

Background of the Problem .............................. 3

The issue of Free Will ................................ 3

Issues of Educational Reform .......................... 7

Two Additional Agendas .............................. 11

Purpose of the Study and Research Questions ............. 16

Significance of the Study ............................... 17

Method ............................................ 18

Definition of Terms ................................... 20

Overview ........................................... 21

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH ...... 22

Legal Aspects Regarding Choice .......... - .............. 22

Summary ......................................... 24

Political Momentum ................................... 25

Choice in Education .................................. 31

Public School Monopoly .............................. 31

Reform and Choice ................................. 32

NO One Best System ................................ 34

Parental Dissatisfaction .............................. 36

Choice and Conflict ................................. 36

Benefits of Choice .................................. 38

Choice and Values .................................. 41

Choice, Magnets, and Integration ...................... 42

Summary ......................................... 45

Choice Factors ...................................... 47

Residency ........................................ 49

Proximity ......................................... ' 49

Cost ............................................. 50

Income and Education ............................... 51

vi

Household Size and Siblings .......................... 52

Race or Ethnicity ................................... 53
Social Class ....................................... 54
Private School Choice ............................... 55
Other Factors ...................................... 56
Characteristics of Parent Choosers ....... _ ............... 58
Sources of Information ............................... 62
Summary ......................................... 65
Chapter Summary .................................... 67
DESIGN OF THE STUDY .............................. 68
The Population ...................................... 68
The Setting and Sample Selection ....................... 69
Data Collection ...................................... 71
Analysis of Data ..................................... 74
Validity and Reliability ................................. 76
Limitations of the Study ................................ 79
Summary ........................................... 80
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ............... 81
Introduction ......................................... 81
Research Question 1 ................................. 82
Family Backgrounds ................................. 90
Head-of-Household Data ..................... ' ........ 93
Race ............................................. 95
Family Income Level ................................ 96
Private School Involvement ........................... 97
Summary ......................................... 98
Research Question 2 ................................. 99
The Information-Gathering Process ..................... 99
Sources Of Additional Information ..................... 104
Length of Time Involved ............................. 106
Participants in Decision Making ....................... 106
Summary of the Information-Gathering and Decision-
Making Process .................................. 111
Research Question 3 ................................ 112
Parents’ Descriptions of a Good School ................. 112
Parents’ Descriptions of the Sending (Residential)
School ......................................... 116
Parents’ Descriptions of the Receiving (Nonresidential)
School ......................................... 118
Grading the Schools ................................ 120

vii

Parents’ Reasons for Participating in School Choice

Programs ....................................... 123
Research Question 4 ................................ 132
Research Question 5 ................................ 136

Parents’ Responses to the Free Will Statements .......... 138

Parents’ Responses to the Educational Reform Statement . . 142
Parents' Responses to the School Quality/Characteristics

Statements ..................................... 145
Parents’ Responses to the Family/Personal Needs
Statements ..................................... 148
Research Question 6 ................................ 152
Research Question 7 ................................ 156
Research Question 8 ................................ 157
Opinions Regarding School Choice .................... 157
Barriers Parents Faced in Deciding to Send Their
Children to Nonresidential Schools ................... 162
Parents’ Opinions About How to Improve Michigan’s
School Choice Program ........................... 163

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 167

Introduction ........................................ 167
Answers to the Research Questions ..................... 168
Research Question 1 ............................... 168
Research Question 2 ............................... 169
Research Question 3 ........................ , ....... 170
Research Question 4 ............................... 174
Research Question 5 ............................... 176
Research Question 6 ............................... 178
Research Question 7 ............................... 179
Research Question 8 ............................... 181
Major Patterns Found in the Findings .................... 182
Conclusions ........................................ 184
Implications for Educators and Policy Makers .............. 186
Recommendations for a Related Study .................. 190
Reflections ........................................ 193
The Issue Of Free Will .............................. 194
The Issue Of Educational Reform ...................... 197
The Issue of School Quality/Characteristics .............. 199
The Issue of Family/Personal Needs ................... 201
Closing Commentary ................................. 203
APPENDICES

A. School District Contact Letter .......................... 206

viii

B. Parent Contact Letter ................................ 208
C. Parent Telephone Contact ............................ 210
D. Interview Assessment Form ........................... 212
E. Interview Protocol ..................... ' .............. 214
F. Family Income Form ................................. 221
G. Consent Form ...................................... 223
H. Interview Survey .................................... 225
REFERENCES ................................................ 227

4.1.
4.2.
4.3.
4.4.
4.5
4.6
4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10
4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Family Data .................................... 91
Highest Educational Level of Parents, by Household .............. 92
Family Background Information ............................... 94
Summary Of Family Income Levels ............................ 96
Process of Gathering Information on School Choice .............. 100
Family Decision Process ................................... 107
Parents’ Descriptions of a Good School ....................... 114

Characteristics Parents Used to Describe Their Residential

Schools. in Rank Order .................................... 117
Characteristics Parents Used to Describe Their Nonresidential

Schools, in Rank Order .................................... 119
Parents' Grades for Their Residential Schools .................. 120
Parents’ Grades for Their Nonresidential Schools ................ 121

Comparison of Parents’ Grades for the Nonresidential School
and the Residential School ................................. 122

Reasons Parents Gave for Participating in School Choice Plans . . . . 125

Rank Order of Reasons Parents Gave for Participating in
School Choice Plans ...................................... 126

Primary Reasons Families Gave for Participating in School
Choice Plans, in Rank Order ................................ 129

4.16

4.17

4.18
4.19
4.20

4.21

4.22

4.23

4.24

4.25

4.26

4.27

4.28

Reasons That Parents of Elementary School Students Gave for

Participating in School Choice Plans, in Rank Order .............. 133
Reasons That Parents of High School Students Gave for

Participating in School Choice Plans, in Rank Order .............. 135
InterviewSurvey........................... .............. 137
Response Summaries for Free Will Statements ................. 139
Response Summaries for Educational Reform Statements ......... 143
Response Summaries for School Quality/Characteristics

Statements .............................................. 146
Response Summaries for Family/Personal Needs Statements ...... 149
Comparison Of Totals for Statements, by Issue .................. 153
Families’ Reflections Regarding the Decision to Participate in

School Choice ........................................... 158
Rank Ordering of Parents’ Opinions Regarding the School Choice
Program ................................................ 161
Barriers to Parents’ Sending Their Children to Nonresidential

Schools ................................................ 162

Families’ Suggestions on How to Improve the School Choice
Program in Michigan ...................................... 164

If There Were No School Choice, Where Would Your Child Have
Attended School? ......................................... 165

xi

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

lntmdustinn

Ten years ago, school choice was little more than a twinkle in the eyes of a

hand full of civil libertarians. Concerned by what they saw as a monopoly

state system of education, they argued that American public schools were

robbing citizens of their right to choose their children’s education. (Cookson,

1994, p. 1)
By the late 1980s, however, school choice had become one of the hottest
educational reform ideas on the policy horizon (Coleman, 1992). As of late 1996,
some kind of choice legislation had been introduced in 43 states (US. Department
Of Education, 1996). In 1996, the Michigan legislature included a choice plan that
allowed families in Michigan to send their children to nonresidential schools that
Offered such plans. In this study, a nonresidential school was defined as a public
school chosen by parents that is outside Of their residential school district. Although
the plan is still in its early stages of implementation, the number of public school
districts in Michigan opting to offer choice plans is continuing to increase.

The discussions. and at times arguments, regarding school choice generally
have centered on two fronts. One platform for discussion suggests that choice is a

basic constitutional and inherent right and is grounded in the belief that one should

have the freedom to choose. In a world in which consumption and choice are

considered essential for the good life, the idea that children are required to attend
a particular public school in their neighborhood seems anachronistic, even
reactionary (Cookson, 1994). When, for Instance, a poll conducted by EhLQelta
Kappan (Elam, 1990) asked parents whether or not they favored or opposed
allowing students and their parents to choose among public schools regardless of
where they lived, roughly 62% of all respondents were in favor. Eighty-one percent
of nonpublic-school parents were in favor. Advocates have argued that it is an issue
of the right or freedom to choose. The American system assumes only limited areas
into which government may intrude, and outside of these areas, individuals are left
to their own choices (Seeley, 1985).

A second aspect Of choice that has generated much debate and discussion
is the issue of educational reform. Some have suggested that the public schools are
failing and that only through radical reform efforts, such as school choice and/or
vouchers, will the public school system improve (Nathan, 1989). 1"Parents care
deeply'that their children receive a high-quality education and master the knowledge
and skills needed to lead productive and rewarding lives. Not all of our schools are
fulfilling this mission for all Of our students” (American Association of School
Administrators, 1996, p. 47). Choice advocates have argued that, by expanding the
free-market approach through choice plans for parents and students, reform and
improvement of public education will follow (Chubb & Moe, 1990).

Although the majority Of the discussion and, to a large extent, the research
has centered on the issues of free will and educational reform, perhaps less abstract

and, some might argue. more compelling reasons for studying and perhaps

2

supporting choice are based on two additional agendas. This researcher’s position
is that although the philosophical arguments for choice as a principle of free will may
have merit, and that the less abstract arguments for choice as a vehicle for
educational reforrn are worthy of discussion, ‘there are Mo additional agendas
concerning choice that offer perhaps the clearest meaning to the true choice
advocate-the parent who ”chooses." These agendas tend to be based not on
philosophical principles or on political debate, but on the individual families’ need to
respond to their own personal needs when making decisions about their children’s
education. If one accepts the basic premise that, given the opportunity, parents
generally will make decisions resulting in what they believe is best for their children,
then the decision to choose a nonresidential school is not likely to be anchored in
complexity. It may simply be about families wanting what they believe is best for
their children. These agendas are both based, in large measure, on the family’s
viewpoint regarding the quality and characteristics of the local schOol and on the
family’s personal needs. The support for school choice by the family may hinge on
the degree to which they are satisfied with the quality and the characteristics of their

local schools.

Backgtountmttbefimblem
mersueotELeefllll
To understand and appreciate the roots Of the school choice issue, one must
remember one of the tenets upon which this country was foundeduthat of free will

and the right to choose one’s own destiny. In fact, even before the drafters of the

Constitution did, indeed, attempt to ensure a range of freedoms for American
citizens, mainly through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the English writer/
philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) was vigorously arguing for the right of
individual freedom. Locke asserted that the will is the power of an individual to think
about his or her own actions and to make his or her own choices (Garforth, 1964).
According to Locke, if one is able to think about his or her actions and is able to
prefer one action over another, that individual has will, a form Of power or control.
Locke would add that freedom is also a power—the power to do or not to do any
particular thing in terms of what one wills. People should and must have both
powers, according to Locke. For Locke, people must be able to think of their own
options and choose their own course of action. That concept of individual freedom
and the ability to choose one’s own course of action was a foundation upon which
the drafters of the Constitution established this nation. Ironically, many of today’s
"liberals” might well argue against school choice. Today’s liberals might view choice
as an option available only to the conservative or affluent seeking to escape the poor
neighborhoods of some urban communities.

The idea of school choice, whereby parents have the opportunity to choose
the educational setting for their children, has its roots in the early days of the United
States. Adam Smith (1776/1952), when he wrote Iheflealmgmlatigns in the late
1700s, suggested that the government should give money directly to parents, in the
form of vouchers, to purchase educational services for their children. Vouchers, a
form of choice, could stimulate the schools by encouraging positive changes and

creativity in a competitive environment. This consumer sovereignty would allow

4

parents to be consumers of education, having ultimate control and authority over the
kind of education their children would receive. Parents would be at least as capable
of making good educational choices for their children as the government if they were
given the power and the opportunity to do so (Smith, 1776/1952).

A more recent advocate of school choice and the consumer-sovereignty issue
is economist Milton Friedman. In the mid-1900s, Friedman proposed a voucher
system, a form of choice, in an essay on the importance of freedom in American
society. Although he failed to provide specific details of its implementation,
Friedman’s argument centered on the inefficiencies of public schools, the
advantages of competition, and, most important, the freedom of choice for parents
in selecting schools for their children (Catterall, 1984). Friedman recoined Adam
Smith’s phrase, ”consumer sovereignty,” to describe his conservative political
message. In his view, the evils of government regulation and monopoly in education
were clear. He stressed the advantages of private schools over public schools, and
parents’ rights to seek the educational values they prefer for their children through
vouchers and/or tax credits (Butts, 1989). As Uzzell (1983) wrote in an article in the
NationaLBexiew:

There are many things wrong with the schools, from overly powerful teachers’

unions to look-say methods of reading instruction. But the threat that links

them all is government monopoly. It is this monopoly that forces parents to
enroll their children in schools that they know are not as good as they used
to be, not nearly as good as local private schools, and often brazenly hostile

to the parents’ religious and moral convictions. (p. 5)

In Friedman’s view, there has been an indiscriminate extension of

governmental responsibility for education. He agreed that providing a common core

of values and literate citizens for a stable and democratic society is vital.
Denationalizing schools and reducing government control would not necessarily
jeopardize these values, but it would promote freedom of thought and belief, as well
as encourage diversity (LaNoue, 1972).

According to Friedman, if parents were able to make a public expenditure on
schooling regardless of where they sent their children, a wide variety of schools
would emerge on the scene. Parents could express their views about schools as
consumers in a competitive environment by sending their Children to schools of their
choice (LaNoue, 1972).

Another argument supporting the individual’s right to choose is based on the
position that school choice helps to provide equal educational opportunities for
all students. Proponents claim that school choice might help to desegregate
schools and also has the advantage of minimizing the loss of a sense of community.
The success of magnet schools, a form of choice in large, urban areas, has been
cited as evidence of how effective this approach can be.

It is a matter offundamental equity to provide every child an equal chance of

attending any public school without restrictions based upon residence. The

“neighborhood school” is too often a means of locking poor children into

schools populated by other poor children. (Nathan, 1989, p. 14)

According to this view, accessibility by the poor through public school choice
translates into a critical element of ensuring equity and equal educational opportunity
in the schools.

Supporting the argument for equal educational opportunity was John E.

Coons, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley. Coons, long a critic

of the public school system, argued that, for him, the reasons for choice are both
moral and legal. For Coons (1992), school choice is a matter of simple justice. He
asserted, 'Our system of tax-supported education has for 150 years provided one
of the primary embarrassments to America’s image as a just society" (p. 15). Coons
and his colleague, Steven D. Sugarman, argued that school choice initiatives must
exist and include components that favor the poor. For Coons and Sugarman (1978),
choice is an instrument of distributive justice and a medium of expression for the
ordinary family. It serves the psychological welfare of the family and is a guarantor

of a marketplace of ideas. In sum, school choice is synonymous with liberty and

equal opportunity.

Issueuztfidus‘ationaLBemtm

A second compelling argument for the expansion of school choice is based
on the belief that the public schools are failing and are in need of reform. Advocates
for choice have argued that choice is a vehicle for reforming a failing school system.
They have argued that virtually any educational problem can be solved by choice
and that choice produces a number of significant benefits, such as improving student
outcomes, revitalizing schools, empowering parents, and reforming education
through a free-market system (Paulu, 1989).

On the issue of improving student outcomes, proponents have argued that,
with school choice, students’ academic performance will improve and so will parental
satisfaction. These proponents claim that academic achievement will be enhanced

because students will attend schools that cater to their interests and, more

important, meet their needs. Many analysts have assumed that improvement of
students’ amdemic performance will be the major payoff of educational choice
(Elmore, 1990).

The findings of research have been mixed, but generally they have not
supported this assumption (Ogawa & Dutton, 1994). For example, an evaluation of
the Milwaukee parental choice program indicated that achievement results did not
change appreciably after the first two years (Witt, 1992). Likewise, in the Alum Rock
educational voucher project. a comparison of students in alternative programs with
their counterparts in regular programs revealed no appreciable or consistent
differences in cognitive or affective outcomes (Capell, 1981). Although studies
comparing the performance of students in public and private schools have been
hotly debated, they have yet to produce conclusive findings. Research on
educational choice programs generally has shown that, with few exceptions, the
academic performance of students in choice programs does not improve
(Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1990).

Another argument made by choice advocates is that choice is the vehicle
needed to serve as a catalyst for revitalizing the nation’s schools. It has been
assumed that there will be increased motivation and performancefinvolvement by all
of the participants. Students, choice advocates assert, will be more motivated to
engage in learning because curriculum and instructional strategies will speakto their
interests and needs and because they will have discussed their educational interests
and needs with their families (Mumane, 1984). Teachers will be more motivated

because they will be directly involved in developing their schools’ programs and

8

because their programs were selected by parents and students (Mumane, 1984).
Parents will be more motivated to engage in school-related activities because they
chose the school (Bauch, 1992).

It is not possible to draw definite conclusions about the effect of educational
choice on the motivation of students and teachers. Researchers simply have not
addressed this critical issue (Ogawa & Dutton, 1994). With regard to parental
motivation, there is some evidence that parents who participate in educational
choice programs tend to be more involved in school-related activities than those who
do not participate in such programs. However, it is not clear that choice necessarily
motivates parents; rather, it seems that motivated parents choose (Ogawa 8 Dutton,
1994).

Choice advocates have argued that choice results in an empowering of
parents (Bauch, 1992). They have suggested that parents who are able to choose
among a’number of educational options for their children ultimately will become
more involved in the educational process. In addition, when given choices, parents
are, in fact, empowered; this empowerment is reflected in parents’ having greater
confidence in their children’s schools and accepting responsibility or ownership for
what occurs in those schools (Sheane & Bierlein, 1991). As Fliegel (1989) stated
when discussing parents’ right to choose to enroll their children in magnet schools
in Harlem, “Choice gives youngsters, teachers and parents a sense that they own
the school because they selected the school and because the school attempts to

meet their Interests and abilities" (p. 36).

Proponents of choice also have argued that choice is a bold reform initiative,
providing schools with a competitive, free-market mechanism. They believe choice
will force schools to either improve or lose students, whose share of state education
dollars will follow them to their new schools. Policy makers who believe in choice
see it as the answer to a number of serious educational ailments that exist
nationwide.

A report from the Carnegie Foundation (1992) characterized school choice
as tearing down the monopolies of power that surround the public schools. It
stated,

Transforming parents into education consumers will force the school to shape

up or lose customers. It forces teachers and school administrators to improve

instruction and toughen standards if they are to retain students, and with

them, funding. (p. 16)

Nathan (1989) believed that the free market concept in schools will increase
the technical efficiency of schools, thereby saving costs. In his view, schools’
productivity will not improve unless prodded by the forces of a free market. He
wrote:

Improvement in effectiveness . . . [is] costly to educators not necessarily in

terms of money, but in required institutional, technological, and personal

changes. \Mthout the incentives and discipline of the marketplace, the

creativity and energy of educators may flow not to increase choice and
productivity Improvements but to preserve tradition and increase salaries.

(P- 27)

The lack of incentive in schools for any real changes demands that there be a
catalyst—public school choice in a competitive, free-market system. Changes to
increase productivity and efficiency, measured by controlling overall costs, will be

unlikely without it (Nathan, 1989).

10

Two other advocates for choice in a free-market system are political scientists
John E. Chubb and Terry E. Moe. Essentially, Chubb and Moe (1990) believed that
the natural operations of the markets will drive out bad schools and reward good
ones. They maintained that “markets offer an institutional alternative to direct
democratic control“ (p. 167), adding:

Without being too literal about it, we think that reformers would do well to

entertain the notion that choice is a panacea. . . . Choice is a self-contained

reform with its own rationale and justification. It has the capacity all byitself

to bring about the kind of transformation that, for years, reformers have been

seeking to engineer in myriad other ways. (p. 217)

School choice is now firmly established as an option for parents and students and

has been cited as a vehicle for educational reform.

I E | IT I E |

Thus far, the researcher has reviewed some of the debate regarding school
choice as an issue of free will and as an issue of educational reform. Following
discussions with superintendents and other educational professionals, and after
conducting a pilot study involving interviews with parents of public school students,
this researcher believes there are two additional agendas that need to be developed
and added to the discussion and research on school choice. Those two agendas,
which will be referred to as ”issues of quality and characteristics of schools” and
"issues of family/personal needs,” may well provide some of the most compelling
reasons for allowing and supporting school choice.

In the pilot study with parents, the researcher found that parents who had not

opted for choice were generally not unhappy with the Choices they were allowed to

11

make regarding their children’s education. In addition, most parents appeared
willing to accept the decisions made by the schools regarding their children’s basic
education. For example, parents were inclined to accept that the schools were in a
far better position to make decisions regarding their children’s curriculum, schedule,
teachers, and general educational experiences while at school. In fact, researchers
have indicated that parents are likely to rate their schools favorably when asked to
grade them on their overall performance and tend to "trust them" to make
appropriate decisions regarding their children’s education (Carnegie Foundation,
1992). Likewise, parents believe that the choices they need to make regarding their
children often are compatible with what their schools can provide. As a result, most
parents, when asked, would be unlikely to seek out or want to participate in choice
programs that might remove their children from their local residential schools. This
finding is consistent with the statistical data, which have shown that when choice
programs are in place, the number of parents or families opting for choice does not
represent a significant percentage of the school population (Carnegie Foundation,
1992).

This researcher believes it is important that attempts be made to describe and
explain parents’ decision to opt for a nonresidential school when given that option
through a school choice plan. When parents who did opt for choice were
questioned, the initial pilot study seemed to indicate that the parents or family
members viewed a number of factors or issues in a very personal manner, as the
basis for their decision to choose a nonresidential school. Parents opting for choice

often indicated that the basis fortheir decision to choose a nonresidential school was

12

related to one of two main Issues. Either they expressed concerns regarding the
quality or characteristics of some aspect of their own residential school orthey
had strong personal or family needs that they thought could best be met through
a different school, thus leading them to seek other schOoling options for their
children.

Parents who indicated dissatisfaction with some aspect of their local schools
as the main motive for Opting for choice described their concerns with the quality and
characteristics of their local schools. For example, they might have been unhappy
with the quality of the educational program(s). In some cases, they thought the
curriculum was out of date orthat the program lacked structure or a defined purpose.
Another concern involved the lack of technology or, in some cases, the lack of
appropriate learning space. For example, some thought that science labs lacked the
proper equipment, lab space, and so on, or that the theater was in disrepair and that
other facilities and space were not conducive to today’s demands. Others
complained of a lack of extracurricular activities or the quality of a particular
extracurricular activity, such as a "lousy football program” or a "nice, but Ineffective,
coach.“ in general, these issues related to the quality of programs, the number and
availability of activities, the content and quality of curriculum, the availability of
materials (i.e., computers, lab materials, art supplies, and so on), and the quality of
the facilities.

Parents also expressed some concerns about school personnel. When this
topic was mentioned, It generally related to a confrontation with a particular school

official or unhappiness with a teacher the child might have had while in school. And,

13

if not a direct confrontation, parents described a lack of confidence in the
effectiveness of a teacher, the principal, and/or other school personnel.

Aside from dissatisfaction with their local school, the second set of reasons
parents expressed for Opting for choice was based on what one could describe as
responding to their individual family or personal needs. These reasons are
generally not directly linked to the educational issues described earlier, such as
school quality or school personnel. They may include socioeconomic issues, race,
types of other students, location, and/or convenience. For example, some parents
indicated that they wanted their children to attend schools that "had children like
theirs,“ usually referring to race or socioeconomic background. Some thought their
local schools did not offer/model the values they held to be important and indicated
that, in some cases, it was related to ”the type of kids at that school.“ Others simply
wanted a school that was more conveniently located as it related to the parents’
work schedule and/or the baby-sitting arrangements forthe Children ortheir siblings.
Responding to these family/personal needs often was the basis for parents’ decision
to choose nonresidential schools, i.e., to participate In choice programs.

This researcher theorized that it is these familylpersonal needs issues and
those based on the quality/characteristics of the local school that often drive the
choice movement. Although the discussion will continue on whether choice is an
issue of free will or a vehicle for reform of the educational system, the researcher
believes that family and personal issues and the issue of quality of the local schools

and their programs need to be added to the discussion. In fact, it is these added

14

issues that may well be the most important concerns to families, the real people
making the real choices.

Those studies that researchers have conducted in the area of school choice
have tended to focus on the results of individual school choice programs, i.e., what,
ifany, effect a particular choice program might or might not have had on a region or
a specific locale (Sauter, 1994). Few attempts have been made to understand or
define the meaning of parents’ decision to choose a nonresidential school. Is it the
abstract notions of free will and the educational reform issues that play themselves
out in parents’ decision to choose a nonresidential school for their children’s
education? Or, as this researcher theorized, are the personal/family issues and the
families’ assessment of the quality of their own local schools also important to the
choice discussion? In this study, the researcher’s intention is to describe and
explain parents’ decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s
education in an attempt to add to the literature on school choice in this area.

The pilot interviews the researcher concluded also yielded some interesting
data based on the ages/grade levels of the children. For example, parents
interviewed with students in secondary—level programs (grades 9 through 12) tended
to cite school programs and availability Of extracurricular opportunities as two of the
prime factors motivating their decision to choose nonresidential schools for their
ninth through twelfth graders. Although only a few families with elementary-age
children were interviewed, those parents seemed more concerned with either
convenience (proximity to a baby sitter, and so on) or the quality of individual

teachers. The researcher believes that the present study can yield important data

15

that will add to the literature in this area as well. If the reasons for opting for choice
vary depending on the grade/age of the children affected, those data or the findings
concerning that information might well be of interest to policy makers, educators, and

others interested in the research on choice.

W

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education. The
following questions were designed to provide a framework for this investigation:

1. What are the characteristics of parents who elected to participate in
school choice programs?

2. What is the process by which parents decided to choose nonresidential
public schools for their children?

3. How were the issues of dissatisfaction with the sending (residential)
school and/or the attraction of the receiving (nonresidential) school reflected in the
parents’ decision to choose?

4. How do the decisions to choose nonresidential public schools by
parents with high school students compare with those decisions by parents with
elementary students?

5. To what extent are the issues of free will, educational reform, school/
program characteristics, and family/personal needs reflected in parents’ decision to

choose nonresidential public schools for their children?

16

6. Which of the four issues surrounding choice (free will, educational
reform, school quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs) dominated the
parents’ decision to choose nonresidential schools for their children?

7. Do the data suggest other issues or agendas not previously
presented? if so, what are they?

8. What are the overall opinions of parents concerning the school choice
option in Michigan?

The questions identified above were designed to guide the researcher as he
conducted interviews and made observations in this qualitative study. Analysis of
the data that were collected led to a description and explanation of parents’ decision

to choose nonresidential public schools for their children.

Significanceoflbefitudx

This qualitative study of parents’ decision to choose nonresidential public
schools for their children’s education is significant for at least two reasons. First and
foremost, few researchers on school choice programs have examined parents”
decision to send their children to nonresidential schools (Glenn, 1989b) or on the
school characteristics that attract parents to a particular school (Rossell, 1985).
Therefore, there is a need to interview parents to gain insights into and perspectives
concerning their decisions to participate in the choice option. Second, the
significance of this study also lies in the information and insights it will provide, which

might be helpful to school personnel, boards of education, and policy makers who

17

face the important task of providing high-quality schools and programs for their
constituents.

In this study, the researcher Obtained the data directly by interviewing parents
who had exercised their right to choose nonresidential public schools for their
children’s education. The researcher’s intention was to develop a composite picture
of how people view this new phenomenon (Van Maanen, 1988). Whe parents’
actions, feelings, and beliefs were elicited and analyzed through the qualitative
research approach. The audience of this study is likely to be varied. Educators
need to be aware of all aspects of the school choice movement, including the
decisions of parents regarding school choice. Parents and other citizens may find

this study useful as they attempt to become informed participants and constituents.

Method

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents'
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education.
Because the decision to choose a nonresidential public school had already been
made, the opportunity to observe the process (as a participant observer) simply was
not available. Thus, it made more sense to have the actual participants, i.e., the
parents, reconstruct the act and present their perspective through a personal
interview approach. Following a series of personal interviews with parents
representing 20 families, the researcher was able to describe and explain parents’

decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education.

18

Parent-interviewees were from the same school district in metropolitan Detroit
that has made choice an option for families in the district. Only parents who had
opted for nonresidential public schools fortheir children were selected for interviews.
The researcher purposely decided not to interview families who did not choose to
participate in choice. it was believed that to do so would take the data and research
in a different direction from which the study was intended. Certainly, a related or
follow-up study could and might well be necessary, which would include the
interviewing of parents who chose not to participate in school choice. The parents
were randomly selected from all of those choosing to enroll through the local
district’s choice plan.l¥o provide for some control against internal threats to validity,
such as time and history, parents who had opted for choice plans within the last two
www-

Each set of parents to be interviewed was presented with an explanation of
the purposes of the study and the areas of questioning. All respondents were asked
to sign a consent form. No remuneration Of any kind was given to respondents, and
all were informed that the researcher would ensure the confidentiality of the
informants.

All interviews were guided by the research questions identified above.
Because of the nature of a qualitative study, the researcher needed to allow some
flexibility regarding the order or phrasing of the questions. In addition to keeping
written notes, the researcher tape recorded (with interviewees’ permission) the
interviews. Any adjustments to or editing of written notes taken at the time of the

interviews was done within a few hours of the actual interview in order to maximize

19

the accuracy of the statements. Statements were verified through a review of the
taped session if the researcher later determined it was necessary.

The researcher used the information gained from the interviews to develop
a description and explanation of the parents' decision to choose nonresidential
public schools for their children. Every attempt was made to use and cite only the
information that represented the viewpoints and statements of the respondents

regarding their decisions about school choices.

D I] 'I' [I

The following terms are defined in the context in which they are used in this
study:

animation. The option that parents are given of having their child(ren)
remain in their locally assigned public school or choosing to enroll their child(ren) In
another public school outside their local school district.

Elementandexel. Generally refers to students in kindergarten through fifth
or sixth grade.

MW. A school that draws its students from areas outside their
traditional school boundary. Magnet schools usually provide a unique or specialized
curriculum or program that is appealing to the student and/or the student’s family.

W. The receiving public school or new school chosen by
parents outside of their residential school district for their child’s education.

Residenflalschml. The local public school that parents have decided not to

send their child to when given a choice option.

20

W. Generally refers to students in grades 7 through 12 or

perhaps grades 6 through 12.

Gleam!

Chapter I included background information regarding the issues surrounding
choice and an explanation of the purpose of the study. The research questions were
listed, and the significance of the study was explained. The methodology used in
conducting the study was described. Definitions of key terms were given.

Chapter II contains a review of literature related to the study. Pertinent
information is discussed on the following topics: legal aspects of choice, political
momentum of choice, choice in education, choice factors. and characteristics of
parent Choosers.

The research design and investigative procedures that were used in
conducting the study are described in Chapter HIP/Included are descriptions of the
population, sample selection, data collection and treatment, validity and reliability
criteria, and limitations of the study.

The results of the investigation are presented in Chapter IV. This chapter
contains a description and explanation of the findings, based on an analysis of the
data that were collected. Chapter V contains a discussion of the results pertaining
to the research questions, as well as findings from the interviews and related
observations. Conclusions drawn from the findings are set forth, as are

recommendations for further study. Finally, the researcher’s reflections and

limitations Of the study are presented.

21

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND RESEARCH

The researcher’s purpose in this study is to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their Children's education. This
chapter contains a review of literature and research dealing with the topic of school
choice. The review is focused on five topics that should provide a context for the
research. These topics are Legal Aspects Regarding Choice, Political Momentum,

Choice in Education, Choice Factors, and Characteristics of Parent-Choosers.

| l I l B I. III .

A number of legal cases have been handed down by the courts that provide
the basis or framework supporting school choice. These cases generally have
supported parents’ right to make choices regarding educational options for their
children. Specifically, there have been four court cases supporting parents’ right to
choose in educational matters (Alexander 8. Alexander, 1985). In the case ofMeyeI:
LNebraska (1923), the courts upheld the right of parents to decide that their
children’s education included the right to study and be taught in the German
language while attending a private school (Alexander 8 Alexander, 1985). This was
a landmark decision because, before this ruling, the state or local school district had

the authority to require school attendance and the right to determine that classroom

22

instruction would be provided only in the English language. The decision on the part
of the courts to support parents’ right to ask that instruction be provided in a
language other than English-4n this case, German—was a significant victory in
support of parents’ rights. A

In Waters (1925) (Alexander 8 Alexander, 1985), the
Supreme Court again ruled the unconstitutionality of an Oregon statute that required
all children between the ages of 8 and 16 to attend public schools. The case
established that parochial or private education was an appropriate and acceptable
alternative to public education, a ruling that again supported parental rights. The
court supported the parents’ right to choose an education in which quality standards
were reasonably established and met. It is significant to the current study of parental
choice because the court decision validates the private-interest argument and
upheld parents’ right to have their children educated in schools other than the lowl
public sChools.

In a more recent case, W (1965), the courts recognized
the right of parents to have freedom of choice, claiming it was protected by the due
process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Alexander & Alexander, 1985). The
Wall case focused on a Connecticut statute that attempted to
limit the amount of information provided to married persons on instruction and
medical advice regarding conception and birth control. Although this case did not
deal with public education issues, it did reflect the court’s decision to limit state
power in matters of individual choice of its citizenry. In their decision, the Supreme

Court cited the Meyers and Pierce decisions, finding that the Connecticut statute

23

was found to be unconstitutional because the court believed the state was
attempting to limit and, in effect, infringe on the rights of families.

Finally, there was the decision of the courts in War (1972), in
which the states’ claim to require Amish children to attend the local public high
school was challenged (Alexander 8 Alexander, 1985). In this case, the Amish
argued that the education their children were receiving beyond the local elementary
school level conflicted with the values of their religion and contributed to their
children’s alienation from their God. The courts agreed with the parents’ position
and, in effect, challenged the parents patriae power Of the state by supporting the
right of parents to determine which school or religious school they might choose for
their children’s education. In addition, the court's decision supported the Amish’s
right to have an alternative education to what was then the traditional public school

Option (Alexander 8 Alexander, 1985).

Summary

The four court cases cited above demonstrate the shift from state control of
children’s education to allowing for more parental and individual choice. In essence,
it supports the individual family’s/parents’ freedom to choose when selecting the best
educational alternative for children. Although school choice is not mentioned in the
Constitution per se, the American system assumes only limited areas into which
government may intrude, and outside these areas, one is left to one’s own choices
(Seeley, 1985). Choosing the school and the content of their children’s educational

programs is generally believed to be the right of parents and thus outweighs the

24

state’s responsibility to control those decisions as an argument in support of

promoting the public good.

BolitlcaLMQmentum

Although the concept of choice in schools has been of interest to educational
reformers and to many politicians, it was not, in some respects, until the early 1980s
that political attention to the choice issue truly started to gain momentum. In 1983,
the National Commission on Excellence in Education, a blue-ribbon panel of
educational leaders inside and outside of government, drew renewed attention to the
quality of schools when it published its now-famous report, W. The
picture the Commission drew of American education was that the nation’s schools
were in trouble and that, in many respects, the nation was at risk as a result of this
situation. America’s once-unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry,
science, and technological innovation was being overtaken by competitors
throughout the world. The Commission suggested that the educational foundations
of American society were being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that was
threatening America’s very future as a nation and a people. They concluded that the
nation needed to reform its educational system for the benefit of all.

The report clearly sounded the alarm-something was wrong. If the nation
was failing, they argued, in large measure it was because the schools simply were
not doing their job. The alarm raised by the Commission was echoed by other
groups, including the Education Commission of the States (1983), the Carnegie Task

Force on Teaching as a Profession (1983), and the National Governors Association

25

(1986). A number of nationally recognized scholars, such as John Goodlad (1984)
and Theodore Sizer (1984), also declared American public education to be in
desperate need of repair.

In effect, the United States in the 1980s and early 19003 engaged in a new
educational debate, one of the more interesting such discussions in the nation’s
history. This debate can be associated with three successive periods of reform. The
first set of reforms stressed the accountability of teachers and students. Forty-five
states, for instance, raised their high school graduation requirements. There was a
great emphasis on the evaluation of teachers, and some states, like Arkansas,
instituted competency tests for teachers (Hess, 1992). The idea that raising
teaching standards would lead to greater student learning was simplistic, at best.
It is not surprising that, despite the attempts to legislate greater accountability for
teachers, students’ standardized test scores continued to decline. Accountability
alone could not transform schools (Cookson, 1994).

A second era Of reform began In 1986, when the Carnegie Task Force on
Teaching as a Profession wrote AW
Century. The report called for restructuring schools through the professionalization
of teachers and the empowerment of parents and students. Professionalization of
teachers was institutionalized in school-based management innovations in such
places as Dade County, Florida, and Rochester, New York. Parent and student
empowerment resulted in two forms of policy options: radical decentralization and

school choice.

26

By the end of the 1980s, however, many educational reformers had come to
believe that simply changing the internal organization of schools would not result in
greater student learning because the very structure of the schools prohibited
learning (Cookson, 1994). What was needed was a drastic change in or
transformation of the school systems themselves. Some educators and policy
makers began to suggest that, to truly change American schools, the so-called state
monopoly of education would have to be broken. Thus, the reforms of the 1980s
can be characterized as a movement from traditional notions of educational reform
(such as improved teaching practices) to more radical notions (revamping the entire
system). The conditions and the time were right for a school choice coalition to
emerge and challenge the educational establishment (Cookson, 1994).

John E. Coons, law professor at the University of California at Berkeley,
believed that school choice is the path needed to cut through educational mediocrity.
Coons (1992) had been a critic of the public school system for several decades. For
him, school choice was a matter of simple justice. He stated, ”Our system of tax-
supported education has for 150 years provided one of the primary embarrassments
to America’s image as a just society” (p. 15). Coons and his colleague, Stephen D.
Sugarman (1978), argued, in essence, that school choice initiatives must include
voucher components that favor the poor. For Coons, choice is an instrument of
distributive justice and a medium of expression for the ordinary family; it serves the
psychological welfare of the family, and it is the guarantor of a marketplace of ideas.
In sum, school choice is synonymous with liberty. According to Coons, the present

system disregards family values because the child, in effect, is removed from the

27

family’s intellectual and moral beliefs by the government when he or she is placed
in a public school. Coons believed that choice Is a way of overcoming the divisions
between family and state. Coons and Sugarman have been at the forefront of the
part of the educational reform movement that seeks to disestablish the public school
system in the name of freedom. They are current examples of those who adhere to
a fundamental belief In individual freedom that goes back to the time of seventeenth-
century social philosopher John Locke.

The reform movements of the 1980s had little effect on the overall redesign
of American education, and the public school system was battered politically,
particularly from the right (Fliegel, 1990a). With the election of Ronald Reagan in
1980, the right gained the political power and platform to wage war against liberal
reforms. The new-right conservatives, including some religious leaders and
evangelicals, characterized public schools as repositories of secular humanism.
They gained informal and formal power in national politics and found support in such
places as the US. Department of Education. During the 19803, the Department
shifted its emphasis away from public education and moved toward private
education and school choice. During that decade, which was dominated by
Republican administrations, even the secretaries of education were conservative
supporters of school choice, and one, Lamar Alexander, publicly voiced his support
of choice without reservation.

In the ongoing efforts to capture the minds, hearts, and votes of Americans,
the school choice coalition has been aided by think tanks, interest groups, and

individuals who are not based in Washington and do not approach school choice

28

 

from a religious or other private-school perspective. One of the most prominent and
intellectually respected of these advocacy groups Is the Manhattan Institute, which
has released several studies about the benefits of school choice for poor, inner-city
minority children. The Manhattan Institute is led by some of the country’s most
prominent banking and corporate executives, university professors, and politicians,
as well as public school administrators and labor leaders.

Support for school choice runs far deeper politically than what has been
propounded by the Washington establishment or the Manhattan Institute. In states
such as Michigan, conservative groups such as the Mackinaw Center have lobbied
for school choice plans. There appear to be few, if any, states in which grassroots
choice organizers have not had an influence on legislative and political processes.

In some respects, choice made its first major national political breakthrough
at the National Governors' Conference in 1986. In their report, W, the
governors said, -

If we first implement choice, true choice among public schools, we unlock the

values of competition in the marketplace. Schools that compete for students.

teachers and dollars will, by virtue of the environment, make those changes

that will allow them to succeed. (Paulu, 1989, p. 14)

Three years later, the White House held a workshop on school choice. President
Bush addressed the conference, openly supporting choice.

The governors and their key aides concluded that there was virtually no
educational problem that could not be solved by choice and that choice produces at
least eight benefits (Paulu, 1989):

1. Choice can bring basic structural changes to schools.

2. Schools of choice recognize individuality.

29

3. Choice fosters competition and accountability.
4. Choice can improve educational outcomes.
5. Schools of choice can keep potential dropouts in school and draw back

those who have already left.

6. Schools of choice increase parents’ freedom.

7. Choice plans increase parents' satisfaction with and involvement in the
schools.

8. Schools of choice can enhance educational opportunities, particularly

for disadvantaged parents.

In his plan for reforming education, called America 2000, President Bush
incorporated several provisions for school choice. His plan included a $2 million
education certificate support fund and a $30 million fund for creating National School
Choice Demonstration Projects. .

Then, in 1990. W was publishedna
book that captured the attention of educators, policy makers, and politicians. The
book was written by two political scientists, John E. Chubb and Terry M. Moe.
Essentially, Chubb and Moe believed that the natural operations of markets would
drive out bad schools and reward good ones. They argued that school choice had
the potential for reforming education, stating that ”choice is a self-contained reform
with its own rationale and justification. It has the capacity all byitse/fto bring about
the kind of transformation that, for years, reformers have been seeking to engineer

in myriad other ways” (p. 217). Schools compete for the support of parents and

30

students, and parents and students are free to choose among schools. The system
is built around decentralization, competition, and choice.

School choice is now firmly established as an option for parents and students.

It has captured the attention of both politicians and educational reformers, and it is

believed that choice can provide a vehicle for reforming education without costing

a great deal of money. In addition, it provides an option for consumer-conscious

citizens who believe in their right to pick and choose from their options.

museum

EubliLScInQLManmlx

Free choice in education has long been considered a parental right and an
expression of family sovereignty in educational matters. Also, for more than 200
years, choice has been considered a means for ending the monopoly of public
education. IDAINQaIIththaIiQns, written by Adam Smith in 1776, exposed the
negative consequences of a protected monopoly and its detriment to an individual’s
freedom of choice. Insulated from competition, public schools, wrote Smith, "have
not only corrupted the diligence of public teachers, but have rendered it almost
impossible to have any good private ones” (cited in Coons 8 Sugarman, 1978,
p. 18). In recent years, others have criticized public education for its monopolistic
characteristics (Coons 8 Sugarman, 1978; Friedman, 1962; Friedman 8 Friedman,
1979; Holt, 1969).

Lieberman (1989) suggested that as the "single supplier" of educational

services, public education produces problems for both the public school organization

31

and the clients it serves. Considering the problem of the single-supplier status of
public education, Lieberman pointed out that employees in a monopolistic
organization ”are not as likely to be responsive to Citizen concerns as service
providers who can be replaced from time to time” (p. 43).

At the core of the monopoly argument is the Idea that central government
should not hinder the freedom of individuals to pursue their interests and values.
The central defect of government intervention, according to Friedman (1962), is
government’s forcing people to act against their own immediate interests and values.
He wrote:

They seek to resolve what is supposed to be a conflict of interest, or a

difference in view about interests . . . by forcing people to act against their

own interests. These measures are therefore countered by one of the
strongest and most creative forces known to man—the attempt by millions of
individuals to promote their own interests to live their own lives by their own
values. The interests of which I speak are not simply narrow self-
regarding interests. On the contrary, they include the whole range of values

that men hold dear and for which they are willing to spend their fortunes and
sacrifice their lives. (p. 200)

Betcrmandfibcica
The support for parental choice in education as a basic tool for restructuring
education and improving public schools has been well documented (Bane 8 Jencks,
1972; Nathan, 1989a; Raywid, 1989; Zerchykov, 1987). Perpich (1989) argued that
Choice is the key. Choice has fostered an atmosphere in which everyone is
taking a closer look at schools. Educators and education policy makers are
taking a fresh approach to what makes a good school. . . . Public school
choice is a key strategy to help improve our nation’s education system. (p. 3)

Others have reported that choice as an educational innovation is increasingly

being supported by research. Raywid (1984) wrote,

32

Among the educational innovations introduced during the 1960’s,
alternatives-or schools of choice—have proven one of the most durable and
are increasingly finding support from research. This support may be one
reason why schools of choice continue to proliferate. (p. 71)

Some writers have seen choice as a means for reforming public schools, as
a way of empowering those who are directly affected by public schools-namely,
parents, teachers, and students (Clinchy, 1989; Doyle 8 Levine, 1989; Mueller,
1987; Urbansky, 1989). The idea of empowering parents, teachers, and students
need not necessarily create a conflict situation for public schools (Urbansky, 1989).
Empowered teachers, on one hand, will be able to design better teaching and
teaming environments, and parents will be the recipients of more high-quality
options. Clinchy suggested that choice as an empowering of parents and
professional staff is a way of truly reforming the traditional system of education,
which “holds parents, students, and professional educators hostage” (p. 290). He
confinued:

Both parental choice and professional choice, when properly conceived and

executed, are necessary because they turn our traditional authoritarian

system of public education upside down. And this shake up is genuine

change, real reform, true restructuring. (p. 290)

Raywid (1983) contended that reform periods generally focus on a
“tightening-up” orientation, which strongly advocates a uniformity among common
standards, expectations, and content. The tightening-up philosophy supports the
connection between sameness and educational quality. Consequently, Raywid
noted that the common curriculum, required of all students, becomes the focus of

reform. She distinguished between reforming public education through choice and

reforming education through excellence:

33

Whereas the alternative idea [choice] holds that the key to educational
effectiveness lies In providing different kinds Of schools to serve different
kinds of youngsters and families, the "excellence“ agenda consists of
redesigning a single best system for everybody. (p. 684)

Urbansky (1989) suggested that the challenge of educational reform is not
simply invigorating the present system of public schools, but "finding new and more
effective ways to educate more students” (p. 236). Some proponents of increased
school options have contended that choice is a powerful tool for educational change,
but not a cure for all of education's ills (Doyle 8 Levine, 1989; Glenn, 1989b, 1989b;
Nathan, 1989a). Others, however, have seen choice as the centerpiece for the
reform movement and a panacea for public education because it is unlike any other
strategy for restructuring education (Chubb 8 Moe, 1990). Chubb and Moe wrote,
”Choice is a self—contained reform with its own rationale and justification. It has the

capacity all by itself to bring about the kind of transformation that, for years,

reformers have been seeking to engineer in myriad other ways” (p. 14).

Wm

A central theme favoring the argument for increased parental choice is the
idea that no “one best system" exists to accommodate the diversity of values,
students, and teachers. Tyack (1974) traced the early development of the ”one best
system” and characterized the systematizing of public education as a response to
the chaotic growth of urban centers, class discord, and the introduction of
organizational and technological advancements in industry.

During the nineteenth century, the transformation of public education from

village to urban schools triggered a search for one best system Of education for

34

urban populations. Before the centralization of public schools in the early 1840s,
parents freely exercised their right to choose their children’s schools. As American
culture changed, especially in the postwar era when itwas evolving from an agrarian
to an industrial society, the urban centers became magnets for those who searched
for a better quality of life. The principles of scientific management, which created
order in the factories and industries, were also, at that time, introduced into public
education. Tyack (1974) described the standardization of the public school system:
They [educators] were impressed with the order and efficiency of the new
technology and forms of organization they saw about them. The division of
labor in the factory, the punctuality of the railroad, the chain of command and
coordination in modern businesses—these aroused a sense of wonder and
excitement in men and women seeking to systematize the schools. (p. 28)
Tyack (1974) argued that effective reform of public education requires a
reassessment of our convictions about the possibility offinding the one best system
and the value of insulating schools from the community. The one best system that
developed at the turn of the century must be reformed, Tyack contended, through
shared decision making, increased attention to the distinct learning styles of ethnic
groups, and the development of alternatives within the system.
Choice is an alternative to the one-best-system mind-set that is pervasive in
public education. It has the potential to increase satisfaction among the consumers

of public education and to reduce strife between parents and schools (Elam 8

Gallup, 1989).

35

EatentaLDlssatlstaction

The popularity of choice as a means for accessing better quality education
also grew out of parents' increasing dissatisfaction with public schools (Glenn,
1989b; Seeley, 1985). It is common for Americans to search for alternatives to
institutions with which they are dissatisfied. This Is especially the case in public
education (Coons 8 Sugarman, 1978).

Seeley (1985) indicated that 'exit' is a natural reaction to dissatisfaction. He
reasoned that choice will receive increasing attention in the public forum because
there is growing disaffection with public schools; private school parents are finding
it difficult to meet tuition payments; and many public school parents are, for the first
time, considering private and parochial schools. Seeley viewed choice as an “and
run' around difficult public school problems. He stated,

Instead of trying to make educational governance more responsive to the

voice of parents, students and citizens or to get school bureaucracies to

share power or change direction of militant teacher unionism, choice simply
allows dissatisfied parents to pick a school better suited to their children’s

needs and their family’s values. (p. 85)

Seeley also suggested that public school officials should examine their role in the

exodus of dissatisfied parents.

DI . I C fl' I

Some writers have viewed family choice as a means of reducing social
conflict (Lieberman, 1989) and increasing community support for public schools
(Blank, Baltzell, Chabotar, 8 Dantler, 1983; Robinson, 1984). Fantini (1973), who

maintained that parental choice models should not be limited to the public school

36

system, believed that choice can help reduce tensions and conflicts, especially in
conventional desegregated schools. He thought that public schools of choice
increase chances for “developing educational environments that are responsive to
the style and culture of the community" (p. 228). His basic idea was that neither
students nor parents should think that there is something wrong with them if an
educational option does not work.

Fantini (1973) regarded parental choice as a way of bringing harmony to
education. When parents are given the right to choose, families with like views of
education gravitate toward similar schools and thus bring about harmony. Fantini
saw parents (families) as best qualified to decide on which school will best meet the
needs of their children, as opposed to the long-standing policy of assigning Children
to a school based on geographic location.

Lieberman (1989), a supporter of educational vouchers to private schools,
argued that family choice was a means of reducing the intense political, religious,
economic, and cultural conflicts that characterize education today. According to
Lieberman, public schools create too much conflict and, consequently, require
excessive amounts of resources for managing the conflict. For this reason, he
wrote, 'it is betterto have their [parents’] disagreements resolved through the market
place instead of the political process“ (p. 215).

Reitman (1987) suggested that the conventional wisdom that public education
can 'save the American people from imminent catastrophe” (p. 14) has contributed
to a hurtful cultural illusion. He contended that schooling is a ”false messiah,” and

that America’s once socially self-reliant society has become too dependent on the

37

salvational capacity of schooling to solve all of society’s problems. Through family
choice and preferences in education, the “Education Messiah Complex” that plagues
public school perceptions can be eliminated. Reitman stated,

In short, by opening up significant options for schooling to parents (i.e., not

merely options within the prevailing public sector, as Raywid and others have

urged), the Education Messiah Complex will be enmeshed because no
school can perform the impossible. All that any school can achieve is

educational in nature. And that is sufficient. (pp. 16—17)

In a two-year national study of magnet schools, Blank et al. (1983) found that
choice can help increase community members’ confidence in public education. They
reported that effective magnets require community involvement in forms not normally
found in public schools, such as planning program designs, writing curriculum, and
arranging for special equipment orfacilities. Community participation in planning the
magnet tended “to decrease opposition and lead to high involvement in
implementation“ (p. 37). When the magnet delivered according to what was planned
and expected, increases in public support for the district were realized.

It has also been argued that the ability of public schools to Offer educational
choice is a strong defense for public education (Raywid, 1983). Educational choice

in the public school system would eliminate the need for policy makers to provide

parents with choice through the financial support of private schools.

BenefitmLQbolca

A number of Investigators have suggested that distinct benefits can be

derived from providing choice to parents and students (Fizzell, 1987; Fliegel, 1989;

38

.- t 0:.E».!..Iq~w5 ‘ l
x

Glenn, 1989b; Seeley, 1985). In Raywid's (1984) synthesis of research on choice,
she highlighted these benefits.

Choice heightens parents’ investment In what they have chosen and provides
a coherent group of like-minded individuals involved in the schools of choice.
Raywid (1984) also pointed out that schools of choice produced high levels of
satisfaction to both parents and students, which, in turn, generated more positive
attitudes toward and support for public schools. With regard to students, Raywid
(1989) reported that schools of choice generally have higher levels of student
attendance and lower dropout rates. Improved attitudes toward schooling were
especially significant among tumed-off students. She wrote,

It is not unusual for successful students in any school to be positively

disposed toward their school. What seems unique to schools of choice,

however, is the finding of positive attitudes among less successful students.

It is an important achievement in two regards: first, in keeping the door open

to permit future success, and second in helping assure positive behavior prior

to the time of success. Thus, the ability of schools of choice to generate a
liking for school even among weak students is an important accomplishment.

(p- 28)

Raywid (1984) also indicated that teachers receive benefits from teaching in
schools of Choice. In addition to decreased disciplinary problems and teacher-
student conflicts, teachers in schools of choice enjoy high levels of autonomy and
control over their programs. Morale is enhanced in this climate of professional
autonomy and collegiality.

Increased parental involvement and meaningful partnerships between families
and schools are further benefits derived from choice (Nathan, 1989a; Raywid, 1984;

Seeley, 1989). Parents are empowered in schools of choice and are required to

39

enter a different relationship than is now evident In the typical public school. Further,
in such schools, parents, teachers, and principals jointly establish and share
responsibility for children’s academic growth (Mueller, 1987).

Seeley (1985) suggested that partnerships between teachers and parents and
between families and schools are a ”state of mind more than a description of
functions [and] need not always involve active participation" (p. 146). Seeley’s
premise was that the mere act of choosing creates a partnership or bond that is
shared by the teacher, parent, and child.

in his analysis of choice, Seeley (1985) stated that there are three other
benefits of choice: student motivation, accountability, and affirmation of one’s
values. Even though the interaction between choice and motivation is a complex
one, choice can improve student motivation by improving the relationship between
teachers and students. Choice gives parents and students a substantial voice in
educational decisions that previously were subordinated to the group process.
Seeley believed that "the need in educational policy is not to enthrone choice as the
sole determinant, but to give it its legitimate place and to unleash the power it
represents in terms of student motivation and parental trust" (p. 87).

Further, Seeley (1985) indicated that choice provides two predominant ways
of holding institutions accountable. Parental choice provides a market accountability
through which dissatisfaction is measured by parents’ taking their business
elsewhere. Choice, on the other hand, provides a kind of political accountability

through which attempts are made to change the institution when parents are

40

dissatisfied. Seeley cited four reasons that prevent parents from exercising their
options:
1. The parents are not aware that there is a problem.
2. They do not think it is their responsibility to evaluate either their child’s
or the school’s performance.
3. They know that the child is not learning satisfactorily but assume the
problem is with the child.
4. They are aware that the problem may be with the school but feel they
have no other option. (p. 88)
Finally, Seeley (1985) and Glenn (1989b) pointed out that choice Is an
affirmation of one’s values and an accommodation of the pluralistic values in
American society. The act of selection gives the Choosers an interest in the school

they choose.

thiceandlalues

Coons (1990) contended that the common curriculum found in public schools
today was designed in the nineteenth century for the purpose of standardizing a
culture and serving as a ”truth function" through a common set of values. He argued
that the truth function of the common curriculum has outlived its usefulness because
today ”there are too many versions of reality and of the good life” (p. 36). In addition,
he suggested that Institutions, and public schools in particular, have failed to adapt
sufficiently to the changing value systems of parents. Consequently, parents have
sought alternatives through choice.

Several researchers have seen parents' ability to choose the schools that
their children will attend as a mechanism of achieving a positive consensus of

shared values In the chosen schools. Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore (1981) claimed

41

 

that schools in which values are agreed upon are more capable of producing
cognitive growth than those student bodies formed by administrative assignment.
Shared values in the school setting tend to create strong, homogeneous cultures
that are linked to the shared mission of the school. 1

Schools of choice have been compared favorably with private. parochial
schools, in part due to the sense of community that they create (Raywid, 1987). In
his investigation of parental choice of magnet schools, Amen (1989) found that, like
the parochial, nonpublic schools, choice schools create effective learning
environments because of their ”heightened awareness of communal purpose”
(p. 570). In noncholce schools, Amen concluded, parents' educational values are
unlikely to be deeply aroused.

Robinson (1984) asserted that public school systems are capable of providing
an educational belief (value) system in the form of a choice school, even though the
belief (value) is not closely held by some professional educators in the system.
Amen (1989) suggested that parental values are significant and play an important
part in the choice process because they are often used as a ”primary screening
device for determining what information (in choosing a school) is helpful and what

is irrelevant” (p. 560).

Walton
Sincetheir inception in the late 1960s, magnet schools have become the Chief
tool for desegregating public schools (Amen, 1989) and a relatively uncontroversial

method of accomplishing desegregation (Rossell, 1985). Magnet schools exist to

42

reduce racial isolation and as a voluntary altematlve to the mandatory assignment
of students (Blank at al., 1983).

Magnet schools were first developed for large urban school districts and were
designed with special curricular programming to attract white and minority
populations. In a national study of magnet schools, Blank et al. (1983) reported that
magnet schools are largely an urban phenomenon and are more numerous in the
Northeast, Midwest, and West than elsewhere. Fifty-nine percent of the magnet
programs in the study were found to be at the elementary level and featured
pedagogical distinctions (fundamental, open, Montessori, and so on). At the high
school level, curricular features were emphasized.

In commenting on the politics of urban education, Archbald (1988) suggested
that magnet schools may serve multiple functions. He believed that magnet schools
reduce conflicts with busing, improve the image of educational quality of larger urban
school districts, and retain black and white middle-income parents In urban schools.
He also found that magnet schools are more cohesive and consensual organizations

than are nonmagnets. He stated,

1. The distinctive specialization and autonomy give staff a clearer sense
of purpose.

2. There is greater incentive to prevent ”disorder" since adversity affects
a school’s reputation and ability to compete for students.

3. [There is] a probable self-selection of people (principals, teachers and

parents) to magnets above average in their commitment and ability to
encourage student discipline and agreement regarding educational
goals. (pp. 470-471)

Because attending a magnet school is generally based on parents’ free

choice, magnets are unlike other desegregation strategies, which were designed

43

simply to mix the races and achieve an integrated school system. Fantini (1973)
believed that integration ls more a psychological than a physical state and that the
“mere physical mixing is not the same as integration” (p. 229). He saw choice
schools as an opportunity to develop integrated education in which students from
diversified backgrounds would share a common focus and ”gain a new sense of
connection in the process” (p. 229).

Many researchers have proposed that the traditional role of the magnet
school as a desegregation strategy may be changing (Glenn, 1989b; McCurdy,
1985). McCurdy reported that the benefits that magnets Offer, namely, diversity of
choices, renewed parental involvement, and concern for the quality of education, not
only exceed their intended purpose of integration, but also entice other districts to
embrace the idea of alternative schools.

Charles Glenn (1989b), Director of the Massachusetts Bureau of Educational
Equity, saw choice as a mechanism for promoting equity and integration in public
schools. However, he noted that the benefits of parental choice exceed the aims of
race and class integration and make sense on their own merit. He cited pedagogical

and cultural reasons for making choice available to parents:

1. Students learn more if we take account of their different needs and
strengths; they think and work in different ways.

2. Schools with a clear educational mission, a coherent approach to
instruction, are more effective.

3. Teachers with freedom to make professional decisions—and
accountability for results—bring more energy and creativity to the
classroom.

4. Students and their parents are more committed to the educational

mission of schools that they have chosen. (p. 49)

44

 

In the Blank et al. (1983) study, which coincided with the release of the US.
Department 01’ Education’s report, ANatiQnaLBlsls, the researchers reported that a
new trend was emerging with magnet schools. Whereas magnets Offer an
alternative to involuntary desegregation and forced busing, “the concept has attained
Its own popularity, due to the combination of urban school district needs and the
interest of parents, students, and communities in education innovation" (p. 13).

Raywid (1985) wrote that there has been an apparent shift In orientation of
magnet schools, a maturation of the concept. She summarized that maturation in
the following way:

Asthe magnet idea has matured and additional concerns have shaped public

discussion, a shift has gradually occurred In magnet school orientation—or

more properly, an expansion has taken place, from an exclusive
preoccupation with effecting desegregation to including ”an emphasis on
providing quality education or educational options for the district“ (Fleming et
al., 1982). Shifts in emphasis have paralleled the discovery that magnets are
somewhat less effective in desegregating schools than has been hoped, but

a great deal more effective in improving educational quality, and
simultaneously, school image and support. (pp. 449-450)

Summary

Free choice in education is deeply rooted in the American value system and
has been a cause championed by many people for more than 200 years. Early
proponents of choice in educational matters frequently cited the monopolistic nature
of public education as detrimental to parental choice as well as the ability (or desire)
of public schools to improve education. More recently, Friedman and Friedman
(1979) and others have proposed various plans that would create a free-market

atmosphere among public schools. Fantini (1973) and others have argued that

45

 

plans to expand choice should be explored, but only within the context of public
schools.

The restructuring of public education through school choice frequently has
been mentioned in the literature. Many writers have suggested that empowerment
of parents, teachers, and students should be the focus of the reform movement.
Others have suggested that public schools should emulate private schools in relation
to site-based management and school autonomy (Chubb 8 Moe, 1990). The
common theme that appears in the divergent views on Choice as a tool for
restructuring public education and as a method for introducing competition into the
educational marketplace is the failure of one best system to meet the diverse values
and needs of education consumers. Researchers such as Tyack (1974) have
argued that there is increasing dissatisfaction among parents regarding the one best
system.

The benefits of choice have found support in the literature, particularly in the
more recent studies of choice. In addition to reducing the social conflicts that appear
to cause dissatisfaction in parents (i.e., what to teach, how to teach it, and a value
system), choice offers other benefits not generally found in the typical public school
system. Low dropout rates, increased student achievement, parental involvement,
and a consensus of school culture (ethos/climate) are some of these benefits.
Generally, these benefits are accrued because of the desire of students, teachers,
and parents to be a part of the chosen school. A sense of community and a shared
value system contribute to the uniqueness of schools of choice, which resemble an

environment usually found in nonpublic parochial and private schools (Gratiot, 1979).

46

 

'.‘v\lll.hn' H to!“
I

in

iii

lie:

Magnet schools have become the most popular strategy for desegregating
schools. However, some researchers and writers have indicated that a new trend
is emerging from the magnet concept (Blank et al., 1983). Whereas racial
integration was once the primary focus of the magnet-school concept, this goal has
been overshadowed by the ability of magnets to accomplish more than "mere
physical mixing” of the races (Fantini, 1973). The emerging form is a school of
choice that combines the goal of an integrated education with a common-value focus

for students from diverse backgrounds.

We:

The literature on the factors affecting parents’ decisions about schools for
their children is somewhat limited (Williams, Hancher, 8 Hutner, 1983). Rossell
(1985) pointed out that there have been few comparative analyses of the school
characteristics that are attractive to parents and students. In his analysis of choice
in six industrialized nations, Glenn (1989a) reported that there has been little
empirical research on the reasons parents make decisions about a school for their
children. Because schools of choice have not been the tradition in public schooling,
and they have a relatively short history, the evidence available regarding choice is
limited (Raywid, 1989).

Parents consider various factors when deciding where their children will
attend school. The literature in this area indicated that many factors are considered
and become part of the parents’ decision. The major factors that parents consider

when making their choice are reviewed in this section.

47

 

Parental decisions regarding the choice of a school generally are not
idiosyncratic (Uchitelle 8 Nault, 1977) and involve many factors, which would
suggest a process rather than an event (Amen, 1989; Bridges 8 Blackman, 1978).
Scott (1983) suggested that the factors involved in parents’ choice of schools do not
simply reflect locally available options, but rather are associated with value conflicts
and issues in the past and present status of education. Religious, social, and racial
differences contribute to conflicts concerning the structure of public education. Scott
found that school choice decisions involved the parents’ educational values, the
individual needs of their children, their beliefs concerning how children are motivated
to learn, and a desire to become part of a school community of Iike-rninded parents
and teachers.

In a study of choice in an affluent suburban community in Ohio, Oakley (1985)
confirmed the earlier findings of Bridges and Blackman (1978), who discovered that
parents continued to evaluate their choice after it had been made. Lower academic
standards, unmet student needs, unresponsiveness Of the school to parental
concerns, declining discipline, and increased nonpublic school costs are factors that
would cause parents to seek a second or third school option.

Uchitelle and Nault (1977) contended that the processes of selecting a school
were generally similar among parents who actively sought a school option, whereas
the factors used in the selection process varied greatly. They also found that "in
some cases the parents begin the search process with a predetermined set of
choice factors, while other parents appear to develop criteria during exposure to the

schools” (p. 23).

48

 

idem

Some researchers have considered one’s choice of residence to be a
Iificant factor in the choice of a school. Williams et al. (1983) and Maddaus
87) explained that the choice of school is generally made when parents buy a
use or choose a residence within the attendance area of a desired school. In a
itional survey of households regarding choice and tuition tax credits, Vlfilliams et
I. (1983) found that, in all demographic areas sampled in the study, parents were
generally more likely to think about schools when deciding where to live than when

enrolling their children in particular schools.
Maddaus (1987) concurred with these findings and speculated that the choice
concept has rarely been implemented because most affluent families already have
exercised choice among public schools through their selection of housing. For such
families, he explained, various plans for public school choice are not needed.
Maddaus concluded that school enrollment opportunities should be made available
to poor minorities who lack the financial resources to choose a school based on
selection of residence. Other earlier researchers also confirmed residency as a

predominant factor in school choice (Coons 8 Sugarman, 1978; Sonnenfeld, 1973).

melmil!
Several researchers have found geographic location or proximity to be a
factor in school choice. In a study Of parental choice in Coquitiam, British Columbia,
Cogan (1979) found that Iow-socioeconomic-status (SES) parents chose a school

based on its location and its cost (distance, transportation, and choice of

49

 

neighborhood), whereas high-SE8 parents considered the adequacy of the school
environment, the school program, and the child’s personality. Scott (1983) indicated
that location was a powerful determinant of parental choice, especially when it
involved young children. However, proximity was less of a concern at the high
school level and was found to diminish in importance for elementary school Choosers
when the bus stop was ”closer to the home and [did] not require crossing busy
streets“ (Archbald, 1988, p. 249).

When given a choice between neighborhood schools and high-quality magnet
schools, black families were less likely to consider proximity as a choice factor when
the more distant alternative school had a higher percentage of college-educated
clients (Archbald, 1988). Rossell (1985) suggested that the distance to a school was
a factor In choosing when (a) the district was not under a mandatory desegregation
order (i.e., all students were not reassigned) and (b) the neighborhood concept was
intact.

In a study of the Alum Rock Voucher Demonstration Project in San Jose,
California, Bridges and Blackman (1978) found that geographic location was a
)rimary consideration for parents who were enabled to choose a school. However,

)roximity diminished as a strong factor when parents had a choice among ”highly

lifferentiated alternatives" (p. xiv).

29.31
School cost, which includes tuition, transportation, and other associated

osts, is also a factor in school choice. In a study of a proposed tuition-aid program

50

 

 

in British Columbia, Kamin and Erickson (1981) identified a strong relationship
among family income, tuition aid, and school choice. Of the high-, middle-, and low-
income groups in their survey, 61.3% of the total sample indicated they would
consider nonpublic alternatives If the present level oftuition aid was increased.
However, a lower proportion of the high-income group indicated that they would
reconsider their school choice, given the increased aid. Williams et al. (1983)
supported the findings of the Kamin and Erickson study and the significance of costs
as a choice factor. In the Williams et al. study, nearly 75% of the parents choosing
public schools and 50% of parents with children in private schools considered school
cost. The researchers concluded that ”financial considerations are a major reason
preventing public school parents from enrolling their children in private schools. On

the other hand, private [school] parents do not perceive the cost as a major factor

influencing their choice of a school" (p. 1).

noomeaanEducation

Williams et al. (1983) also reported that "household income and respondents’
education did have substantial direct and indirect effects on the choice of schools"
p. 40). In two other studies, researchers found that the high educational and
ocioeconomic levels of families were related to the active search behavior of
arents (Oakley, 1985; Uchitelle 8 Nault, 1977). However, the Oakley study was
typical to the extent that it was conducted in a socially homogeneous and
conomically affluent community. Uchitelle and Nault conceded that the “parents

:udied in this research were not fully representative of American school users”

51

 

 

p. 34) because they were well-educated (located near a private university) and were
n a high socioeconomic range.

In an earlier study of why parents chose nonpublic schools, no differences
vere found between public and nonpublic Choosers in terms of occupational and
"Icome levels (Gratiot, 1979). Gratiot reported that when public and private school
:hoosers were compared, no significant differences were found between the two
Iroups with regard to higher occupational and income levels, maternal employment,

Ind parental history of nonpublic school attendance.

I IIIS' IS'II'

Neither the size of the household nor the number Of children in a family has
>een found to be related to the choice of a public or a private school (Williams et al.,
I983). In more recent studies that considered factors of income and educational
evel, the idea of ”time poor" and "time rich” parents was reported to be associated
with constraining or enabling the choice process (Gerritz, 1987; Wright, 1986).

Gerritz (1987) speculated that time is a constrained resource for families and
Ireatly influences parents’ ability to make good choices. He found that the families
hat are most affected by the time constraint are single—parent families and those
vith multiple siblings. He established that family size and marital status had a strong
nfluence on school choice for elementary-aged students. Gerritz explained that

Searching for an alternate school, arranging for admission, providing

transportation, and participating in school activities [such] as classroom

volunteering and parent-teacher conferences all place additional time
demands on families. Since single-parent families and families with several

children are the most ”time poor,” children in these families do not have equal
access to high quality schools. (p. 178)

52

 

 

Wright (1986) found that participation and involvement in a school-within-a-
school magnet arrangement were higher for white middle-class parents ”because
they had greater control over their time than Hispanic parents' (p. 99). Similarly,
Cogan (1979) found that low-SES parents could not afford to invest time in gathering
information and may have been less able to seek information as a consequence of
their lower level of education.

The socioeconomic level of the adults in a household was investigated as it
related to parental preference in academic programming and educational
preferences (Rossell, 1985). White parents who selected alternative schools in
black neighborhoods tended to be of a higher social class and preferred more child-
centered, nontraditional instructional styles. Blacks who volunteered for alternative
schools also tended to possess higher SES status. However, they also tended to
have the educational preferenCes of working-class parents—traditional adult-centered
leaching styles that stressed conformity to standards as well as obedience to

authority (Rossell, 1985).

3 Eli . 'I

Race or ethnicity as a choice factor has been studied widely, but with varying
indings. In a study of parental choice, Uchitelle and Nault (1977) found that more
han half of the parents, both white and black, chose schools in which "the less
avorable racial make-up was present” (p. 30). In the majority of cases in that study,

Iarents chose the more integrated school (white families, 67%; black families, 88%).

53

 

 

In his analysis ofthe Milwaukee Magnet Program, Archbald (1988) found that,
given a choice of a neighborhood school or a magnet school, educated (four-year
college) white families were active Choosers of alternatives, whereas uneducated
whites (less than a four-year college) sought the neighborhood schools. He further
’ound that inner-city blacks were underrepresented in altematlves for two reasons.
=irst, blacks were reluctant to enroll in specialty schools because of perceived
'requirements' or high expectations. Archbald called this ”dis-ease, or
Incomfortableness in interaction with articulate, well-educated whites in meetings
and other kinds of school projects" (p. 210). Second, blacks perceived the low-
ncome white neighborhood schools as unfriendly and less tolerant of ethnicity.
=urther, blacks viewed neighborhood schools located in residential areas with a high
>ercentage of college-educated families as more racially tolerant and the children

n those schools as desirable classmates for their own children. ’

. . I III

In her review of the literature on magnet schools, Rossell (1985) reported that
ocial class was related to values and attitudes toward education and desegregation.
1 general, she found that the higher the social class, the greater the racial tolerance
nd support for integration. Bridges and Blackman (1979) reported that ethnicity,
ocial class, child affiliation, and proximity were the most important factors for
arents when choosing a school for their child.

Metz (1987) suggested that parents’ ideas about good education are more

iverse and less tightly tied to class status and race at the elementary level than at

 

 

the high school level. An elementary magnet school with a reputation as a caring
place for children "may draw from all walks of life as well as all races“ (p. 4). Metz
also argued that parents choose as whole persons from a variety of complex factors:

. . . the social acceptability of the school’s name, their social ties to other

choosing families, the reputation of the neighborhood, transportation

processes, their emotional reaction to staff who represent the school, and-
once the school is established-the experiences of relatives’ and neighbors’

children with all aspects of the school. (p. 12)

Veal (1989) found that minority and nonminority parents were influenced by
different factors in their selection of a school in a magnet school program. Minority
parents in that study considered features such as available transportation, the option
to choose their children’s programs, test scores, homework policy, and racial
balance to be important factors. Factors rated as significant for nonminority parents
were the location of the magnet (within the neighborhood) and the fact that their
children’s friends attended the school. Veal also reported that minority parents

found school-related factors to be of greater importance than did nonminority

parents, who thought parent-related factors were more important considerations.

E . l S I I Cl .

A number of researchers have examined the reasons why parents move their
children from a public to a private school. Several have suggested that
dissatisfaction with the public school is a significant reason for this move (Gratiot,
1979; Kamin 8 Erickson, 1981). Williams et al. (1983) found that academics,
discipline, and teacher qualities were frequently mentioned factors that were

associated with parents’ dissatisfaction with public schools. They further suggested

55

 

' i- ‘L‘-.. _— -—"'

 

tat religious instruction or value orientation was the only reason cited by parents
rho transferred their children to a private school but were not dissatisfied with public
chooling. On the other hand, parents who transferred their children from private
Chools to public schools did not base their decisions on some dissatisfaction with
Irivate schooling, but on financial or logistical reasons. Private school consumers
vere also found to be influenced by small class size, student-teacher ratio,
lisciplinelcontrol, and high-quality teachers (Gratiot, 1979).

Whereas religious instruction was frequently cited in the literature as a
>rimary factor in private school choice, other researchers have found that the
academic program of the private school had more influence on parents' choice than
Iid religious orientation (Bauch 8 Small, 1986). In his study regarding the influences
3f religion and household income on choice, Gerritz (1987) found support for the
oattems currently found in the literature on family choice. High-income Catholic
families were less likely than other families to enroll their children in neighborhood
public schools. Of these two variables, Income and religion, family religious

orientation had the smaller influence.

cheLEactQLS

Other researchers of choice factors have suggested a number of less
frequently reported criteria in the literature on school choice. Uchitelle and Nault
(1977) examined the decision-making process of parents with students entering
primary (K-3) and intermediate (4-6) grades. Parents of primary school children,

especially kindergartners and first graders, were concerned with the classroom

56

 

 

atmosphere, the principal's philosophy, and the teacher's style and reputation.
Parents of students entering intermediate-level classes generally focused on the
quality of the curriculum and discipline. The distance to school, schools with racial
homogeneity, and achievement test scores were less ofa concern for these parents.

Cogan (1979) reported that public and nonpublic school parents who actively
searched among school alternatives considered the following factors to be important:
curriculum, school atmosphere, quality teachers, principal’s attitude, discipline,
safety of school travel, and proximity. High-SE8 parents gave great consideration
to the adequacy of the school’s social and physical environment, the school
program, and their children’s personalities. Low-SES parents chose a school based
on its location and cost. Cogan’s study, however, was limited due to the ethnic and
socioeconomic homogeneity of the population and by the limited range and diversity
of choices available to the parents.

Williams et al. (1983) identified four school factors that choosing parents
reported as influencing their decisions in school choice. In order of importance, they
were discipline (86%), staff (86%), academic standards (84%), civic/moral values
70%), and academic courses (65%). In a study of the consumer-choice behavior
>f parents, Sonnenfeld (1973) suggested that school selection was based on the
acation of the school, its program, the school environment, and school cost.

In a national survey of 1,500 subjects, Elam (1990) reported what parents
onsidered the most and least important reasons for choosing a school. In rank
rder, the reasons were (a) quality of the teaching staff; (b) maintenance of student

lsoipline; (0) curriculum (i.e., the courses offered); (d) size of classes; (e) grades or

57

 

«ca-.3

 

al.

rel.

93'

Sum

Well,

test scores of the student body; (f) track records of graduates in high school, in
college, or on the job; (9) size of school; (h) proximity to home; (i) extracurricular
activities such as band/orchestra, theater, and clubs; (j) social and economic

background of the student body; (k) racial or ethnic composition of the student body;

and (I) the athletic program.

ill I . I' [E | CI

The characteristics of parent Choosers, as reported in the literature on school
choice, are addressed in this section. A secondary issue, which concerns the
relationship between parental characteristics and the sources of information that
parents seek in the choice process, also is discussed.

Opponents of the school choice concept have argued that low-SES parents
are not competent to choose a school for their children. This argument presumes
that only high-SE8 parents possess the ability to make sound judgments about their
children’s educational interests. However, some have argued that poor parents are
as quality conscious as wealthier families and are able to make school choices for
their children (Coons & Sugarman, 1978; Friedman 8. Friedman, 1979). Others have
reasoned that poor, less educated parents are limited only by their financial
'esources and their general inability to effectively articulate their desire for different
:chooling alternatives to school officials (Sonnenfeld, 1973). Coons (1990)
rummarized this position: "Poverty does not destroy the parental capacity to choose

veil, and the waiting lists at such institutions [private schools] demonstrate that those

58

 

 

who have already chosen are not the only parents who know what they are doing“
(p. 36).

In his study of parental choice and magnet schools, Archbald (1988)
suggested that 'a higher good is served by preserving the right of choice for all
families and adhering to principles of individual responsibility” (p. 68). A system of
choice, he contended. provides a “win-win“ situation for all parents, even those who
may not choOse well. Although some parents may be less effective in choosing a
school, those families would be even less well off in a traditional system where
choice is not available.

In general, most of the current research on the characteristics of parents who
choose has concentrated on the SES of parents and the types of schools chosen.
In their study of parent choosers, Kamin and Erickson (1981) found distinguishable
characteristics among the parent groups. These researchers surveyed 993 mostly
urban parents with children in 121 public and private schools. They classified
parents who had recently enrolled their children in the first grade of an elementary
or secondary school as ”starters“ and parents who had transferred their children
from private to public or public to private schools as "movers.”

Movers, they discovered, were equally distributed among the working, middle,
and upper-middle classes and included a greater proportion of professional or
executive fathers and fewer blue-collar fathers. Movers were consistently better
educated (post-high school). Starters, on the other hand, were generally working
class, with fewer middle and upper class represented, and they were less educated

than the movers.

59

The types of schools patronized by the parents also was linked to distinct
parental characteristics. Even though all social classes were represented in the
public school sample, public school parents were more likely to be blue collar,
working class, public school educated, and not secondary school graduates, but with
high incomes.

Independent (nonsectan'an) school parents were of high income, high social
class, and high occupational status. They possessed a high level of education, were
independent-school educated, and came from an upper-middle-class background.

Kamin and Erickson (1981) also discovered that the patrons of non-Catholic,
church-related schools tended to be middle income, middle occupational status, and
lower middle class. They were likely to have been educated in public schools and
not to have graduated from a secondary school.

The type of schooling parents had received was found to be a characteristic
that generally influenced their choice. Parents with only public school experience
were less likely to choose a private school for their children (Williams et al., 1983),
and, parents who enrolled their children in independent schools had themselves
attended such schools (Kamin & Erickson, 1981 ). Other studies in the literature on
school choice supported these findings (Gerritz, 1987; Gratiot, 1979).

Parents with low education (less than a four-year college) were less likely to
participate in inner-city magnet schools because of a perceived loss of control or
influence over their children. Parents living in college-educated communities (white

and upper-middle income), however, exhibited more risk-taking behaviors with

60

 

school selection by enrolling their children in schools located outside of their
neighborhoods (Archbald, 1988).

A Other researchers have substantiated that some parents give little thought to
the school that their children will attend and choose the public schools closest to
their homes (Bridges 8. Blackman, 1978; Kamin 8 Erickson, 1981; Nault & Uchitelle,
1982; Williams et al., 1983). These parents were found to be less well educated and
not well informed about their school choices when compared with those parents who
actively pursued school choices.

Kamin and Erickson (1981) classified parent respondents in their study
according to how much thought they gave to their school choices. Parents who gave
little thought to their choices of schools were designated as ”unthinking“ and were

characterized as

1. Much more likely to send their children to public schools.

2. Much more likely to be members of the working class.

3. More likely to have blue-collar occupations.

4. More likely, if mothers, to be keeping house rather than working
outside the home.

5. Less likely to have experienced any post-secondary schooling, or
even to have finished secondary schools.

6. More likely to have been educated exclusively in public schools.

7. Less likely to have discussed the choice of a school with someone
outside the family.

8. Twice as likely to have let the child influence the choice of a school.

9. More likely to have considered only one school.

10. Far more likely to have sent the child to the school that most of the
child’s friends attended.

11. More likely to have left the choice of a school to a point near the
beginning of the school term.

12. Much more likely to explain their choice in terms of convenience or the
child’s own preference. (p. 21)

61

 

'Thinking' parents, on the other hand, were characterized as attaining a higher
social class and more likely to patronize independent schools.

Parents characterized as low income and poorly educated generally have not
taken full advantage of school choice when given the opportunity. Gerritz (1987)
identified two additional family characteristics of this group of choosers: single
parents and families with a number of siblings. He found that children from two-
parent households were more likely to attend nonneighborhood schools (39%) than
were children from one-parent households. He also found that as the number of
children in a family increased, the likelihood of their remaining in the neighborhood
school also increased.

Cogan (1979) hypothesized that “active” (wide choice) and ”passive” (no
choice) parental choice behavior was not ”dichotomous but rather [it] moved on a
continuum“ (p. 16). She reported her inability to find a positive correlation between
the degree of choice behavior (active/passive) and the socioeconomic
characteristics of the parents because passive-choice parents were represented in
all SES classes (low [14%], middle [18%], and high [10%]). However, when only
active choice was considered, passive choice decreased as SES increased, and

active choice increased along with the parents’ SES.

Soumesoflnformafim
The sources of information that parents use in the process of making a choice

about schools are fairly diverse. Most researchers who have associated information

sources with the background characteristics of the choosers generally have

62

 

“7'

 

supported the idea that awareness of choice options increases in relationship to
parents' income levels, educational levels, occupational status, and educational
aspirations for their children (Bridges 8. Blackman, 1978; Kamin 8 Erickson, 1981).
Others have found that the search behavior of parents was closely related to high
educational and socioeconomic levels (Cogan, 1979; Kamin 8. Erickson, 1981).
Nault and Uchitelle (1982) reasoned that feelings of alienation and limited
social networks restrict lower-income parents’ access to school information. They
reported that
Lower-income parents may remain less informed about the choices available
to them for several reasons, including general feelings of alienation and their
limited participation in social networks likely to provide useful school
information. . . . If parents are able to transmit educational advantages to their
children by careful school selection, designers of choice programs who seek
to attenuate the educational advantages of socioeconomic class will need to
include mechanisms that will compensate for the advantages of income and
education. (p. 97)
Nault and Uchitelle concluded that choice programs must be adjusted to
accommodate the factors of income and education.
Bridges and Blackman (1978) described alienation as”powerlessness." They
contended that
More educated people probably tend to have fewer feelings of powerlessness
and hence they seek information for its potential control value. . . . This is
understandable for it makes no sense to seek information because, by
definition, it has no control value. (p. 28)
Archbald (1988) supported the previous findings on the relationship between
awareness of school options and low-income status of parents. He found that black

low-income parents were less aware of magnet schools than were white low.income

parents. He suggested that lower levels of educational attainment, living conditions,

63

 

and life styles are factors associated with blacks’ lesser knowledge of school
alternatives. Black families who actively sought information about alternative
schools, Archbald discovered, used an informal communication network that linked
the magnet school neighborhoods to the inner-city black families. Cousins and
trusted peers who lived in these neighborhoods were consulted as sources of
information.

Parents' educational level has been found to be related to the number of
sources pursued by those parents (Bridges 8 Blackman, 1978). Other researchers
have reported that parents’ tendency to discuss potential choice options outside the
immediate family was more frequent at higher social class levels (Kamin 8 Erickson.
1981).

Cogan (1979) reported that neighbors, friends, and the school principal were
the main sources of information parents used in choosing their children’s schools.
In that study, only 40% of all parents contacted reported that they did not use
information to learn about the schools. Instead, they used neighbors and friends as
primary sources. Parents who actively pursued sources of information relied on
school literature, friends, and neighbors as their main sources of information.

Bridges and Blackman (1978) reported that school publications were used
most frequently by parents in gathering school information. They found that the
more educated the parents were, the more likely they were to use school
publications (30%) or to talk with teachers (22%) as sources of information.

Kamin and Erickson (1981), however, contradicted these findings relative to

the use of school literature. They found that the influence of school literature as a

64

 

source of information was inversely related to class because “higher status parents
are more wary of what schools advertise about themselves“ (p. 14).

In a study of a school-within-a-school (SWAS) choice alternative, Livingston
(1982) reported that the chief source of information about the SWAS program for
interested students was ”other SWAS students." Parents in that study used their
own children as primary sources of information. Livingston noted, however, that the
SWAS program was in a high school setting and that the subjects were high school
students.

Parents generally want official as well as unofficial information when making
a school choice decision. Of these two sources, insider information or qualitative
insights into the nature of the school were ”considered the knowledge of greatest
worth” (Amen, 1989, p. 557). Nault and Uchitelle (1982) found that parents most
frequently talked with friends who were knowledgeable about the schools and visited

at least one of the school alternatives available to them.

Summary

There is support in the current literature for the notion that well-educated
parents with high SES exemplified active search behavior and consulted with many
sources of official and unofficial information when making a choice (Bridges 8
Blackman, 1978; Cogan, 1979; Uchitelle 8 Nault, 1977; Williams et al., 1983). Less-
educated parents tended to rely on neighbors and friends for information. Official

school publications, sources of information for high-SE8 parents, were supported in

65

 

some studies (Bridges 8 Blackman, 1978; Cogan, 1979) but were unsubstantiated
in others (Kamin 8 Erickson, 1981).

Low-SES parents frequently used unofficial, informal sources of information.
In school districts with significant levels of ethnic diversity and well-established
school alternatives, black Iow-SES parents used informal networks of trusted
neighbors and family as information sources (Amen, 1989).

Cogan (1979) and Kamin and Erickson (1981) stated that active, thinking
parents who aggressively explored school options were generally better educated
and had a higher SES. Passive, unthinking parents who gave little thought to school
choice were less well educated and informed about their school options. In both
studies, however, nonchoosers were represented at all socioeconomic levels.

The type of schooling that parents received (public, independent, or church
related) was found to influence their choice of a school. Williams et al. (1983),
Cogan (1979), and Kamin and Erickson (1981) found that parents with only public
school experience were less likely to choose private schools for their children.
Similarly, parents who had attended church-related and independent schools were
more likely to choose such schools for their children.

Few researchers have analyzed the relationship between the characteristics
of parents and their sources of information. Of the studies that were available, some
were limited by the ethnic and socioeconomic homogeneity of the research
environment (Cogan, 1979; Uchitelle 8 Nault, 1977). Nevertheless, these reports

provided useful information and directions for future research.

66

 

ChapteLaummam

The purpose of this study was to describe and explain parents’ decision to
choose nonresidential schools fortheir children’s education. This chapter contained
a review of the literature and research dealing with the topic of school choice.
Choice topics were identified and reviewed, all of which helped provide a context for
the research. Those topics dealt with some of the legal aspects of parental choice,
the political aspects/momentum surrounding choice, choice factors and
characteristics of parents involved in choice, and a general review of choice in
education. Because this study focused on the parents’ perspective and factors
motivating them to actually participate in a school choice plan, the literature review
focused on the parental-involvement aspects, ranging from the legal basis for choice

to SES factors.

67

 

CHAPTER III

DESIGN OF THE STUDY

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education.
Because this study focused on explaining parents’ decision to participate in choice,
the rich description gained from one-on-one interviews and the qualitative research
method was deemed to be the most appropriate way to address such a purpose.
This chapter contains a discussion of the research procedures and methodology
used to obtain pertinent information about public school choices in Michigan from the

primary customers-the parents and students.

IheEopulation
The population for this study comprised parents of public school students
located in the metropolitan Detroit area in Michigan. The reasons for selecting this
population were:
1. The parents were the public school choice makers in this process.
2. Parents were the primary decision makers in this process.
3. A relatively high concentration of participants within a single school

district and in proximity to the researcher made for ease of data collection.

68

 

4. Many of the school districts in this geographical area had elected to
participate in a choice program for nonresidential students since the inception of the

Michigan choice plan.

NW
A In this study, purposeful sampling was used for discovering, understanding,
and gaining insights into parental decisions on public school choice (Merriam, 1988;
Patton, 1980). Participants were interviewed because of their special knowledge
about and first-hand experience with school choice (Merriam, 1988).

The sample for this study consisted of families who chose to enroll their
children in a public school outside of their normal residential school district. The
school district is a suburban district with families of widely varying socioeconomic
statuses. The district had just completed its first full year of offering a school choice
plan to nonresident families in the area. One hundred eight families participated in
the plan, sending a total of 151 children to the school district during the academic
year.

The researcher sent the district official a letter (see Appendix A), requesting
cooperation with the study. The official was asked to provide a list of parents of
current students who had entered the school district under a choice plan, along with
the grade levels in which those students were enrolled. The district did supply such
a list.

From the 108 families participating in the school choice plan, the researcher

selected families to be interviewed for this study. The original list of 108 families

69

 

provided to the researcher by the school district was divided into two parts, one with
names of families whose children were attending a schools-of-choice high school
(grades 9 through 12) and the other with names of families whose children were
attending a schools-of-choice grade school (kindergarten through grade 5 or 6). The
researcher then used a random-selection process to identify those who might be
involved in the research. He contacted 32 families before obtaining the 20 families
(10 high school, 10 elementary school) who were willing to participate in the study.

Reasons parents gave for refusing to participate varied. In six cases, the
parents simply had no desire to share Information regarding their decision to
participate in the school choice program, in effect, declining to be interviewed. The
researcher was unable to locate four of the families because the phone numbers or
addresses provided by the district were incomplete or inaccurate. Two families
declined to participate because they thought their stay in the school district under the
choice plan had been so short that they could provide little or no information to the
researcher. Although the researcher encouraged them to participate, they declined.

In summary, of the 108 families enrolled in the district’s choice plan, 32
families were sent letters (see Appendix B) and contacted by telephone to explain
the study and ask them to take part in the study. Twenty families agreed to
participate in the research. Ten families had children attending a schools-of-choice
high school, and the other ten had at least one child enrolled in a schools-of-choice

grade school.

70

 

Winn
V" ln-depth, semi-structured interviews, as well as documented and recorded

information, provided the data base for this study. According to Patton (1980),
qualitative data consist of:

detailed descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions and observed

behaviors; direct quotations from people about their experiences, attitudes,

beliefs, and thoughts; and excerpts or entire passages of documents,

correspondence, records and case histories. . . . These descriptions,

quotations, and excerpts are raw data from the empirical world . . . data which

provide depth and detail. (p. 67)

ln-depth interviews were conducted with parents to obtain their perceptions
and Insights about school choice and their decision to enroll their children in
nonresidential schools. These interviews were the primary source of data. This
approach allowed the researcher to elicit information from other people directly
through conversations with a purpose (Merriam, 1988). It also enabled the
interviewer to gather a special kind of information that had added depth, without
sacrificing breadth. According to Patton (1980):

We interview people to find out from them those things we cannot directly

observe. We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot

observe behaviors that took place at some previous place and time. We

cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We

cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they

attach to what goes on in the world-we have to ask people questions about

those things. The purpose of interviewing, then, is to enter into the other

person’s perspective. (p. 79)

A combination of interview formats was used in collecting data. Three types
of formats were used so that some standardized questions, some open-ended

questions, and some probing questions were asked of all participants. This

procedure allowed fresh insights and new information to emerge (Merriam, 1988).

71

The researcher avoided using a strict regimen ofquestions that could be limiting and
could impose external values, understandings, and definitions on participants
(Patton, 1980).

A semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix C) was used. This guide
served as a loosely assembled itinerary of topics used in the planned interview
sessions. Some questions were asked during each interview, such as the child’s
grade level and the parents’ involvement in the decision-making process. Other
items on the interview guide were available, and were at times useful, as the
interview was carried out.

- \/ The development ofthe semi-structured interview guide was premised on the
literature on public school choice, advice from university advisors, the researcher's
personal experience, and common-sense notions about appropriate topics. The
semi-structured interview was pilot tested with three parents of students who had
participated in the Michigan choice program.M After the pilot test, the researcher-
refined and modified the interview guide. This process of refining and revising the
interview schedule continued after the study began as certain themes, patterns or
perspectives became apparent.

Demographic data also were gathered from the interviewees. This
information included such things as their age, gender, marital status, race,
socioeconomic status, years of education, number of children, and number of years
their child(ren) had attended a nonresidential school.

Parents from the 20 families who agreed to participate in the study were

contacted by telephone to set up interview dates, times, and locations. In these

72

calls, the researcher used an introductory statement similar to that found in
Appendix D to establish the interview appointment. The interviews were held in
Iocationsthat were convenient to the interviewees-places that were relaxing and put
the informants at ease, such as their homes or a nearby restaurant/grill. In some
cases, interviews were conducted by telephone. Most interviews lasted abouL45
minujeslganhmfl-

The interviews were designed to be open ended and conversational. The
researcher gave the interviewees his telephone number and address and told them
they could call If they needed to cancel their appointments or if, following their
interviews, they thought of additional information they wished to share.

Before each interview was begun, parents were given a brief overview of the
researcher’s intentions and the purpose behind the study. The researcher answered
parents" questions regarding the interview process and how thedata might be used.
All informants were assured that their names, their children’s names, and the names
of the schools would not be used in any research report. They were reminded that
their participation was voluntary and that they could choose not to participate at all,
refuse to answer some questions, or discontinue the interview at any time.

Following each interview, the researcher completed an interview assessment
form (Appendix E) on which he evaluated the overall interview. Perceptions of the
informants, quality of the interviewees' responses, and general observations were
recorded. The researcher also took descriptive field notes before, during, andafter
ths. In addition, the interviews were tape recorded with the permission

of the informants. With the two parents who preferred not to be recorded, the

73

researcher relied on descriptive field notes and notes from the interview assessment
form.

Participants generally were willing to respond to the interview questions. Not
only did they answer all questions, but all but one interviewee appeared genuinely
interested in the tapic and pleased to have someone interested in them and in their
decision to participate in school choice. One parent seemed to be rather
disinterested, yet was tolerant of the researcher and willing to respond to all
questions. The remaining parents seemed intrigued, both with the process and with
the questions. Some were interested in seeking the interviewer’s position on a
number of the questions or topics discussed. However, the researcher avoided
offering his opinions or positions on the topics.

Other sources of information might Include informal interviews with school
officials, intermediate school district officials, members of the Michigan State

Department of Education, university staff, and other students or parents.

Analysisomata
According to Worthen and Sanders (1987), the purpose of data analysis is to
“reduce and synthesize information, to make sense out of it, and to allow inferences
about populations" (p. 187). This can best be accomplished by interpreting results
of data analysis, value statements, criteria, and standards in order to formulate
conclusions, judgments, and recommendations.
1/T he data were analyzed using an induction process of searching for patterns

and/or categories as described by Bogdan and Biklen (1982). Analysis included:

74

1. Exploring and informing impressions from field notes.

2. Identifying themes, as recorded on tapes, memos, or short concept
statements.
3. Focusing and concentrating, using working hypotheses as focal points

for further observation and documentation.

4. _ Verifying working hypotheses using confirmation checks to increase
the certainty that conclusions are accurate.

5.6 Generating questions for future study.

Data analysis began as soon as the data-collection process had begun.
Analysis consisted ofthree key activities: reducing the data, displaying the data, and
drawing conclusions with verification. According to Miles and Huberman (1994),
“Data reduction is the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying and transforming
the raw data that appear in written field notes” (p. 79).

I The information that was gathered was organized and assembled into a
format that permitted the researcher to identify emerging themes, patterns, and
conclusions (Miles 8 Huberman, 1994). Drawing conclusions and verifying those
conclusions flowed from the analysis activity in this study. The researcher drew
conclusions based on the patterns of responses, the meanings provided by the
interviewees, and the meanings explained by the interviewees or inferred by the
researcher. Final conclusions were not drawn until all data collection and analysis
was complete (Miles 8 Huberman, 1994).

During the interviewing process, the researcher developed and used a

preliminary coding of field notes. Categories were clustered after the data revealed

75

 

Inc

Che

similar themes or characteristics. The ongoing refinement of the coding through
expanding, collapsing, and developing the codes continued throughout the study.
Miles and Huberman (1994) described this process as follows:

A code is an abbreviation or symbol applied to a segment of words . . . in

order to classify the words. Codes are categories. They usually derive from

research questions, hypotheses, key concepts, or important themes. They
are retrieval and organizing devices that allow the analyst to spot quickly, pull
out, then cluster all the segments relating to particular questions, hypotheses,

concepts, or themes. Clustering sets the stage for analysis. (p. 128)

As Miles and Huberman suggested, reflective comments were made in the margins
of transcripts after the interview tapes were transcribed.

Miles and Huberman (1994) identified 12 tactics that can be employed for
generating meaning from gathered data. These include counting, noting patterns or
themes, seeing plausibility, clustering, making metaphors, splitting variables,
subsuming particulars into the general, factoring, noting relations between variables,
finding intervening variables, building a logical chain of evidence, and achieving
conceptual and theoretical coherence. These general analysis strategies were used

and yielded meanings in the form of significant themes and patterns regarding

school choice.

I! I'll IE I' I'll

Several strategies were used to ensure the internal validity of this study
regarding how the findings correspond to reality (Merriam, 1988). The strategies
included (a) cross-checks of the data by using multiple sources of data, (b) member

checks by taking data and interpretations back to the informants to ensure

76

plausibility, and (c) peer examination by asking colleagues to comment on findings
as they emerged.

The importance of external validity or generalizability has been widely
disputed among researchers such as Cuba and Lincoln (1981) and Cronbach
(1975). Merriam (1988) suggested various ways of improving the generalizability of
a study. These were incorporated into the design of this research. They included
(a) providing a rich, thick description of the data and (b) establishing and describing
a typical case and comparing it with others in the same category.

Reliability, or the extent to which the findings can be replicated, also poses
a significant problem in qualitative, ethnographic studies. Cuba and Lincoln (1981)
recognized this and even recommended sidestepping reliability completely in favor
of Internal validity. As they stated, ”Since it is impossible to have internal validity
without reliability, a demonstration of internal validity amounts to a simultaneous
demonstration of reliability” (p. 32).

, Merriam (1981) went on to emphasize the importance of dependability and
consistency of results, where, rather than demanding that outsiders get the same
results, one strives to have outsiders concur that the results make sense given the
data collected (Cuba 8 Lincoln, 1981).

The following techniques were used in this study to ensure that the results
were reliable and dependable:

1. The investigator's role and position were explained.

2. An audit trail was documented of how data were collected, how

categories were derived, and how decisions were made.

77

3. Participant corroboration, whereby the interviewer restated participants’
positions orally so that they could identify their own experiences and perspectives,
was sought to ensure that the investigator’s interpretation was, indeed, consistent
with the interviewees’ experience.

The strength of this research is only as good as the study design and the
efforts of the researcher. The qualifications of the researcher are as follows. He has
had a moderate amount of training in qualitative research methods, including
graduate school coursework at Michigan State University, preparation in interview
techniques, and 20 years of administrative experience in Michigan public schools.
The researcher’s professional work in the area of human resources over the past 15
years has helped him develop skills in interviewing, developing rapport with parents
and students, asking pertinent and probing questions, maintaining objectivity, and
demonstrating sensitivity and empathy. In addition, the researcher has gained
considerable expertise concerning the topic of school choice through extensive
review of the literature and active involvement in state, regional, and national
organizations that have included the study of choice. He also has conducted pilot
interviews with parents on the topic of school choice.

Researcher bias must be avoided to the greatest extent possible in any study
of this nature. Miles and Huberman (1994) suggested several approaches, which
were used in this study, to avoid bias on the part of the researcher. These include:

1. Making sure that the study mandate is clear to all informants.

2. ' Conducting the interviews in a congenial and relaxed environment.

78

3. Keeping the research questions firmly in mind and focused during the
interviews.
4. Attempting to appear nonjudgmental and objective during the interview

process.

I' 'l I' [ll Sll

This study was limited by the following conditions, which are generally viewed
as being beyond the researcher’s control:

1. The study was limited to the amount of information/literature that had
been published before the study began.

2. The study was limited by the amount of cooperation the researcher
received from the Michigan State Department of Education, the school district, and
the parents.

3. The study was limited by the ability and cooperativeness of the
informants—parents—who were interviewed.

4. The study was limited by the expertise and skill of the interviewer in
collecting and analyzing the information from the interviews.

5. The study was limited by the size of the sample.

6. Presentation of the findings was limited to reporting emerging themes
and/or patterns for further study.

7. The study also was limited to examining decisions regarding choice by
only those parents who elected to opt for choice and send their children to

nonresidential schools.

79

8. The study sample included only those parents who elected to send
their children to nonresidential public schools in a selected district in the metropolitan
Detroit area that offered a choice plan.

The kinds of data that were obtained in this ethnographic study justify this

approach, even with the limitations identified above.

Summary

In this study, the researcher sought to describe and explain selected parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education. This
chapter dealt with the procedures used in conducting this qualitative study. Included
were a description of the population, the setting and sample selection, data-
collection procedures, data-analysis treatments, and validity and reliability.
Limitations of the study also were set forth.

The findings are presented in Chapter IV.

80

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

IDILQdmflQn
The researcher's purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential schools for their children’s education. In this
chapter, the researcher presents and analyzes the findings relating to the research
questions. In the presentation of findings, each research question is restated,
followed by the results regarding that question.
One task of the qualitative researcher is to organize and present the data in
a manageable fashion (Miles 8 Huberman, 1994). As a result, not all of the data
gathered in the interviews are presented in this chapter, in order to prevent
redundancy or irrelevance. ‘Rather, the researcher selected representative
quotations, statements. or examples to serve as the case study findings. All data
selected for case study are representative of the patterns found in the investigation.
When exceptions to these patterns existed, data reflecting those exceptions also
were noted.
The findings presented in the following pages contain a number of excerpts
from the interviews conducted for this study. Quotations that are used were chosen

to illustrate and substantiate the themes that were introduced and developed during

81

the research (Bogdan 8 Biklen, 1982). To ensure complete confidentiality of the

participants, the following precautions were taken in presenting the findings:

1. The names of parents, children, and schools were changed.

2. The specific locations of the schools and families were changed or
omitted.

4. Names of parents’ employers and/or precise job titles were excluded.

To enhance clarity and understanding, the researcher edited some quotations
for grammar and conciseness. Italicized words within quotations indicate emphasis

by the interviewee or the interviewer.

Beseamhfiuestioni

What are the characteristics of parents who elect to participate in
school choice programs?

Background information on each of the 20 families who participated in the
school choice program and were interviewed for this study is presented below.

IMAmenjamfly. At the time of the study, Jason was a ninth grader and the
oldest of three children. His father, Ronald, was an architect, and his mother,
Geraldine, was an interior designer. Their annual family income was about
$100,000. The family was building a new home in Wicksville and decided they
wanted Jason, who was going into ninth grade, to start high school in Wicksville
rather than having to switch schools during the middle of the year, when they
anticipated moving. As a result, they enrolled Jason in Wicksville under the school
choice program while still residing in their current home, which was outside the

district boundaries. The two younger Arnett children had been attending and would

82

 

continue to attend a Catholic grade school in a neighboring community. Jason had
attended the same parochial school through eighth grade.

WW. Arthur was a twelfth grader attending Wicksville Mann
High School under the school choice program. His parents were divorced, and for
the past two and a half years, Arthur had lived with his father in the Wicksville School
District. Arthur chose to move back in with his mother in November, but he wanted
to finish high school at Wicksville Mann, where he was a senior. The school choice
option allowed him to remain and finish at Wicksville; otherwise, he would have had
to attend Rockford High School for the remainder of his senior year. According to
his mother, Arthur was active in sports, and that was a major factor in his decision
to remain at Wicksville. The mother, Lori Bowman, was working as a counter clerk
at a bowling center, although she held an associates degree. Arthus was the oldest
of four children. His siblings, ages 8, 11, and 13, all lived with their mother and
attended Rockford schools.

W. There were three children in the Brennahan family:
Jay, a third grader; J.J., a fourth grader; and Tessie, a seventh grader. All three
children were enrolled in the school choice program. Mr. and Mrs. Brennahan were
the children’s grandparents and currently were the guardians for the three children.
Grandmother Brennahan stated that her daughter (the children’s mother) recently
had had a nervous breakdown, necessitating that the children be placed in the
grandparents’ custody. The mother was divorced from the children’s father and
currently was unmarried. When the children were placed in the grandparents’

custody, they were attending schools in Parkwood, their residential district. Although

83

 

the grandparents also resided in the Parkwood district, they wanted the children out
of those schools and signed them up in Vlficksville under the school choice plan.
Grandmother Brennahan was disabled, and her husband worked part time. They
did not indicate their income. I

Ihifludsnniamflx. Jason and Kimberly Budson were recently married.
Their child, Jason, a second grader, was Kimberly’s son from a previous marriage.
The family lived in the Parkwood School District, where Jason had attended both
kindergarten and first grade. He now was attending school in Wicksville under the
school choice plan. The father worked in construction, and the mother currently was
not working. They listed their family income as approximately $50,000 per year.

W11. Charles, age six, attended first grade in the Wicksville
district under the school choice program. He was an only child. Audrey Denby was
a divorced, single parent with a degree in nursing. She was currently employed as
a nurse, with a yearly income of about $35,000 to $40,000. Following her recent
divorce, Audrey and Charles moved to an apartment outside of Wicksville, where
Charles was enrolled in school. Rather than move Charles into their new residential
school district, Parkwood, Audrey chose to keep him enrolled in Wicksville under the
school choice program.

Ihsflouglaflamilx. Russ, a 10-year-old fourth grader, was the son of Patrick
and Susan Douglas. Patrick Douglas was a college graduate with a bachelor’s
degree; he worked in advertising. Susan Douglas was an office supervisor. The
parents had a combined income of $75,000 to $90,000 per year. They had three

children, ages 10, 19, and 20 years. They recently moved to a neighboring school

84

district from Wicksville, where Russ was attending fourth grade. They chose to keep
Russ in Wicksville under the choice plan so that he could finish out the school year.
He would enroll in his new residential school district, the Clayberg district, in the fall.

Ihefiahleflamilx. The Gables family had two children enrolled under the
school choice plan. Dale, age 16, was a tenth grader attending Wicksville Kingston
High School. Karl, age 13, was a seventh grader at Pearce Middle School. Kirk
Gables was disabled and on Social Security disability income. Laurie Gables did
tutoring for part-time income and also shared a paper route with her sons. Laurie
Gables had also done home schooling with her children in the past. Recently, the
Gables family had returned to the Parkwood area from Missouri, where Kirk had
been employed before giving up hisjob due to his disability. Rather than enroll Dale
and Karl in the Parkwood schools, their residential district, the Gableses chose to
place them in Wicksville, under the school choice plan.

Ihefiundersonjamfly. The Gunderson family had two sons, Chris, a third
grader, and Jay, a fifth grader. Both of the boys attended the Wicksville schools
under the choice program. Kevin Gunderson was a divorced, single parent who was
currently employed in the construction industry. His income was approximately
$50,000 annually. The family recently had moved from a public school district
approximately 30 miles away. Rather than enroll the children in the Parkwood
schools, the residential district, Kevin Gunderson chose to send the children to
Wicksville under the school choice plan.

Ibaflaclseflamily. Brenda Hecker was a divorced, single parent. She was

a secretary with a yearly income between $22,000 and $28,000. Brenda also

85

received alimony from her ex-husband. Following her divorce, Brenda and her
daughter, Kristin, relocated to the Clayberg area. Kristin was enrolled in the school
choice program to complete her senior year in the Wicksville School District.

Ihuansgnjamfly. Patricia Janson, mother of Jimmy Brown, recently had
divorced Jimmy's father and married Ron Janson. Patricia was a secretary, and Ron
was an engineer. They had a combined annual income of approximately $85,000.
Before Patricia and Ron married, Jimmy was a freshman in the Wicksville School
District. After her remarriage, Patricia and Jimmy moved to Ron’s house, located in
Almada Hills. Jimmy completed his freshman year in the Wicksville schools and
began his sophomore year in the Avondale schools.

IbeJessmanjamily. Wendy Jessman was a divorced, single parent with
three sons: Matthew, a sixth grader; Jonathan, a fifth grader; and Ardis, a third
grader. They lived in the Parkwood School District, where the children had been
attending a local Catholic grade school. Matthew, the oldest, had been held back
one year and also had some medical problems. Due to conflicts with the local
Catholic school and Wendy’s refusal to send her children to school in Parkwood, her
residential district, she elected to enroll the children in Wicksville under the school
choice program. Wendy worked as a waitress, making about $15,000 a year; she
also received some child support.

IhLMgQQnaldJamfly. Doug and Rebecca McDonald had five children,
ranging in age from 4 to 19. The oldest son had already graduated from high school,
and the youngest had not yet started kindergarten. Two of the children were

enrolled in a Wicksville elementary school, under the school choice program. The

86

second-oldest son, Doug, was a sophomore at Wicksville Mann High School. The
McDonalds owned and operated a storage-rental complex and lived in the Parkwood
School District. The children had been enrolled in a local Catholic school, rather
than attending the public residential school in Parkwood. At the time of the study,
all were attending Wicksville schools under the school choice plan.

Meldmanjamily. The Meldmans had one daughter who was still in
school. Julie, a tenth grader, was enrolled at Wicksville Mann High School under the
school choice program. Both of the Meldmans were high school graduates. Randy
worked in a local auto shop, and Sandra was between jobs. The parents indicated
that Julie would normally have been attending the Parkwood schools, but because
her grades had severely slipped when she was a ninth grader in Parkwood, and
because they were concerned about the kids with whom she was "hanging out,” they
moved her to Vlficksville under the school choice plan. Sandra Meldman indicated
that, if and when she found a good job, they hoped to move to Wicksville and out of
the Parkwood area.

Wily. Sonya and Richard Naguchi had two children—a son,
Nathan, age 12, and a daughter, Amy, age 5. Sonya had completed two years of
college; a housewife, she did seasonal work as a salesclerk in one of the local
department stores. Richard held a bachelor of arts degree and currently managed
a tire-repair shop. The family income ranged between $40,000 and $50,000
annually. Nathan, a sixth grader, attended Wicksville under the school choice plan.
The family had moved to the Holly School District during the school year and

decided to allow Nathan to finish sixth grade at Wicksville rather than changing him

87

during the school year. He would start middle school in Holly in the fall. Amy, a
kindergartner, had switched schools during the school year when the family moved
and was attending school in Holly.

Munnaliyjiamiiy. The Nunnallys were parents of three high-school-age
children: David, grade 9; Samuel, grade 10; and Allison, grade 12. Bill Nunnally
was an insurance claims adjuster; Rosemary was a housewife, part-time
bookkeeper, and volunteer. Their household income was approximately $60,000 to
$65,000 annually. The family had moved to Handover during the school year but
chose to allow Allison to finish her senior year at Wicksville so that she could
graduate with her class. Samuel, who was actively involved in sports, wanted to
remain in Wicksville and did so, but only until the end of the first semester. David
was attending school in Handover, their residential school district.

IheEaimeLtamily. The Palmers had two children—Angela, a first grader, and
a preschool-age son. Mark Palmer was a sales representative for a computer
company, and Melissa Palmer worked in a dental office. The family income was
between $65,000 and $75,000 per year. Angela had attended kindergarten at a
Catholic school near their home in the Parkwood School District. However, the
Palmers decided they wanted to send her to a public school, but not in Parkwood.
Thus, they enrolled Angela in the Wicksville schools under the school choice
program.

IngELinceJamily. The Prince family consisted of Jessie, a single mother,
and her son, Kevin, a kindergartner. Jessie recently had been divorced and moved

to Parkwood from the Wicksville area. She had decided to enroll Kevin in the

88

Wicksville schools under the school choice program, rather than start him in
kindergarten in the Parkwood schools. She had decided to do so because of the
poor reputation of the Parkwood schools and because her friend and baby-sitter
lived in Wicksville. In addition, the grandparents, who also served as baby-sitters,
lived In the Wicksville area. Jessie worked as a hairdresser and also sold jewelry
part time; her yearly income was about $20,000, and she also receive child support
for Kevin.

Ineflamijzezfamily. Luis and Raquel Ramirez and their daughter, Lucy, lived
in the Parkwood School District. Lucy, age 15 and a tenth grader, was enrolled in
Wicksville under the school choice program. The Ramirez family had lived in
Parkwood for the past three years, having moved to the United States from Puerto
Rico, their native country. Luis was partially disabled and was drawing Social
Security. Raquel worked full time in a small factory in a neighboring community.
Their older daughter recently had graduated from the Parkwood schools and was
attending community college. The parents indicated a strong concern about the
quality and safety of the Parkwood schools for their daughter. As a result, they had
chosen to move Lucy to the neighboring school district.

W. Callie Rogers was the mother of a twelfth-grade
daughter, Sharon Coleman. Callie had been divorced twice and was Sharon’s
custodial parent. Sharon had been living with her mother in Wicksville, where she
attended Wicksville Mann High School. Callie planned to move back to her

hometown, Weston, over the summer. Because Sharon wanted to finish her senior

89

year at Wicksville Mann, she had decided to live with her father, who resided in the
Parkwood area, and continue at Wicksville under the school choice plan. The
mother was currently unemployed, and the father's income and occupation were not
indicated.

Iheflaueriamiiy. Karl and Sherry Walter were the parents of two children.
The oldest, Jimmy, a third grader, was enrolled in Wicksville under the school choice
plan. The Walters also had a four-year-old daughter. Karl was a production-
department supervisor for a newspaper, and Sherry worked part time as a
newspaper delivery person. The family income was between $65,000 and $75,000
annually. The Walters had recently moved from the Langley area, where Jimmy had
attended the Langley Public Schools, into what they thought was the Wicksville
district. However, when they went to enroll their son in school, they discovered that
their home (was actually in the Parkwood district. Because the Walters did not want
to send their children to the Parkwood schools, they enrolled theirson in Wicksville

under the school choice plan.

EamflLBanlmmunds

All of the parents in the study were asked a number of questions designed to
elicit background information regarding their families. Table 4.1 provides basic
family information, such as the parents’ names, their marital status, the names and
grade levels of the children enrolled under the school choice program, and the

highest educational level attained by the parent or parents within the household. As

90

Table 4.1: Summary of family data.

 

f " ' "
me

a Under SchoolChowePlan

HighestEducationaI
Liwts

 

Arnett

Ronald/Geraldine

Jason, 91h grade

M=C; F=C

 

Bowman

Lori (divorced)

Arthur, 12th grade

M=A

 

Brennahan

Grandmother Sarah!
Grandfather

Jay, 3rd grade
J.J., 4th grade
Tessie, 7th grade

M=D

 

Budson

Jason/Kimberly

Jason Matushin, 2nd grade

M=H, F=H

 

Denby

Audrey (divorced)

Charles, 1st grade

M:

 

Douglas

Patrick/Susan

Russ, 4th grade

M=H, F=C

 

Gables

Kirk/Laurie

Dale, 101h grade
Karl, 7th grade

M=H, F=C

 

Gunderson

Kevin (divorced)

Cris, 3rd grade
Jay, 5th grade

=H

 

Hecker

Brenda (divorced)

Kristin Fox, 12th grade

M=H

 

Janson

Ron/Patricia

Jimmy Brown, 9th grade

M=H, F=C

 

Jessman

Wendy (divorced)

Matthew, 6th grade
Jonathan, 5th grade
Ardis, 3rd grade

M=H

 

McDonald

Doug/Rebecca

Matthew, 1st grade
Doug, 10th grade
Dennis, 3rd grade

M=H, F=H

 

Meldman

Randy/Sandra

Julie, 10th grade

M=H, F=H

 

Naguchi

Richard/Sonya

Nathan, 6th grade
Amy, kindergarten

M=A, F =C

 

Nunnally

Bill/Rosemary

David, 9th grade
Samuel, 10th grade
Allison, 12th grade

M=H, F=C

 

Palmer

Mark/Melissa

Angela, 1st grade

M=A, F=C

 

Prince

Jessie (divorced)

Kevin, kindergarten

M=H

 

Ramirez

Luis/Raquel

Lucy, 101h grade

M=D, F=D

 

Rogers

Callie (divorced)

Sharon Coleman, 12th grade

M=H

 

 

Walter

 

Kari/Sherry

 

Jimmy, 3rd grade

 

M=H, F=C

 

Key: M = Mother
F = Father
H = High school graduate

C = College degree
A = Associate degree
D = Did not complete

91

high school

 

shown in Table 4.1, 31 children were represented in the 20 families interviewed for
this study.

The highest educational level of at least one parent in each household is
summarized in Table 4.2. This information was gathered to see whether there were
any overall patterns in the data. Researchers have indicated that parents’
educational level may be a factor in the family’s willingness or desire to participate
in school choice (Archbald, 1988). For example, it has been suggested that less
educated parents are not as likely as better educated parents to be aware of the
possibility or see the benefits of enrolling their children in nonresidential schools

under choice (Sonnenfeld, 1973).

Table 4.2: Highest educational level of parents, by household.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

giggjtgjfi;Educational?Level j  ._*=_-1'-2=No..orHouseholds ; ~ ; :; Percent: j—fjf-j-: ? ' i-
No high school graduate 2 10
High school graduate 8 ’ 40
Some college or 1 5
associate’s degree
College graduate 9 45
Postcollege graduate 0 0

Total 20 100

 

 

 

 

 

In this study, educational levels varied across the 20 families. In two families
(10% of those interviewed), no parents had finished high school. In eight (40%) of
the families, at least one parent had earned a high school diploma. And in ten (50%)
of the families, at least one parent had at least some college education or a college

degree.

92

Educational-level census data from 1996 indicated that approximately 69%
of Michigan’s adult population were high school graduates and that 15.8% had
completed four or more years of college (US. Department of Education, 1996).
Thus, the figures in Table 4.2 indicate that the parents involved in this study were
slightly better educated than the average parent in Michigan, with approximately
50% of the parents having either a college degree or at least some college

educafion.

Hfiadizfiflnusahaldflala

In 12 of the 20 families who were interviewed, both parents lived in the same
household. Even though some of those 12 families were second marriages, 60%
of the families in the study were considered two-parent households. Seven of the
families had a divorced single parent who was head of the household. Of the seven,
six were single mothers; the seventh (the Gunderson family) was a single father.
Overall, these data did not reveal any unusual patterns; rather, they reflected the
overall demographic information provided to the researcher by the school district
involved in the study. All of the family situation data are contained in Table 4.3.

Researchers on this topic have suggested that two-parent households are
more likely to have their children attend nonneighborhood schools (39%) than are
one-parent households (Gerritz, 1987). Cogan (1979) hypothesized that, in a single-
parent household, the parent often lacks the time or ability to make the effort
necessary to seek out schooling options, especially if those options take the child
out of his or her residential area. It becomes a matter of time and energy. Analysis
of the data in this study did not reveal any unusual patterns in this regard because

the majority of households (70%) were two-parent/guardian households.

93

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oz 88.85-88» 8.880 28.. c. 28.8 58 .8522 .88 888m. .282.
oz 8°52... 8.880 .8 88.2 8.8.2 .88 8.: 88:
oz 8988-883 0.88.: 28.. c. :88 58 8.8.2 .88 8.: 8.8:
oz 838-3qu 8.880 28 .985. 8.8.2 8.8 8.88m 8%:
00> 000.050-50.000 8.03000 0E0: :_ “3:83 500 50m 60:00 Egcchm BEE:
oz 835-858 8.880 98.. a. 38.8 5cm 8.8: .88 8.: 2.8.52
oz . 000.000-80.000 8.03300 0E0: :_ 00:23 500 .0502 .0050 b2:0E0_m £03002
oz 8.0.8.8898” 8888 28.. c. «.88 58 85o: .88 8.: 88.22
30:00
8> 83.38.88 8.880 98.. c. 28.8 58 .80 £058.88m 888.2
00> 000.000-30.90 8.000000 2:0 .0502 .0505. 60:00 aflcoEom :0Emmo0
oz 08.8388; 8.880 28.. c. 28.8 58 8.8.2 .88 8.: .88..
oz 80.88-85; 8.880 .8 85o: .98.). .88 8.: 88:
oz o8.8»-.8.m$ 88.5 :88 8o 85...“. 8.8 .88. 828.com 888:0
02 88838.?» 8.880 28.. c. 288 59m 8.85. .88 8.8.8.: 8.80
oz 000.08-80.05 5.03000 0E0: :_ 8:23 500 .0505. .0050 aficcEcm 8.0200
oz 88.88-88» 8.880 .8 8.2.. 58.2 .88 8.88m .380
02 000.000-50.30 5.000300 0E0: :_ 8:93 50m .0502 .0050 rmEoEQw 500.5
02 08.0300 5.00080 2:0 3:230:80 20:30:80 60:00 b3:0E0_w 8:385
oz 88.208 8.880 .8 8522 8.8.2 .88 8.: 88
00> .0>0 .0. .00. 00» 5.000000 0E0... :. 3:83 .000. 50m .0050. :9: 00:2
., gamma“... . “mm“. as. afifim 33mm... .. 8.20M”: .23 8.... e
20.51 .,.21. . 4.. .2 my... 1...”... . .. .. . 0080 0:20.20 L... . .. . r

 

 

 

dosages 0:320:03 >_.Emn_ ”0.0 030k

94

Rm .

Ninety percent of the families interviewed were Caucasian (see Table 4.3).
Although specific ethnic or national-heritage background was not specified, 18
families identified their households as Caucasian. In the Ramirez family, both
parents were Hispanic, having moved to the United States from Puerto Rico. In
addition, the Gunderson family was Afrimn American. These numbers were not
surprising to the researcher because the school district of choice under investigation
is predominantly Caucasian. The racial composition of the Wicksville schools is
approximately 94% Caucasians. with 6% African Americans and other minorities.
Although the racial breakdown of parents in this study corresponded to the racial
distribution of families who normally attend Wicksville schools, it should be pointed
out that the largest percentage of families (nearly all Caucasians) who were
interviewed came from the same public school district, which was in a predominantly
African Arnerican community.

Although the researcher was concerned that these percentages could be
construed to suggest that this was the white-flight phenomenon often associated
with large urban districts. the information gained from the interviews did not tend to
support that concern. Certainly, on the surface and based on the percentages. it
appeared that it could be an issue of white flight. However, the review of the data
indicated that only three, or approximately 15%, of the families interviewed
associated their decision to move, in part, to the racial make-up of the district they
were leaving. Of those three families, two (the Brennahans and the McDonalds)
made fairly strong references to their concern that their children would be safer and

better off with children ”like ours,” referring to race. The three families represented

95

only three of the ten families who came from the Parkwood Schools, the

predominantly African American school district.

W

The family income levels of the families involved in this study are shown in
Tables 4.3 and 4.4. As shown in Table 4.4, approximately 40% (eight) of the
families had incomes below $30,000. Three of those families had incomes of less
than $15,000 annually, and the other five had incomes between $15,001 and
$30,000. By most people’s standards, those eight families would generally be
considered to be in the lower income level, depending on the sizes of their
households. Eleven families (55%) had incomes between $30,001 and $90,000,
often viewed to be in the lower-middle to upper-middle income range. Only one
family, the .Arnetts, had an income above $90,000; their combined income was

actually more than $100,000.

Table 4.4: Summary of family income levels.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“income—“Level Frequency Percent 1
50315000 3 15‘ . A A
$15,001-$30,000 5 25
$30,001-$45,000 2 10
$45,001-$60,000 3 15
$60,001-$75,000 4 20
$75,001-$90,000 2 10
More than $90,001 1 5

Total 20 100

 

 

 

 

 

96

The data in this section do not support some researchers’ contention that only
the more affluent can afford to, or choose to, participate in school choice
(Sonnenfeld, 1973). As 40% of the families in the study had annual incomes less
than $30,000, this would suggest that income level was not a major determinant of
whether one’s family participated in school choice. Further, every family indicated
that, although they had needed to overcome some barriers to participating in school
choice, they would make the same decision again and somehow come up with the
resources needed to make the change possible. This point is discussed in more

detail later in this chapter.

W

The families in this study had had minimal involvement with private schools
(see Table 4.3). Only four families had any current or recent involvement with
private or parochial schools. In all of those cases, the child who was enrolled in a
school choice plan or a sibling of that child was, or had been, enrolled in a parochial
school. Approximately 80% of the families in this study had no recent or current
involvement with either private or parochial schools. Only one family, the Palmers,
made any reference to their child’s involvement in a Catholic school. In their case,
they chose to change schools because they were not Catholic and felt
uncomfortable having their daughter remain in the Catholic school system beyond
first grade.

Overall, the data indicated that there was little connection between families'
involvement in private/parochial schools and their participation in school choice. The

researcher did not ask parents whether they, themselves, had ever attended private

97

or parochial schools. Some researchers have suggested that parents who have had
private/parochial school involvement are more likely than those without such
involvement to participate in school choice options for their children (Kamin &

Erickson, 1981).

Summary

In summarizing the findings in this section, it does not appear that a typical
family could be identified in this study. Three commonalities were evidenced by the
majority of participants. First, 90% of families involved in this study were Caucasian.
Another commonality was the lack of private or parochial school involvement—in the
vast majority of families (at least 80%), children had not been involved in such
schools. The third common factor was that 50% of the families came from the same
district, the Parkwood School District. Other than those three common
characteristics, the rest of the data were rather mixed.

Twelve of the families, or slightly more than half, had a dual-parent
household; however, some of those were second or even third marriages. It
appears that approximately half of the families were either single-parent households
or households involving a second or third marriage. Income level was also varied.
Although eight families were at or near the poverty level, 11 families fell within the
lower- to upper-middle income levels. Only one family had what would be
considered an upper-level income. Educational level was also rather varied. In two
families, the parents had not graduated from high school; however, those parents

talked to the researcher about the importance of education and said they had

98

decided to participate in school choice programs to help their children obtain a basic

education.

Beseamnnuestiomz

What is the process by which parents decided to choose nonresidential
public schools for their children?

Parents were asked a number of questions related to the decision-making
process they had used when deciding to send their children to nonresidential public
schools under a school choice plan. The sources of information that parents used
to learn about and understand school choice, the process they followed or actions
they took to gain additional information, and the length of time involved in making a
decision were all identified in this study. This section contains the data related to the
decision-making process parents used in selecting nonresidential public schools for

their children.

W

Most families learned about the school choice program through one of three
main sources of information. Six families (30%) obtained their information on school
choice through the news media or an advertisement placed in a local newspaper.
Eight families (40%) received their information from friends, neighbors, or relatives--
in other words, an acquaintance who shared information with them about schools of
choice. Six families (30%) received the information from their local school or from
someone they knew in the district administration office.

Table 4.5 indicates how the families first learned about school choice for their

children and the main sources of information regarding the school choice program.

99

 

00:. 0.00.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.8.00 05

 

 

.0:0...000 8 000.000 50.2

 

 

, 0050 0050 00.0.00 0000030..
0.00 9-. oz c0..0..0.c.E00 00:00.0 5.3.3.5500 «0.50.0 .0.00E 0302 00.000
b32000
b90800 >00.0_...0 0.0....0 5:000. .0500.
000 3.0.. 00> 00.05... 0.0.20 00.00.58 0.0.20 00.00500 0.0.20 00.9.00
300.000
b90800 \_00.0:..o. 0.0....0 .00Eo .05000.
000 91.: 00> .0205... 0.0.20 5.0.3.5500 .0305 00.00500 0.0.20 3:00
0.8502020...
.00200 .00... 0.00. 60.0.0.0
0.00 3.3 00> 20.500.00.005 302 3000030: .0.00E 0302 0.00290E00c0..n. 500.5
0.... 0.00.
.0200 .0200 00.0.00 0000030..
000 31.3 oz ..0..c00.00.005 302 20.250.00.00... 302 0.00:. 0302 00:05.05
.0500. E22000 .0580.
0x00 9.“ 00> 00.00500 0.0....0 >305... 0.0.30 00.00500 0.0....0 00533.
0050 :0..0..0.c.E00
0050 00.0.0 00:000.
000 3.9 00> c0..0..0._..E00 80.0.0 \.o.00::oo 0.0....0 .0000 .000. c. 00 .oocom 00E<
000.0. 0:0..0E5E. 5005.00... .00.: 0.00 0. 00.000 00.0.0.0 ..0£
, 00000.0 0... 0.030000 0030.0 0.0:. .2 00.00.80 E0E..a. 00008.02. .0. 00.9.0 .00..00 .0000 2.0.0”.
0.0 9.0. 301 000520.080 .05. 000.00. WH— >..E0_ 301

 

 

00.9.0 .0050 :0 00:08.20. 9.00500 00 00000.0 ”m0 0.0g

100

 

b05500

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>.0.0.000 000.050 0.0..5 .0050 00.0500
0.00 0.10. 00> .055... 0.0.20 802.0350 00.05 =58... 0.0.5 5:002
0050 0050
0>00 51.3 02 :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 5085.585 50.05 0.85.0:00500 5.00.0.2
.0050 ..0..:00 2:. 0.00.
.005. 0050 -.00.5:. 30: .0050 00.0.00 5000030:
.0 0.00 m... 02 :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 _0.00E 0302 0.05005.
.005. 0050 0050
.0 0>00 00 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 05009050050“. :0E0000
b0.0.000\.00.0:..0
.005. b05500 0.0..5 5500.
.o 0.00 m... 02 000.800 0.0.0.0 00.00500 0.0.0.0 0505550050“. 50:00
0050 55.0.5500
.0500. 50.0.0 5500.
0.000 515 00> 00.00500 0.0.0.0 00.0058 0.0.0.0 0505.0500500 .050...
0050 0050
0>00 51... 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 :o..0..0.:.E00 50.0.0 0>..0.0. .0 >..E0... 50.0050
000.0. 05008.25 50052:. .00». 0.2. :. 00.50 5.0.05 ..0:.
00000.0 00. 0.05000 00.5.0 05:. .2 00.00.50 00600. 50052:. .2 00.05 .0050 .500 20:00
0.0 m5. .5... 0.0050 0.0 000.520.0000 .00". .05....000 .0 000.50 50.2 00:.00. Eu 3.50. 30:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5035.000 ”9* 0.00...

101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.8.00 0.0

 

 

 

 

000.0 0050
0.0.0 m.-. 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 .00.0.0 00..0..0.0.=.00 .0...0.0 0.000900000000. 0:03
000.0 :o..0..0.:.E00
.00.0.0 0050202000000
.0500. 0.0..5 E22000 .0500.
0.00 000. 00> 00.00008 0.0.0.0 000.00.... 0.0.0.0 00.00008 0.0.0.0 0.0000
000.0 02.05.5500 0.0. 0.00.
000.0 50.05 00050 20:00.. .00.0...0 .00000300
0.00 0.-.. 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 .00.0.0 50.000. .502 0.000. 0302 00.0000
000.0 0050
0.00 91... 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 .00.0.0 :o..0..0.:.E00 .0...0.0 0.005.050.0000“. 00000
.0050 000000 0.0. 0.00.
000.0 00.00:. 300 .0050 .00.0...0 .00000300
0.00 $1... 00> :o..0..0.:.E00 .00.0.0 :o..0..0.:.E00 .0505 0.000.. 0302 05.00
000.0 00..0..0.0.E00
0500.00.02.60 80.0... 00500. .0500.
9.00 51... 00> 0.0.0.0 00.02500 0.2.00 00.000000 0.0.0.0 3.00002
«9.0. 000..0E.0.0. 0000.520. .003 0.00 0. 00.000 00.0.0.0 ..0_..
. 00000.0 00. 0.000000 0030.0 0.00. .0. 00.00.08 E0E00. 00..0E.0.0. .0. 00.05 .0050 .0000 2000”.
. 0.0 000. 2,0... 000520.080 .0..u. 0000.000 .0 000500 0.05. 000.00. .00... 2.0.0. .50:

 

 

002.0000 0... 0.00.

102

It was not unusual for information regarding school choice to be spread by word of
mouth. Although a family might initially have learned of the school choice program
from the media, such as an article in the newspaper, they often were quick to share
that information with, or seek additional information from family members and/or
neighbors. Sarah Brennahan, grandmother of three children enrolled in the choice
program, described it this way:

When it came [information on schools of choice] out in the paper, ljumped on

it right away. The daughter of the man across the street was going to

Parkwood schools. He didn’t want his daughter going there [where her

grandchildren attended also] either. Other families down the street are still

having their children go there. I don’t know if they were aware of schools of
choice. Once I knew it was available, I didn't hesitate to let my friends and
family know.

Patricia Janson, mother of Jimmy, described how she found out about
schools of choice:

We had a friend of ours who enrolled their child in Wicksville under the

schools of choice plan, so we knew about it from her experiences. We were

looking at getting married and knew we would be moving to Almada Hills. l

was concerned about Jimmy, especially because he is kind of quiet and I

think he was a little afraid to move to a new school in the middle of the year.

I was conoemed that the move may not be best for Jimmy, especially in the

‘spring. Knowing about it from my friend who knew about school choice really

helped us not only find out about it but [learn] how to handle the whole

process with our son.

Wendy Jessman, who had three children enrolled in the choice program,
described it this way: "My neighbor down the street told me that Wicksville was
opening their doors. She did the same thing. Their kids were going to Refuge
[parochial school] too, and they put them in Wicksville. l was glad to learn about the

program.”

103

In total, nearly 40% of the families in this study relied on family, friends, or
neighbors for information on school choice. The sharing of information by word of

mouth was apparent.

SourcesofAdditionalJntoLmation

Once parents learned that school choice was an option for their children, they
followed up by seeking additional information from a number of sources. As shown
in Table 4.5, the dominant source of information was the receiving or
”nonresidential" school district’s administration office. According to the research,
more than half of the parents relied on the administrative office of the receiving
school district as the main source of information; in fact, this was their primary
source of information about school choice. It should be noted that seven of the .
families in this study were already enrolled in the Wicksville schools. They had all
moved outside of the school district, or their children were going to be moving to live
with the other parent during the school year. These families used the school choice
option to allow their children to finish the school year in Wicksville.

For parents whose children were already enrolled in the Wicksville schools
and who ended up using the school choice option to allow their children to remain
in school there rather than having to relocate to their new residential school district,
often their first and main source of information was the child’s teacher, counselor,
or principal. For example, when the Nunnallys were asked how they first learned
about the public school choice program, they responded:

One of the counselors at the high school told us about schools of choice and

that the law would now allow us to keep our kids in Wicksville under a school

choice plan. We really have no problem with the Handover schools [which
was to be their new residential school district] and thought that they would

104

also be good schools, but when Sam and Allison asked ifthey couldn’t stay
in Wicksville to finish out the school year and we found out from the counselor
that they could under school choice, we thought, “Why not?“

Audrey Denby described it this way:

When I was getting my divorce, I knew Charles would be going to the
Parkwood schools. When I was talking to the teacher about our move, the
teacher told me to check out the choice law—the schools of choice program-
that would let me pick Wicksville so that I could keep Charles in the Wicksville
schools. To me, that sounded a whole lot better than having to send Charles
to not only a new school, but the Parkwood schools. The choice was easy
for us.

Callie Rogers, whose twelflh grader had hoped to finish school in Wicksville,

described how she had found out about the program:

One of Sharon’s counselors at Mann High School told her she could stay at
Wicksville under a new program so that she could graduate with all her
friends. Sharon did not want to move to Weston with me, and she definitely
did not want to go to Parkwood High School if she lived with her dad for her
senior year. When we found out she might be able to live with her dad and
drive 15 or 20 minutes and remain at Mann, we felt that was a good plan.
Needless to say, Sharon was ecstatic knowing she would be able to stay and
finish out her high school at Mann. Thank God the counselor knew about the
program and told us all about it.

Another interview question conoemed whether the schools provided adequate

information on school choice. The data in Table 4.5 indicate that 15 (75%) of the

families thought the schools did, indeed, provide adequate information regarding the

school choice program. Only a few of the families indicated concern that the schools

did not provide adequate information. For example, the McDonalds described it this

way:

When we first started calling to get information, no one seemed to be able to
give us answers to our questions. They didn’t know anything and I didn’t
know anything. Basically, you muddle through as you go and hope you’ll
figure it all out later. They tried to be helpful and informative, but at the same
time they only had a certain number of slots and they were overwhelmed with
the number of calls and people who wanted into it. There was no way they
could help everybody. Then we got lucky. We got some lady who just liked

105

us for some reason, and she kept calling us back and letting us know the
progress.

LBW

Another concern was how long the entire school Choice enrollment process
took. In other words, once the family heard about school choice, how long did ittake
to get the necessary information, register their children, and learn that their children
were, indeed, accepted/enrolled under the choice program? In 13 (65%) of the
families, it took from two to six weeks once they learned about the school choice
plan to get their children fully enrolled in the program. It took four of the families
(20%) fewer than three weeks and three (15%) of the families more than six weeks

to enroll their children under a school choice plan (see Table 4.5).

El" I'D .. III'

In examining the family decision-making process, the researcher also
gathered information regarding which family member was the main participant in
both gathering information and making the final decision on whether they would,
indeed, participate in the school choice program. As the data in Table 4.6 indicate,
the main participant in seeking out information was generally the mother. In more
than 60% of the families who were interviewed, the mother was the main participant ,
in both gathering information on schools of choice and making the final decision to
participate in the school choice program.

Parents were asked to describe the role their children had played in the
decision. Ninety percent of the families with high school students indicated that their

children had been centrally involved in the decision to participate in the school

106

 

00.0.9.0 0:0..00 .050 a

.m..:0.0&.:00=.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0200.050 5.500 .:00=.w .0 5.0.000 .:.00 00> .00500 cm... 00> .0502 50:00
00.0.98 0:0..00 .050 a .0..:0..0&.:00=.0
00.00.28 :o.:...0 .:00:.m .0 5.0.000 .:.o.. 00> .00..00 cm... 00> .0505. .0060...
8.500 E0030
2.0000 00.000 0. E00... .050“. oz .00..00 b0.:0E0.m oz .050“. 80.0055
00.0.98 0:0..00 .050 a A0..:0.0&.:00=.0 .00200 .5...
00.00.28 :0.:.00 .:00=.w .0 5.0.000 .50.. 00> 58:00 0.00.5. 00> E0030 6.8.0.. :.om 00.000
5.500 E0030
2.0000 00.000 0. 0.5.0.. 0.5.0.. 50m 00> .00..00 b0.:0E0_m 00> 0.5.0.. ...0m. 00.9.00
:0.:...o E0030
0.0000 00.000 0. .:0.0n. .0505. 00> .00..00 b0.:0E0.m. oz .0505. 3:00
8.58 E0030
0.....000 00.000 0. .:0.0n. .0505. 02 .00..00 b0.:0E0_m 02 .0505. 500.5
:o.:.ao E0030
2.0000 00.000 0. 0.:0..0n. 0.5.0.. £cm 00> .00..00 b0.:0E0.m 02 .0505. :0..0::0._m
00.00000
0: 0.002. 8.0.000 .:00:.m .:00=.w 00> .0200 .5... 00> .0502 :0E.som
:0.:.ao E0030 8.2283002...
2.0000 00.000 0. 0.5.00 .0 8.0.000 .:.00 00> .00..00 :9... 00> 0.5.0.. ...om ..0E<
0.09.00 .000. , 00:0..00 0:90.000 00000....
0... .0 :.0.:0.. .o .0060 0:20.000 .05... 0... 00:00.0 3.5020 .05. £056.60 0... 0:0
.:0._0....0 0 0:0..0 0. 00.:02. 0 0 0.: 0 o. 0:..00E 0 0>0 0 0.. 0... :. >00 00.0.... :0 :0..0.E0.:. 2...:0”.
E0020 0... .. 00:800.. 5 0 :>> 2.80. 0 . . . 0 O :0::. 0.0.. 90.000 0 90050..
0>0.. 0.003 .055 0.0... 00>> 0....0 0.0 :. 0.590.000 :.05.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00000.... 5.0.000 2.80“. 5.0 0.00:

107

 

5.500 .5030

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0..0000 00.000 0. 0.:050 0.:050 50m. 02 .0050 ...0.:0E0_m 02 0.5.00 50m. 5..0>>
00.00000 5555055030
0... 0.003. 5.0.000 .503m .0 5.0.000 .50.. 00 > .0050 5.1 00 > 5505. 05000
5.500 .5030
2.0000 00.000 0. .550 5505. 00> .0050 5.... 00> 5505. 55500
5.500 .5030
2.0000 00.000 0. .550 5505. 02 .0050 b0.:0E0.m 02 .0505. 00:00
:0. 500 .5030
050000 00.000 0. 0.5.00 0.:050 50m 00> .0050 >5.:0E0.m oz 0.:050 50m 5.500
00.0.0.5 005.00 .050 .0 5355055030
0050.0:00 5.500 .503m .0 5.0.000 .50.. 00> .0050 5.... 00> .5030 .5505. 2.0502
00.0.0.5 0:0..00 .050 0
0050.050 5.500 .5005 50m 00> .0050 >5.:0E0.m 02 .0505. .50....02
:0. 500 .5030
2.0000 00.000 0. .550 550.2 00> .0050 5.... 02 5505. 550.05.
5.500 .5030 .0050
0.5000 00.000 0. 0.:050 0.5.00 50m 00> ..m....>.0.:0:.0_m 00> 0.5.00 50m 0.05002
5.500 .5030
2.0000 00.000 0. .550 550.2 00> .0050 b0.:0:..0.m. 00> .0505. 50.0000
0.0050 .000. «05:00 «5.0.000 00000.0 . _
_ 05 .0 50.5.. .0 .0050 0:50.000 .05.. 0... 00:00.0 535030 .05. .:0E..0.:0 05 0:0
.5550 0 0:0..0 0. 00.52. 0 0 0.: 0 0. 05.00... 0 05 0 0. 05:. >00 00.05 :0 5.58.05 5:50
.5030 05 5 005000.. 5 0 ...>> .550. 0 . . . 0 0 50:. 0>0.. 050.000 0 055500
0>0.. 0.003 .0..>> 0.05 00>> 0....0 0.0 5 0.50.0...00 505.

 

 

02......50 .0... 030.

108

choice program. In fact, a number of those families said that, not only had their
children been involved in the decision process, but the students actually were given
the final say about the decision. For example, Lori Bowman indicated that the final
decision had rested with her twelfth—grade son. "It was entirely up to Arthur. I had
decided that whatever he wanted, we would work out." With elementary students.
including the child in the decision process was a much different matter. As shown
in Table 4.6, elementary-grade students had little involvement in and little say about
the decision to participate in school choice. In only two of the ten families in this
group had the elementary-school child been involved in the decision. And in both
of those cases, the parents. indicated that it clearly had been mgiLfinaLdegisinn
regarding whether to enroll their children in the school choice program.

When asked whether there had been some sort of a family meeting to discuss
the options, nearly all of the parents indicated that a family meeting or discussion
had indeed taken place before they made a decision. In only four cases, all of them
parents of elementary-schoo‘l-age children, did parents indicate that there had been
little family discussion regarding the school choice decision. In those cases, parents
thought that this decision, like many others involving their children, was clearly one
to be made by the parents as part of their rights and responsibilities. For example,
when asked whether a family meeting had been held to discuss the options or
whether the students had any say in the final decision, Kevin Gunderson, the single
male head of household, responded:

As far as I am conoemed. as the parent and head of the household. it is my
decision. Although I informed my children of what was happening, they were

109

really not involved in the decision and there was no meeting to discuss our
feelings. It was my call. I simply told them what was going to happen.

In the case of the Walter family’s decision regarding their third grader, Jimmy,
Sherry Walter responded to the family-discussion question as follows: ”Carl and I
decided what was best for Jimmy, so I suppose you could call that a meeting. Did
we ask Jimmy what he wanted? No; that was our decision." When asked whether
Jimmy had had any say in the final decision, her response was an emphatic:

No! That was Carl’s and my decision. Jimmy wanted to stay in Langley

where we lived, but once we knew Carl had a chance to get this new job, it

was our decision about where we would live and where Jimmy would go to
school. We did think about sending Jimmy to a private school but decided
that was a lot of money and not necessary once we knew he could go to

Wicksville. If we could not have gotten Jimmy into Wicksville, we would have

probably found a house somewhere else.

When parents were asked specifically who had made the final decision about
whether their children would be enrolled in the Wicksville schools under a choice
plan. parents from six families (all of whom had high-school-age children) indicated
that the decision had truly been made jointly by the parents and the students. Two
families indicated that the decision had been left entirely up to the student. An
example of how these two families approached the decision was reflected in the
statement made by Amy Rogers, the parent of twelfth-grader Sharon Coleman.
When asked what would have happened if her daughter had wanted to try to attend
a different school or remain at a local school, she responded, "It depends on what
the reasons were. We would certainly want to consider Sharon’s feelings since the

decision affects her. She was 17 at the time, nearly 18 years old, and I just thought

she had a right to be a part of that decision." When asked whether there had been

110

a family meeting to discuss the options, Amy Rogers responded. ”Yes, but it was
really Sharon’s choice. Basically, Sharon and I talked it over and we agreed it was
her decision, one we could both live with."

S [II | E l' -G ll .

In examining the findings regarding the information-gathering process and
who had been involved in the decision to participate in school choice, a number of
things became evident. First, families discovered information regarding school
choice in a variety of ways. Approximately one-third of the families gained that
information from a newspaper article or an advertisement placed in the newspaper.
Another third of the families first heard about school choice from family members,
friends. or neighbors. The remaining third received the information through contacts
with their local schools. When focusing on the quality and type of information
available to them, most parents indicated they thought the schools had provided the
necessary information regarding school choice. In general, obtaining that
information, processing the application, and enrolling in a school choice program
lasted anywhere from two to six weeks. With regard to the decision-making process
itself, there were differences in how the decision was made and who had been
involved in the decision, depending on whether the children involved were in
elementary school or high school. The high-school-age students played a far
greater role in both exploring options and making the decision to participate in school
choice. In all but two of the elementary cases, there was little, if any, involvement

of the students. As might be expected, the final decision about whether a family

111

would participate in school choice rested with the parents, although six of the
families said they thought their high-school-age children needed to be central to the
decision process. Only two of the families indicated that, in the end, it was a

decision the students could make on their own.

Besaamhmgstiofl

How were the issues of dissatisfaction with the sending (residential)

school and/or the attraction of the receiving (nonresidential) school

reflected in the families’ decision to choose?

In addressing this research question, it was important to understand the
families’ attitudes and opinions regarding the schools involved in this decision
process. Therefore, the researcher asked the parents to:

1. Describe some of the characteristics or qualities of a good school.

2. Describe qualities of both the sending (residential) school and the
receiving (nonresidential) school that were part of their decision to participate in
school choice.

3. Grade these schools, thereby allowing the researcher to draw some
comparisons and look for patterns as part of the study.

4. Identify reasons for participating in a school choice program, a critical

feature of this study.

B | , D . I' I G I S l I
Parents were asked, ”How would you describe a good school? For example,
if you walked into a school, how would you have a sense if it is a good school or

not?" To the extent possible, the researcher did not suggest characteristics of good

112

schools, hoping that those qualities would come from the parents. In responding to
this question, the parents identified 13 characteristics or descriptors in describing a
good school. A number of those characteristics/descriptors were mentioned by
several parents. The results of how the parents described a good school, broken
down by family, are shown in Table 4.7.

Parents,” number-one response when asked to describe a good school was
the school’s needing to have 'a caring and/or effective teaching staff.‘ Without
prompting, 90% of the families identified that characteristic as an important aspect
of a good school. The second and third highest responses were the school’s
needing to have 'a safe environment for all students" and "good discipline and
organization." The next highest responses, in order, were ”strong principal and/or
school leaders,” "good/current textbooks and good technology," and “good kids!
families.” Responses mentioning some of these frequently identified characteristics
came from parents such as Patricia Janson, the mother of a ninth grader, Jimmy
Brown, who said:

First of all, the school has to have good teachers, teachers who really care

about kids and are able to teach in a way that helps them to learn. In

addition, a good school has good order. I don’t want to say they have all
kinds of rules, but they have enough rules and good discipline to keep the
school orderly and safe for all students. If there are problems, the school
administration at a good school takes care of problems. They get on top of
it. They don’t ignore the problem, and they cause the problems to either go
away or somehow get control of the problems. Good schools also have good
technology. which is going to be so important for kids as we go into the next
century. Jimmy has kind of a knack for computers, so we are obviously

interested in seeing the schools provide him with a good understanding of the
use of computers and also use computers as part of their training at school.

113

Table 4.7: Parents’ descriptions of a good school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Famly 1 2 3 4 s s 1572'; "is? 9 1o 11 f 12 13
Arnett x x x x x x
Bowman x x x

Brennahan x x x x x x x .

Budson x x x x x x

Denby x x x x x
Douglas x x x

Gables x x x x x x x x x
Gunderson x x x

Hecker x x x x x
Janson x x x x x x x

Jessman x x x x x x

McDonald x x x x x x x x x x

Meldman x x x x

Naguchi x x x x

Nunnally x x x x x x

Palmer x x x x x x x
Prince x x x x

Ramirez x x x x x x x

Rogers x x x

Walter x x x x x x x

Frequency 18 13 12 10 10 10 9 9 9 4 3 3 2
96 of Families 90 65 60 50 50 50 45 45 45 20 15 15 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key:

1 = Caring and/or effective teaching staff
2 = Safe environment for all students
3 = Good discipline/organization

4 = Strong principal and/or school leaders
5 = Good/current textbooks 81 good technology

6 = Good kids/families

7 = Strong educational program with high standards

114

8 = Clean buildings/good condition

9 = Good after-school programs
with high standards

10: Good special ed program

11: Good parent involvement 81
community support

12: Small class size

13: Will prepare students for
college

Another family, the Palmers, described it this way:

Any school should look and feel like it is a good place for kids. We want
Angela to have good teachers who really care about her as a person and
teachers who know how to teach children to read. to do math. to think, and
how to be a good person. We would like the school to have a good principal
who is in charge and makes the building run in a positive way. The building
should be clean. look nice, have good-size rooms. and have lots of
equipment to use. Also, it should be a school where class size is not too
large, where students get the attention they deserve from teachers.

Although nearly all respondents (90%) agreed on wanting a caring and
effective teaching staff, the next two highest responses centered on children’s safety
in the schools, as well as good discipline and organization. At least 60% of the
families identified those two characteristics as important qualities for a good school.
Kimberly Budson described the safety issue this way:

Good schools have good kids--families that are involved and care about their

kids, not like in Parkwood. And they are safe for everyone. Everyone has to

know that it is a safe place. That’s why we left Parkwood. They don’t do a

good job of teaching, and it is not safe or a good place for kids. There are

fights all the time, drugs, guns, and no one does anything about it. We got
fed up.
Another parent, Audrey Denby, commented:

It has to look and feel like it is a good place for kids—safe, friendly, colorful.

And the teachers and other staff must be friendly and be professional. That’s

why we left the school we did. They are not safe for kids. And I don’t think

Charles would be taught well there. They may have some nice and good

teachers. but their classes are too big and there are too many problems.

Teachers can’t teach. They are too busy solving other problems—fights and

things.

In summary, safety and discipline were very important to parents. As Table
4.7 Indicates, three out of the four top responses centered on a "safe environment,"
”good discipline and organization,” and a ”strong principal and/or school leaders who

took care of problems.“ Although the number-one quality was caring and effective

115

 

teachers, safety and good discipline also tended to dominate. The four least
frequently mentioned responses were in areas associated with the quality of schools
or school programs: good special education programs, small class size, good parent
involvement, or preparation of students for college.

WWI:

After parents had a chance to describe some of the characteristics of good
schools, they were asked to describe their residential schools. Most frequently cited
characteristics of the residential schools, the schools they were leaving, tended to
center on safety and discipline: "school unsafe for students/staff“; ”too many fights,
poor discipline”; 'kids and staff don’t care“; and ”types of kids/families.” The
number-one characteristic of their residential schools, as described by parents, was
that the school ,was ”unsafe for students and staff." Fifty percent of the parents
interviewed identified that as a characteristic of their resident school (see Table 4.8).

As shown in the table, few of the responses had anything to do with the
quality of the school as it relates to the curriculum, materials, or even the quality of
the teaching staff. As interviews with parents took place, it became increasingly
evident to the researcher that the safety of their children was often the leading factor
in parents’ decision to participate in school choice. The McDonalds described the
resident school as being unsafe, saying that even the teachers in that school
expressed that sentiment. Specifically,

I have talked to teachers who work at these schools, and the teachers

wouldn’t even send their own kids there. They have their own kids in
parochial schools. They are afraid. Each daythey are basically surviving the

116

system and getting through their day's job rather than actually teaching any
of the kids. There are very few kids who even have the desire. They are just
trying to keep the peace and not get shot.

Table 4.8: Characteristics parents used to describe their residential schools, in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rank order.

~c11arsc1s1s11s ' _ FreQUenéy7‘ . Percent
School unsafe for students/staff 10 50
Too many fights, poor discipline 8 40
Kids and staff don’t care 8 40
Types of kids/families, i.e., race, poor, rough, 8 40
mean, etc.

Too many reports of drugs/weapons 7 35
School has poor teachers 7 35
School lacks good equipment/technology 5 25
Curriculum/materials out of date 4 20
School lacks extra programs/offerings 3 15
School has good teachers/staff 2 A 10
Good programs/curriculum 2 10
Class size too large 1

Building old, run-down 1 5
No response 8 40

 

 

 

 

 

When talking about their decision to enroll Jimmy under a choice program,
Sherry Walter also emphasized the safety concern:

We did not want Jimmy to go to the Parkwood schools. Everyone we talked
to told us that the schools there are not safe. My sister told us about all the
fights, knives, drugs, and all the kinds of things that are going on in those
schools. They are not safe for kids. No way was Jimmy going to school
there.

117

The issue of safe schools surfaced repeatedly in this study. When the data
were analyzed further, it was discovered that all seven families who cited serious
concems about safety and discipline in schools as their primary reason for
participating in school choice (see Table 4.13) came from the same school district.
That district has developed a reputation (whether accurate or not) as being unsafe
for students and lacking in discipline. Certainly, these families' concern for the

safety of their children was reflected in their description of a 'good school.”

ill 'I “15' I

Parents also were asked to describe the receiving (nonresidential) schools.
These responses tended to be far more positive than those regarding the residential
schools and focused on features such as the school staff, climate of the school

facilities, and so on. For example, Laurie Gables, the mother of Karl and Dale (high
Q

schoolers), described their nonresidential school this way:

We are very happy with the program at Kingston. Teachers are in tune with
what they want to teach. I thought they did their job well. When I went for
conferences, they seemed to know who my daughter was and what her
strong points were, what her weak points were, and they had practical points
to offer me. There seemed to be a lot of good teachers there. That has been
very refreshing and very important to us.

When asked whether she thought the receiving school was a good one, Melissa
Palmer, mother of Angela, a first grader, responded:
The principal and staff are really nice to Angela and to us. Angela really likes
her teacher, and we really like her. The principal, Mrs. A, knows all of the
kids at the school and is always available. The school is nice. The classes

are fairly small. I think Angela's class has about 21 students in it. And
maybe most important, Angela has a really nice teacher.

118

The characteristics ofthe non residential schools, as described by the parents,
are summarized in Table 4.9. In analyzing this information, the first thing that stands
out is the fact that the descriptions of the nonresidential schools were very different
from those of the residential schools. Whereas 12 of the‘1 4 characteristics parents
used to describe the residential schools were negative (see Table 4.8), the
descriptions of the nonresidential (receiving) schools were nearly the complete
opposite. The six most frequently mentioned characteristics of the nonresidential
schools were all positive descriptors (see Table 4.9). Although parents continued
to express the importance of the safety issue, once they thought it had been
addressed they preferred to focus on other issues. As Jessie Prince put it:

Our new school is such a nice place for Kevin. The teachers are wonderful,

the rooms and building beautiful. In Parkwood [his former school], I was

worried more about Kevin’s just being safe—free from fights, guns. stuff like
that. I don’t worry about that anymore. If s like two different worlds. So now

Kevin can enjoy school, and I [as his mother] can think about learning, not
whether Kevin will get caught in some violence.

Table 4.9: Characteristics parents used to describe their nonresidential schools,
in rank order;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:- ‘  ‘ , CharacterIstIc ' ' 1’ , -   {iffFrequenCy Percent. "
school has good teachers/staff 9 45
Positive school climate, caring, etc. 8 40
Good facilities 6 30
Good programs/curriculum 5 25
Good equipment/technology 5 25
Strong extracurricular offerings 4 20
School has poor teachers 3 15
Building old, run-down 1 5
Too many fights, poor discipline 1 5
No response 2 10

 

 

 

 

 

119

Gradingibeficbmls

Alter parents were finished describing their schools, they were asked to
assign a letter grade to both the residential school and the nonresidential school.
Those grades are identified in Tables 4.10 (nonresidential school grades) and 4.11
(residential school grades). As is evident in the tables, the distribution of grades for
the residential schools varied, with a large number of grades (8 or 40%) ranging from
D to E. All eight of those families’ residential schools were in the Parkwood district.
In contrast, when rating the nonresidential schools, all 20 families gave them grades
from A to C. In fact, 90% of the families gave their nonresidential schools an A or
a B. That is a meaningful difference from the grades assigned to the resident

schools.

Table 4.10: Parents’ grades for their residential schools.

Ext;.jfifTiiyfififf'11:;‘iGradé5‘31:§i1""i“.:éi1!? Q:*5?16:47:27?2.5Frequency Percent }é::;{?;*;i"i?:

A 0 0
NB 5
B 25
BIC 10
C 5
CID O
D 5
D/E 5
30
15
100

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wad-fiodNU'l-b

No grade
Total

 

N
O

 

 

 

 

 

120

Table 4.11: Parents’ grades for their nonresidential schools.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency Percent
2 1O
7 35
B 9 45
BIC 1 5
C 1 5
CID 0 0
D O O
DIE 0 O
E 0 O
No grade 0 0
Total 20 100

 

The grades each family gave to both their residential and nonresidential

schools are compared in Table 4.12. All three of the families whose children had

attended parochial schools lived in the Parkwood district. In fact, those parents

indicated that one of the reasons their children had been enrolled in parochial

schools was to avoid their attending Parkwood schools. In all, 12 families came from

the same residential district. Most of the grades given to Parkwood ranged from C

to E, with the vast majority of those being in the D to E range. The results indicated

that the majority of parents saw school choice as an opportunity to leave a district

of either poor quality or unsafe conditions and to escape to a district that represented

much the opposite in terms of quality and safety features. Audrey Denby, the

mother of Charles, described it this way:

121

 

Table 4.12: Comparison of parents’ grades for the nonresidential school and the
residential school.

 

Arnett B OLL (Catholic school)
Rockford
Parkwood

Parkwood

 

 

Bowman B

 

Brennahan A

 

 

Denby

Parkwood

 

Douglas

Henderson

 

Gables

B
B
E
Budson NB E
E
9
C

Parkwood

 

Gunderson BIC BIC
Hecker NB NB
Janson 8 8+
Jessman A/B BIC
McDonald B
Meldman A/B
Naguchi B
Nunnally B
Palmer AIB
Prince A/B
Ramirez A
Rogers AIB
Walter B DIE

Chippewa Valley

 

Clayberg

 

Avondale

 

Refuge
Parkwood
Parkwood
Holly

 

 

 

 

Handover

 

Refuge
Parkwood

Parkwood (lowest grade possible)

 

 

 

wwawV'flU

Weston
Parkwood

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: All three families whose children had attended parochial schools lived in the
Parkwood district. Twelve families came from the same residential district
(Parkwood).

122

lwould give Parkwood schools an E. I never even sent Charles there, but i
heard all of the terrible stories and Ijust knew it wouldn’t be good enough.
I was a nurse at Parkwood Hospital, and I’ve heard the stories and seen too
many crazy kids and families. The schools there are a failure. No way would
lsend Charles there. lfl graded Wicksville, my son’s new school, lwould say
I would give them a B. . . a solid B. I think they could be better, but usually
they do a nice job. I know it is safe there, and Charles likes it there, too.
When Raquel Ramirez was asked to give a letter grade to her residential
school, which was in the Parkwood district, she responded:
A grade? i would give them a Z . . . the lowest grade. I want to know what
is going on at school, and I am always there. Everybody-the teacher, the
department of education, from the little one to the big one. They should put
them all together, blend them, put them on plants or flowers. They should
just put them in the trash and put real people there.
Her disgust and unhappiness with Parkwood, their residential district, were both
obvious and emphatic. When asked to give a. grade to their new school in
Wicksville, Raquel responded this way: ”I’d give them at A+l Everybody was nice.

It was like a gift. Everyone was smiling, and they were so nice.”
Wm

When parents were asked to identify the reasons why they ultimately had
decided to participate in school choice programs, again their responses varied.
Some parents, like the McDonalds, gave seven reasons they had decided to
participate in schools of choice, whereas the Deuglases gave only one reason.
Some of the reasons parents gave for participating in a school choice plan are
discussed in this section. In addition, reasons given by parents with elementary

students are compared with those given by parents of high school students.

123

First, families were asked to cite their primary reason for deciding to
participate in school choice plans, as well as any other reasons they thought were
worth mentioning (see Table 4.13). Parents were urged to provide all the reasons
they could think of as they recalled their decision to enroll in a school choice
program.

In Table 4.14, the reasons parents identified are listed in rank order,
according to frequency of mention. As expected, based on the data presented thus
far, the number-one reason, cited by 60% of parents, for wanting to participate in
school choice was that they thought their residential school district was unsafe. The
poor quality of the residential school district was a reason given by 55% of the
families interviewed. The number-three response, provided by 40% of the families,
centered on concerns regarding the ”quality of the families and kids" who were
present at their residential school. The quality or types of families or students at the
school turned out to be an important issue to a number of families. For some, the
issue was race; for others, it was the rough quality of the family members; and for
others, perhaps it was both.

For example, Sarah Brennahan, the grandmother of three elementary
students of whom she had custody, described it this way:

My daughter has complained about the black children at the school. They

would show my granddaughter their p and stuff like that. Nothing was

ever done. That is disrespectful to the kid that is doing the act and for my
granddaughter. When she made a visit to the junior high school where she
was going to be going to school, she was totally depressed. She went there
as a visitor and the comment was made to her by some of the students, "Oh,

we’re really going to like you.” The black children said that to her, and it
totally scared her to death.

 

124

Table 4.13: Reasons parents gave for participating in school choice plans (primary

reason in bold print).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Famw 1 2 a 4 s e 7 a 9 1o 11 12 13
Arnett X x x
Bowman x X x
Brennahan x x X

J Budson X x x x
Denby X x x
Douglas X
Gables X
Gunderson X x x x
Hecker X x
Janson X
Jessman x X x x
McDonald x x x X x x x
Meldman x X x x
Naguchi X
Nunnally X x
Palmer x x x X
Prince x x X x x
Ramirez x x X x x
Rogers X
Walter x X x x

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Key:

1 = Moving into the school district, but not until after school starts
2 = Moving out of the school district, but wanted child to finish school year
3 = Save on private school tuition costs
4 = Child involved in athletics/co-curricular activities
5 = All schools should be open to all children-Issue of parents’ rights
6 = Particular needs of my child, i.e., special programs, etc.
7 = Poor quality of residential school district
8 = Residential district unsafe, i.e., weapons, drugs, fights, lack of discipline
9 = Religious reasons
10 = Quality of families/kids
11 = Convenience reasons such as day care or job
12 = High quality of nonresidential district
13 = Poor disciplinary climate

125

Table 4.14: Rank order of reasons parents gave for participating in school choice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

plans.
fiRehkj   , 7.} 2‘9 _ , j e _ [ ,AReasen ‘ I ,   ff 2 Frequency “.1Pereent:
1 Residential district unsafe, i.e., weapons, ‘ 12 60
drugs, fights, lack of discipline
2 Poor quality of residential school district 11 55
3 Quality of families/kids 8 4O
4 Moving out of the school district, but wanted 8 40
child to finish school year
5 Poor disciplinary climate 5 25
6 Save on private school tuition costs 4 20
7 Child involved in athletics/co-curricular 3 15
activities
8 Particular needs of my child, i.e., special 3 15

programs, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

9 High quality of nonresidential district 3 15
' 10 All schools should be open to all children— 2 10
issue of parents’ rights
11 Moving into the school district, but not until 1 5
after school starts
12 Religious reasons ' 1 5
13 Convenience reasons such as day care or job 1 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

126

When Laurie Gables, the mother of a tenth-grade girl who would ordinarily
have attended school in Parkwood, their residential school district, was asked why
they had chosen to participate in schools of choice, she responded without
hesitation:

Two major reasons: She's a girl and she’s white. I know that sounds

prejudiced. lam not a prejudiced person, I don’t think. But I do know that it

Is very dangerous for females who are white to go to that school. It was a

safety issue. It didn’t have anything to do with'iIvhether Northern taught better

than Kingston. It was a safety issue. I was afraid to send her there. My
sister sent her kids there, and they did whatever they could to get them into
the Clayberg schools before they moved to Clayberg. My brother’s kids go
there [the Parkwood schools], and just listening to them scared the daylights

out of me. I grew up in the Parkwood area, and l was away for about 20

years. It is a different place now. I just didn’t feel it would be the right

decision to send Dale to that school.

One of the reasons 40% of the families identified for participating in schools
of choice had nothing to do with the quality of the schools or the other educational
issues per se. These families had ended up participating in school choice programs
simply because they were moving out of the district but wanted their children to finish
the school year in what was to become their nonresidential district. In other words,
they had been living in the district of the school of choice, the WIcksville School
District. During the course of the year, the family had moved to another school
district. and they were reluctant to move their children during the middle of the year.
School choice provided them with a way to let their children finish the school year

or, if they were seniors, to finish their high school career in their present school.

Brenda Hecker, mother of high school senior Kristin Fox, described it this way:

127

We chose to keep Kristin in the Wicksville schools so that she could finish her
high school career with the school and classmates that she had been a part
of through her entire high school experience. It really would have been very
unfair to have to move her. We knew she was already upset with the divorce.
She is a good kid. She has a good attitude, very mature and responsible.
We knew that although the drive and distance would make it a little difficult
for her to drive from Clayberg, it wasn’t too bad. Her father agreed to provide
her with a car that was really quite reliable and that made it easy as well.
When we found out from her counselor that she could stay in Wicksville under
the schools of choice plan, there was really nothing more to consider.

Lori Bowman, mother of Arthur, a twelfth grader, described her decision to

have Arthur finish his senior year at Wicksville this way: "It was the middle of his

senior year. He had his friends and his sports, and I didn’t want to pull him out.”

The Nunnallys, parents of three high schoolers, described the decision to have their

children finish the school year in Wicksville this way:

Once we knew we were going to buy our house in Handover, we knew that
moving our children to a different school was inevitable and was going to be
somewhat difficult. Like I said, once we knew the kids could finish out the
year in Wicksville, and although it would be easier to move them at the time,
we wanted to let our kids stay if that is what they wanted to do. It wasn’t
always the most convenient, but it was the easiest for the kids to let them
finish out the year. To us It just made more sense to let them finish school
before we moved them. Allison and Sam both wanted to stay in Wicksville,
and we felt we needed to respect their decision. It is tough for kids to have
to move away from their friends or go to a whole new school and start over,
especially when you are 16, 17, or 18 years old.

When asked to identify only their primary reason for participating in school

choice plans, 7 out of the 20 (35%) families cited reasons having to do with safety

(see Table 4.15). They indicated that the residential school district was simply

unsafe for their children and viewed that as the number-one reason to enroll them

in another district. The primary reason given by 30% of the families was that,

128

although they were moving to another district, they wanted their children to finish the
school year in the old district. To change schools during the middle of the school
year might create additional stress or discomfort for their children. Twenty percent
of the families were concerned about the poor quality of their residential school
district. By and large, families citing the belief that the residential district was unsafe
or the poor quality of the residential district were leaving the Parkwood schools.
WIcksville was one of the few school districts in the area, and the closest to
Parkwood, that had a school choice plan. As shown in Table 4.12, 12 of the 20
families In the study were leaving the Parkwood area. Eleven of those families cited
the residential district being unsafe or the poor quality of the district as their primary

reason for wanting to move.

Table 4.15: Primary reasons families gave for participating in school choice plans,
in rank order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank Reese Feeueev Feet
1 Residential district unsafe 7 35
2 Moving out of district, but wanted child to 6 30
finish school year
3 Poor quality of residential school district 4 20
Moving into the school district, but not until 1 5
after school starts
5 Child involved in athletics/co-curricular 1 5
activities
6 Religious reasons 1 5
Ib== =

 

 

129

In summarizing the results presented in this section, a number of points
become evident:

1. When parents were asked to describe a ”good school,” three of the top
four responses dealt with safety issues and good disCipline. The only other top
response was a desire to see a ”caring and effective teaching staff.” The responses
in this section helped the researcher understand the mind-set of the parents
participating in this study.

2. When grading their own residential schools, most parents gave the
schools low marks (0’5 and E’s), often describing unsafe conditions, lack of
discipline, and types of kids/families as reasons for their poor grades. The low
grades parents assigned to their residential schools reinforced and helped explain
the types of descriptors parents used in characterizing a "good school.” The
characteristics they used to describe a good school were some of the ones they
thought did not exist in their residential schools.

3. When describing the nonresidential schools, parents gave much higher
grades (generally A’s and B’s), citing good teachers and positive school climate as
major factors. In this study, parents placed little emphasis on the safety/discipline
Issue when rating their new schools. Once that issue had been addressed, parents
focused on school-quality issues that related more directly to classroom teaching,
curriculum, and technology. Analysis and follow-up discussions with parents on this

issue indicated that once parents believed that the basic-need issue had been

resolved, such as being assured by school personnel that their children would be

130

safe and free from negative factors like drugs and/or weapons, the parents could
shift their attention to their children’s education.

4. Most of the very low marks (D’s and E’s) given by parents to their
residential schools were from those who lived in the Parkwood district. This finding
was not surprising in light of parents’ earlier assessments of that school district.

5. When parents identified their reasons for changing schools under a
choice plan, the number-one reason given was that they believed their residential
district was unsafe (see Table 4.14). The next two highest responses concerned the
quality of the district and/or its families and children.

6. Forty percent of the families ended up using school choice as a vehicle
for allowing their children to finish the school year at their old school rather than
relocating them due to a family move, i.e., buying a new house, remarriage, and so
on. This family/personal needs issue was not anticipated but turned out to be a
major reason for the parents’ decision to participate in school choice plans.

7. Finally, the data indicated that, otherthan the issue of moving midyear,
families participating in choice tended to do so to “escape” a poor district (often
described as unsafe), rather than to move their children from an average or good
district to a better one. The strong concern parents had with their residential district-
that Is, dissatisfaction with the local district’s ability to provide a safe environment
and/or a high-quality school experience—was the motivating factorthat caused most

families to participate in school choice plans.

131

BeseamhfiuesflnnA

How do the decisions to choose nonresidential public schools by

families with high school students compare with those decisions by

families with elementary students?

The data also revealed some interesting information when the reasons for
participating in school choice plans were compared between families with
elementary-age children and those with high-schooI-age children. The responses
of parents of elementary-age students regarding why they participated in school
choice are summarized in Table 4.16. The two top responses were given by 9
(82%) of the 11 families of elementary school students. They cited both concern
about the poor quality of the residential school and concern about the lack of a safe
environment as reasons for changing schools. Only one other reason, the quality
of the families/kids at the residential school was identified by a majority of parents
(64%) as a reason for changing schools. The top three reasons listed clearly were
the dominant choices.

The fact that today’s parents of elementary-grade students listed their
concern for safety as one of the top reasons for deciding to participate in choice
certainly appears to indicate a shift in parents’ perceptions regarding school safety.
It may be a local issue. Of the nine families citing safety as a concern, eight were
either residents of, or were scheduled to move to, the Parkwood schools, the district

that had (as the data indicate) a serious public-image problem and a reputation as

an undisciplined, unsafe, and poor-quality district. Audrey Denby, mother of a first

grader, described the situation this way:

132

You must realize that you don't send your kids to the Parkwood schools
unless you have to. They are not safe, and they do a poor job of teaching
kids. If they were like Wicksville, Buchanan or West Buchanan [neighboring
schools]. it would be different. I'd have no problem with Charles going there.
But I can’t send him [to the Parkwood schools]. I’d be scared all the time for
what he would face.

Table 4.16: Reasons that parents of elementary school students gave for
participating in school choice plans, in rank order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“7836K Reason- T. i ,Frequeney Percent:
' 1 Poor quality of residential school district 9 82
2 Residential district unsafe, i.e., weapons, 9 82
drugs, fights, lack of discipline
Quality of families/kids ' 7 64
4 Moving out of the school district, but wanted 3 27
child to finish school year
5 Save on private school tuition costs 3 27
6 Poor disciplinary climate 3 27
7 High quality of nonresidential district 2 18
8 All schools should be open to all children- 1 9
issue of parents’ rights
9 Particular needs of my child, i.e., special 1 9
programs, etc.
10 Religious reasons 1 9
11 Convenience reasons such as day care or job 1
12 Moving into the school district, but not until 0 0
after school starts
13 Child involved In athletics/co-curricular 0 0
activities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

133

Wendy Jessman, when speaking of her decision not to send her three
elementary-grade sons to Parkwood, described her decision as follows:

Even if my boys wanted to go to Parkwood [residential school], I would have
said no. It’s hard to explain. ldon’t want to sound like a bigot. The Parkwood
schools are very, very rough. From the stories that I have heard and my
neighbors saw, little kids are beating up kids and taking their lunches, and my
kids had never seen any of that. One kid was suspended for body-slamming
another kid, and that kid had to go to the hospital. There is always pushing
and shoving. It’s not a good place for kids to have to face that.

Some of the reasons parents of secondary students gave for participating in
school choice were similar to those of the parents of elementary students (see Table
4.17). However, the secondary students’ parents had a different number-one
reason. That reason related to the family’s decision to move to a new home. Fifty
percent of the families indicated that they were using school choice as a means of
keeping their children in the Wicksville schools so they would not have to uproot
them during the school year. That is not an issue of school quality, but rather of
convenience.

The second highest response given by parents of high-school-age students
dealt with the safety issue and the concern that the residential school had problems
with weapons, drugs, fights, and/or gangs. In this study, 40% of the families
(families like the Hackers, Jansons, Nunnallys, and Rogerses) cited this reason as
a factor in their decisions to move their children from their residential schools.

In summary, parents of both elementary and secondary school students cited

the lack of a safe environment in the residential school as a major reason for

changing schools. Although that may be a local issue, because many of these

134

families had left the same district (the Parkwood schools), it is nonetheless a major

factor. However, whereas the elementary students’ parents then focused on school-

quality issues such as wanting good teachers or better school programs, the parents

of high schoolers focused more on convenience issues related to the family’s move

to a new home.

Table 4.17: Reasons that parents of high school students gave for participating

in school choice plans, in rank order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank r w Reason ' 2’75‘5"57:iT-9331'34? iiFreeuehey-it Percent?“
1 Movmg out of the school district, but wanted 5 50
child to finish school year
2 Residential district unsafe, i.e., weapons, 4 40
drugs, fights, lack of discipline
3 Child involved in athletics/co-curricular 3 30
activities .
4 ‘ Poor quality of residential school district 3 30
5 Poor discipline climate 3 30
6 Save on private school tuition costs 2 20 ll
7 All schools should be open to all children— 2 20 1'
issue of parents’ rights
8 Particular needs of my child, i.e., special 2 20
programs, etc.
9 Quality of families/kids 2 20
10 High quality of nonresidential district 2 2o ‘
11 Moving into the school district, but not until 1 10
after school starts
12 Religious reasons 0
13 Convenience reasons such as day care or job

 

 

135

W

To what extent are the issues of free will, educational reform, school

quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs reflected in families’

decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children?

In Chapter I, the researcher described four major issues surrounding the topic
of school choice. Those issues were free will, educational reform, school quality!
characteristics, and family/personal needs. To assess parents’ understanding of
these issues and to obtain some measure of the degree to which the issues were
important to their participation in school choice, parents were asked to respond to
a number of statements that were woven into the interviews (see Table 4.18). Under
each issue there were three statements with which parents were asked to indicate
the extent of their agreement or disagreement. Parents were then asked to indicate
the extent to which the message of the statement had been a factor in their decision
to participate in school choice. For example, under the topic of. free will, parents
were asked to respond to the following statement: ”School choice is an issue of

freedom. it is a basic right that we have as citizens.” Parents were asked to give the

statement a rating of1 (Strongly Agree) through 5 (Strongly Disagree). They were

the" asked to indicate W

W. They were asked to respond
as follows: (1) A Strong Factor, (2) A Possible Factor, (3) Not Sure, (4) Not Likely

a Factor, and (5) Definitely Not a Factor. Parents also were asked to explain their
responses. It was not enough simply to provide a numerical response; they were
asked to explain their rating of the statement. The ratings of these statements and

the degree to which parents thought the message in the statement was a factor in

136

Table 4.18: Interview survey.

 

STATEMENT

| AGREE <-—) DISAGREE |

 

FREE WILL ISSUE

FACTOR IN DECISION I

 

1. School choice Is an issue Of
freedom. It is a basic right that we,

1234.5

 

 

 

as citizens, have. Exnlain: Explain

2. As consumers, we should be able 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
to choose whatever school/program , . .

we think is best for our children. Explain. EpraIn

 

3. Every person has a right to equal
opportunity, and school choice helps
guarantee that.

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

EDUCATIONAL REFORM ISSUES

 

1. Schools will' Improve and students
will learn more with school choice In

1 2 3 4 5

1 2  '3’ 4‘

 

 

 

 

place. Explain: Explain:

2. Parents will be more involved and 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4
have more confidence in their , . .

schools under choice. ExplaIn. ExplaIn:

 

3. Bad schools will go out of
business and good schools will add

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

more students.

SCHOOL QUALITY/CHARACTERISTICS: I -

 

1. QualIty Of educational programs,
including personnel, is key to school

1 2 3 4 5

12113 4 5

 

 

 

success. EXDIain: Explain:

2. The safety of the children and the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
control Of discipline, weapons, drugs _ . 11
are critical in schools. EpraIn: EXDIaIn:

 

3. The quality of the facilities, the
technology, and condition of build-

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

ings affect education of children.

FAMILY/PERSONALNEEDSg1:1,; ; ‘ w

 

1. The type Of kids/famIlIes at the
school affects the quality of school.

12 3 4 5151125134 5

 

 

choice program

 

Explain: Explain:
2. Families’ personal needs! 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
circumstances are a critical factor in
their right to participate in a school of Explain: Explain:

 

3. The school needs to
reflect/support the values Of my
family and beliefs we hold important.

 

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

 

 

Explain:

 

 

ISEX: W
1 = Strongly Agree
2 = Agree
3 = Not Sure
4 = Disagree
5 = Strongly Disagree

EACIQBJNDECISIQN

1 = A Strong Factor

2 = A Possible Factor

3 = Not Sure

4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Definitely Not a Factor

137

their decision to participate in a school choice program are described in the following
pages.

WW3

Statements designed to ascertain parents’ beliefs regarding school choice as
an Issue of free will centered on three main topics: The first statement suggested
that school choice is an issue of freedom, a basic right that we have as citizens. The
second statement dealt with consumer sovereignty, suggesting that. as consumers.
parents should be able to choose whatever school or program they think would be
best for their children. The third statement in the free will section concerned the
equal opportunity issue, suggesting that every person has a right to an equal
opportunity in schooling, and school choice helps to guarantee that right. As the
totals at the bottom of Table 4.19 illustrate, the majority of parents (63%) strongly
agreed or agreed, in general, with the three free will statements. Twenty-eight
percent of the families were not sure how to respond to the statements. Only 8% of
the families disagreed, and none of them strongly disagreed with the free will
statements.

However, when comparing the parents’ philosophical agreement or
disagreement with the statements in the second part of the questioning, which was
”To what extent would you say this statement was a factor in your decision to
participate in schools of choice?," the totals indicate that only 30% of parents thought
that the issue of free will had played a role in their decision to participate in a school
choice program. Thirty-three percent indicated that they were uncertain whether it

was much of a factor. More than 37%, the largest percentage, indicated that the

138

Table 4.19: Response summaries for free will statements.

School choice is an issue of

STATEMENT:

a
AGREE (—-) DISAGREE

 

  

FACTOR IN DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

freedom. It is a basic right 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
that we, as citizens, have.
Frequency 1 6 9 4 O 0 2 7 10 1 II
Percent 5 30 45 20 0 0 10 35 50 41'
I 'I
STATEMENT:

As consumers, we should be
able to choose whatever

AGREE (...) DISAGREE

FACTOR IN DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

school/program we think is 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
best for our child(ren).
II
Frequency 4 12 3 1 0 2 10 5 2 1
Percent 20 60 15 5 0 10 50 25 10 5
STATEMENT: AGREE (—-) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
Every person has a right to
equal opportunity, and school 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 , 3 4 5
choice helps guarantee that.
Frequency 3 12 5 0 0 0 4 8 4 4
'TPercent 15 60 25 0 0 0 20 40 20 204
I
Total Frequency I 8 I 30 I 17 I 5 I 0 I 2 16 20 I 16 I 6
Average Percent I 13 50 I 28 I 8 I 0 I 3 27 33 I 27 I 10
a 4—

KEIIW W

1 = Strongly Agree

2 = Agree

3 = Not Sure

4 = Disagree

5 = Strongly Disagree

1 = A Strong Factor

2 = A Possible Factor

3 = Not Sure

4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Definitely Not a Factor

139

free will issue was "not likely“ or ”definitely not a factor“ in their decision to participate
in school choice. It appears, then, that although the majority of parents tended to
agree with the free will issues and the statements that supported the free will
arguments for school choice, in reality free will tended not to be a major factor in
their decisions to participate in school choice plans.
A few families did feel strongly about some of the free will issues. The
McDonalds were the most vocal and adamant about this issue:
I think it should be every parent’s right to send their children to any school
they want. That’s what our country was founded on . . . the right as free
choosing citizens . . . in a country of freedoms . . . to be able to do and be
whatever we want, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. Choosing the schools
for our kids is just one of the freedoms we ought to enjoy. If it's not in the
Constitution or, better yet, the Bill of Rights, it ought to be. If we can worship

any God of our choosing, we should certainly be able to choose what schools
our kids go to.

The McDonalds were 1 of 16 families who either agreed or strongly agreed
philosophically with the consumer-sovereignty statement. Eighty percent of the
families agreed with the statement, “As consumers we should be able to choose
whatever school or program is best for our children." Audrey Denby echoed the rest
of the parents when she stated:

I am glad I had the option to keep Charles in the Wicksville schools. If not,
I am not sure what I would have done. Obviously, I am glad it is available.

;o.‘| 0 ,|| [0 00‘ .0" o ‘|o |‘ |0‘| c |: 3| .-
schoolsjheymnflnd. Some may not care, but I do. So, it would be great if
I could send him anywhere of my choice and also not have to worry about
things like busing, but that's probably too much to ask.

When discussing the consumer-sovereignty issue, Melissa Palmer

responded:

140

Mark and I really think parents should be able to send their child wherever
they want. We believe that vouchers is something that should be available
to every parent. I am not saying we would send our child to a Catholic
school, but we would certainly consider a private school like Redmond,
Eastbrooke or Country Day if we could get them in and it doesn’t cost as
much as it does now. Or, if we could have a voucher and send Angela to
Buchanan, West Buchanan or Wilson Lake, or any other school district
around us, we would consider that.

Along the same lines, Sherry Walter asserted:

I think parents should be able to send their kids to whatever school they want.

When we lived in Langley, there was no way I would have sent Jimmy to their

junior high or high schools. I would have wanted to choose another school.

We weren't too far from Waverly School when we lived in Langley. That is

where we would have wanted Jimmy to go. Some schools like Waverly, and

even here in Wicksville, have some things that schools in Langley and

Parkwood just don't have: nicer buildings, better books, more computers.

Some schools even have counselors. Why can’t parents choose to send

their children wherever they think would be the best place for their kids?

It should be noted that, when asked whether consumer sovereignty was a
factor in their decision to participate in school choice, 60% of the parents indicated
that it had been an important factor. This was the one free will statement that
appeared to carry over into parents’ ”action" to choose. The same cannot be said
for the third free will statement, which dealt with equal opportunity.

About 75% of the parents expressed either strong agreement or agreement
with the statement concerning equal opportunity. However, only 20% of the parents
thought this had been a motivating factor when enrolling their children in a school
choice plan. Perhaps Wendy Jessman, the mother of three elementary students,
described it best:

Open up all the school districts. Kids, whether they are poor, rich, or in the

middle, should all have the same opportunity. Even though the state is giving

a grant for my kids to go to Wicksville, all schools should open up—Buchanan,
Farmington Hills. Parkwood is a prime example. It is a poor city. The quality

141

of their schools is low; the teaching is low. The kids are not given a chance.

All kids should have a good opportunity to get the best education they can.

It is discriminating that Buchanan has all the rich people and they don’t open

their doors.

However, when pressed on this issue and the degree to which it had been a factor
when she was enrolling her three elementary-age children in Wicksville under the
school choice plan, she responded: “Well, as I think about it, I’m not sure I was
really thinking "equal rights” or “equal opportunities" when changing schools. Ijust
wanted my kids out of Refuge [the local parochial school] and somewhere other than
the Parkwood schools.”

In summary, the responses to the statements dealing with the free will issues
indicated that the vast majority of parents tended to agree philosophically with the
statements; in fact, some were adamant in saying how strongly they felt about the
issues. However, the reality was, when asked to what extent the free will issue had
played a part in the decision to enroll their children in a school choice program, the
vast majority of parents admitted it had not been a major factor.

B I’B IIIEII'I
Beiomfitatements

Parents’ responses to the statements relating to choice as an issue of
educational reform also varied. However, as shown in Table 4.20, choice as an
issue of educational reform did not have as much interest or support as did some of
the other areas. For example, when asked whether they agreed with the statement
that “Schools will improve and students will learn more with school choice, only one

parent (5%) expressed agreement with the statement. About 65% of the parents

142

Table 4.20: Response summaries for educational reform statements.

STATEMENT: AGREE <—-> DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
Schools will improve and

students will learn more with 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 II

 

 

 

school choice in place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency 0 1 13 5 1 0 2 3 9 6 II
Percent 0 5 65 25 5 0 10 15 45 30 II
STATEMENT: I

Parents will be more AGREE (m) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION

involved and have more
confidence in their schools 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
under choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frequency 0 6 12 2 0 0 2 6 8 4
Percent 0 30 60 10 0 0 10 30 40 20
STATEMENT:

AGREE (—-) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
Bad schools will go out of

business and good schools 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
will add more students. '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I Frequency 0 1 7 7 5 0 0 5 8 7
Percent 0 5 35 35 25 0 0 25 40 35
Total Frequency 0 I 8 32 14 6 0 4 14 25 I 17
Average Percent 0 I 13 53 23 10 0 7 23 42 I 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEIIW EACIQBJNDEQISIQN

1 = Strongly Agree 1 = A Strong Factor

2 = Agree 2 = A Possible Factor

3 = Not Sure 3 = Not Sure

4 = Disagree 4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Definitely Not a Factor

143

had no strong opinion either way on that issue; they had not given it much thought.

As Brenda Hecker, mother of a twelfth grader, put it:

I guess I have never really thought about it. The school choice plan was
certainly a good plan for us since it helped solve our problem and allowed
Kristin to finish at her home school. I don’t know about the school's ability to
get better or worse under schools of choice. I happen to think schools of
choice is good and that parents should send their kids anywhere they want,
so maybe it will help schools stay more competitive. I don’t really know.

Other families, including the Palmers, did not think that choice would make

a difference in improving schools:

The one school we think needs to improve tremendously is Parkwood. They
have so many changes to make. I don’t know ifthey will ever be able to be
the kind of schools that kids should be able to go to, until they do something
about the drugs, the fighting, the weapons, and making it a safe place. I don’t
think schools of choice or anything will help them.

Similarly, when families were asked to respond to and then comment on the

other two educational reform statements-regarding parents’ increased involvement

in schools and whether they thought bad schools would go out of business as a

result of school choice programs-there was little support for either of the statements.

In fact, when asked whether they thought bad schools would go out of business and

good schools would add more students as a result of choice, 60% of the

respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed. They did not believe that school

choice would have a major influence on improving bad schools or increasing

parental involvement. When responding to that statement, Laurie Gables claimed

that:

lthink that Parkwood should make some changes because they can’t afford
to lose a lot of students. My mother has lived in the Parkwood district all her
life, and from what she knows about the Parkwood schools, she says
because Parkwood has become such a large rental place, the system is

144

suffering. They are just not getting the dollars or the kinds of families that
they are going to need to get better. I don’t know that choice will change that.

When parents were asked whether any of the educational reform issues had
been a factor in their decision to participate in school choice, again the vast majority
indicated that this issue had not been a major factor in their decision. The totals in
Table 4.20 show that 70% of the families indicated that the contents of the three
educational reform statements had not been factors in their decision. Of the
remaining 30% of families. 23% responded that they were not sure. Only 7% of the
parents indicated that issues related to educational reform might have been a factor
in their decision. No families indicated that this was a strong factor in their decision.

In summary, parents tended not to agree with the statements dealing with
educational reform. Further, they had not considered some of these educational
reform issues when deciding to participate in school choice plans.

, .
WI I . I' SI | |

Parents who were interviewed tended to agree, and in some cases strongly
agree, with statements that focused on the quality and characteristics of schools
(see Table 4.21). All of the families agreed or strongly agreed with the statement
that the quality of educational programs, including personnel, is key to school
success. Perhaps not surprisingly, the statement that safety of the children and the
control of discipline, weapons, and drugs in schools are critical in schools garnered
100% agreement. This result was consistent with the data presented earlier

regarding school safety and school discipline. Ninety percent of the parents agreed

145

 

Table 4.21: Response summaries for school quality/characteristics statements.

 

STATEMENT:
Quality of educational

AGREE (--) DISAGREE

 

FACTOR IN DECISION

 

 

 

programs, including personnel,

is key to school success and 1 2 3 4 5 ' 1 2 3 4 5
my decision to choose.

Frequency 7 13 0 0 0 6 8 3 3 0
Percent 35 65 0 0 0 30 40 15 15 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT:
The safety Of the children and AGREE (--) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
the control of discipline,
weapons, drugs are critical in 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
schools.
Frequency 14 6 0 0 0 10 4 3 3 0
Percent 70 30 0 0 0 50 20 15 15 0
STATEMENT: l
The quality of the facilities, the AGREE (...) D SAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
technology and the condition of
the buildings affect the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
education of children.
Frequency 2 16 2 0 0 1 6 8 5 0
I Percent 10 80 10 0 0 5 30 40 25 0
Total Frequency 23 35 2 0 0 17 18 14 11 I 0
Average Percent 38 58 3 0 O 28 30 23 18 I 0
KEX: W EACIQBJNDECISIQN

1 = Strongly Agree 1 = A Strong Factor

2 = Agree 2 = A Possible Factor
3 = Not Sure 3 = Not Sure
4 = Disagree 4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Definitely Not a Factor

146

with the third statement—that the quality of the facilities, the technology. and
condition of the buildings affect the education of children. In total, 96% of the
families agreed or strongly agreed with the three statements on this issue. Of the
four philosophical issue areas, it had the highest percentage of agreement.

Unlike the section dealing with free will, where there was strong agreement
with the statements but little indication that the content of the statement had been
a factor in their decision, a much higher percentage of parents indicated that school
quality/characteristics were a major factor in their decision to participate in school
choice. Seventy percent of the parents interviewed indicated that the schools’ ability
to provide a safe environment and their ability to guarantee quality programs/staff
were major factors in their decision to participate in school choice plans. Overall,
nearly 60% of the parents indicated that school quality/characteristics were a major
issue to them as families when deciding to enroll their children in school choice
programs.

Audrey Denby summarized what many of the families thought—that her child’s
safety and the quality of the educational program were critical factors in her decision
to participate in a school choice program. She said,

Was the safety of my child a factor in my decision? You bet! I just knew I
wasn’t going to send my son to the Parkwood schools. Since we were
already in Wicksville, I decided that, if the law would let me, I would keep him
in Wicksville. I also heard that West Buchanan had a schools-of-choice
program, but since Charles was already in Wicksville, I decided to stay. The
main reason? I wanted my son to be safe and to get a good education. That
isn’t guaranteed in Parkwood.

As the figures in Table 4.21 indicate, 70% of the families concurred on those two

issues.

147

In summary, parents strongly agreed with the school quality/characteristics
statements. Parents believed there is, and should be, a high correlation between
good schools and the schools’ ability to provide high-quality programs, including
competent, caring staff and good facilities and technology. In addition, they believed
that the safety of their children and an atmosphere of discipline and order are critical
in schools. More important, however, they translated this belief into action. This
area dealing with school quality/characteristics had the largest percentage of parents
indicating that these issues were major factors in their decisions to switch schools
under a choice plan.

B | , B I II E 'l 1
EersonaLNeedLStatements

Parents also were asked to respond to statements that dealt with
family/personal needs issues, the fourth area under investigation. Nearly 75% ofthe
parents indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with the family/personal needs
statements (T able 4.22). In addition, nearly 60% of parents indicated that the issues
addressed in these statements had been factors in their decision to participate in
school choice. For example, 95% of the parents agreed or strongly agreed that the
types of kids and families at the school affected the quality of the school. Moreover,
70% of the parents indicated that the types of kids and families at the school had
been a major factor in their decision to participate in school choice.

For example, when talking about her decision to remove her son Kevin from
the Parkwood schools and enroll him in Wicksville under a school choice plan,

Jessie Prince described it this way:

148

Table 4.22: Response summaries for family/personal needs statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT: AGREE (—-) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
The type of kids/families at the
school affects the quality Of the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
school. '
Frequency 6 13 1 0 0 7 7 4 2 0
Percent 30 65 5 0 0 35 35 20 10 0
STATEMENT:
circumstances are a critical
factor in their fight to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
participate in a schools-of-
choice program.
Frequency 1 10 9 0 0 6 4 9 1 0
Percent 5 50 45 0 0 30 20 45 5 0
STATEMENT: AGREE (—-) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
The school needs to reflect/
support the values of my family 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
and beliefs we hold important.
Frequency 1 13 6 0 0 0 11 5 4 0
Percent 5 65 30 0 O 0 55 25 20 0
Total Frequency 8 36 16 0 0 13 22 18 7 I 0
Average Percent 13 60 27 0 0 22 37 30 12 I 0
ISEX: W EACIQBJNDECISIQN

1 = Strongly Agree 1 = A Strong Factor

2 = Agree 2 = A Possible Factor
3 = Not Sure 3 = Not Sure
4 = Disagree 4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Definitely Not a Factor

149

There was no way I was going to send Kevin to the Parkwood schools. The
main reason that l have is that l have a concern about sending him to the
school, his safety. Also, there are a lot of blacks and Hispanics, some really
tough kids. There are too many kids that fight, have guns and drugs. A lot
of them come from black families that are into that kind of thing. I don’t want
to sound like I am against all blacks, but they are a big part of the problem.
The schools in Wicksville are a lot safer, cleaner, and have a lot nicer kids.
Another mother, Wendy Jessman, also reluctantly admitted that the types of
kids at the school—in this case based on race—had affected her decision about
where her children would attend school. Wendy and her three children lived in a
predominantly black school district, although their neighborhood was mainly white.
She described the situation this way: "I don’t want my sons to be a minority and
going to an all-black school and being the only white kids. I don’t mind if they are
mixed, but I want them mixed equally." Hence, the types of kids at the school,
whether based on race or stereotypical attitudes about some families, was a factor
in many of these parents’ decisions to participate in school choice, according to the
study findings. A
Parents’ decision to participate in school choice because they were moving
out of the district and wanted their children to finish the school year in the former
district was a major factor for a number of the families. In fact, next to the issue of
safety, the second highest reason families gave for participating in choice centered
on this issue (see Table 4.16). When given the statement 'Families’ personal needs
or circumstances are a factor in their right to participate in a schools-of-choice
program,“ 55% of the parents agreed with the statement and 50% agreed that the

family’s personal circumstances had been a factor in their decision to change

schools. Most of the latter group were families who were moving to a new house.

150

For families like the Douglases, the 'moving" issue was not only the primary factor
in deciding to enroll in a school choice program, it was the only factor. Susan
Douglas expressed it this way:

We just didn’t want Russ to have to move during the year. We moved to our

new house in Henderson in March. It didn’t make sense to pull him out, so

we kept him at Haviland [elementary school] under the school choice option,
and then we drove him every day. Before this, I really didn’t know what
school choice was and, truthfully, I didn’t really care.
As shown in Table 4.15, 7 of the 20 families had decided to change schools because
they were moving to a new house in a different district. This was a major family or
personal need Circumstance that factored into the decision to participate in a school
choice program.

The families’ religious beliefs or concerns with costs of private school tuition
were other family/personal needs issues affecting the choice process. In the case
of the Palmers, the family’s concern with religion was a key reason for their decision
to participate in school choice. Their daughter, Angela, had attended a local
Catholic grade school for kindergarten and first grade. Melissa Palmer explained:

There were really two main reasons [to enroll under choice]. First, and most

important, we are not Catholic. We looked at other private schools like

Redmond and Eastbrooke, but the tuition was terribly high. We knew we

were not going to send Angela to the Parkwood schools, but we were not

sure we wanted to have her stay at a Catholic school beyond kindergarten or
first grade. We knew that as she would get into the older grades there would
be more emphasis placed on being a Catholic, learning about Mass,
communion, confession, and we knew we would have to change schools for
her. And the second reason is, wejust don’t like the Parkwood schools. You
must know that their schools are not good at all. And it’s not safe there for
kids. It’s scary, but true.

The Palmers’ decision to choose was, indeed, a personal family decision. Although

they did not want their child to be in the Parkwood schools for both school quality

151

and safety reasons, the other major factor in their decision to move centered on their
religious beliefs, clearly a family/personal needs issue.

There was a high level of parental agreement with the statement that ”The
school needs to reflect and support the values of my family and beliefs that we hold
important.“ Seventy percent of the families agreed or strongly agreed with that
statement. In 55% of those cases. parents said the need for common family values
had Indeed been a factor in their decision to relocate to another school. Although
the researcher was not surprised that parents agreed with the shared-values
concept, the fact that 55% of the families also identified it as a factor in their decision
to change schools was significant.

In summary, family circumstances and personal needs often played a
significant role in the families’ decisions to change schools under a choice plan. As
,the totals in Table 4.22 indicate, there was strong philosophical agreement (more
than 70%) with the statements in this area. Also important was the fact that nearly
60% ofthe parents believed that theirfamily circumstances or family/personal needs
had influenced their decision to participate in school choice. This was second only

to the issue of school quality/characteristics.

Beseamhfluestimfi
Which of the four issues surrounding choice (free will, educational
reform, school quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs)
dominated the parents’ decision to choose nonresidential schools for
their children?
The comparison totals for the four areas of discussion regarding school

choice are shown in Table 4.23. As pointed out in the preceding sections and

152

Table 4.23: Comparison of totals for statements, by issue.

 

PHILOSOPHICAL

'DIMENSION-f'f. e - VACT'°"°'"E"$'°"V

 

 

AGREE t—I DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FREE WILL

STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Total Frequency 8 30 17 5 0 2 16 20 16 6
Average Percent 13 50 28 8 0 3 27 33 27 10

EDUCATIONAL AGREE (m) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION

REFORM

Total Frequency 0 8 32 14 6 0 4 14 25 17
Average Percent 0 13 53 23 10 0 7 23 42 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCHOOL QUALITY] AGREE (--) DISAGREE FACTOR IN DECISION
I' CHARACTERISTICS
STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Total Frequency 23 35 2 0 0 17 18 1 14 11 0
Average Percent 38 58 3 0 0 28 30 23 18 0

 

 

AGREE (--) DISAGREE

 

 

 

 

FAMILY/PERSON AL FACTOR IN DECISION
NEEDS STATEMENTS 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Total Frequency 8 36 16 0 O 13 22 18 7 0
Average Percent 13 60 27 0 0 22 37 30 12 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEY: W W
1 = Strongly Agree 1 = A Strong Factor

2 = Agree 2 = A Possible Factor
3 = Not Sure 3 = Not Sure
4 = Disagree 4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 = Strongly Disagree 5 = Definitely Not a Factor

153

summarized In this table, parents tended to agree philosophically with the
statements regarding schools and/or schools of choice. Nearly all of the statements
dealing with free will, school quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs
received support from parents (nearly 78%). Only the statements that focused on
educational reform garnered little philosophical support (13% of parents cited
agreement or strong agreement).

When parents were asked whether these issues had been a factor in their
decision to change schools under a choice program, the school quality/
characteristics area and the family/personal needs area had the highest affirmative
responses, and often they had a high degree of overlap. In other words, parents
often cited the school safety issue-an issue of school quality—while also expressing
concern about the types of kids with whom their children might be attending school.
The types of kids their children might hang outwith or be influenced by is a family
value Issue. The two areas were often cited as key factors in parents’ decision to
change schools.

There was a much stronger correlation between the philosophical dimension
and the action dimension in the school quality/characteristics area and the
family/personal needs area than in other areas. Conversely, parents indicated that
neither the free will area nor the educational reform area had played a major role in
causing them to seek out a new school for their children. For parents, the decision
to participate In school choice was not anchored in complex issues such as free will

or educational reform but, rather, the issues having a more immediate effect on their

154

children. In other words, parents were taking action (i.e., changing schools through
school choice), based on what they thought was best for their children.

In summary, the findings indicated that, of the four areas being studied. two
dominated the parents' decision to participate in sChoOl choice-the school quality]
characteristics and family/personal needs issues. The school quality/characteristics
were philosophically important to all of the parents in the study. Ninety-six percent
of them believed strongly in school quality issues, such as the need for good and
caring teachers, good discipline, and safe schools. Nearly 60% of the parents also
indicated that those issues had been factors in their decision to change schools or
enroll their children in nonresidential schools under a choice plan. The school
quality/characteristics area was the top ”issue area" for parents when factored into
their school choice decision.

Following closely behind was the decision to "choose" to participate in school
choice in response to a family/personal need. Leading this area was parents’
decision to enroll their children in the nonresidential district to avoid having to take
them out of school midyear following a move. It was these responses to
family/personal needs that made this issue area a close second to the school
quality/characteristics issue as a factor affecting their decision to participate in
school choice. These two areas surpassed in importance issues such as
educational reform or those involved in free will. Although parents often
philosophically agreed with the free will issues such as consumer sovereignty or
equal opportunity, the data did not indicate that families "acted” by enrolling their

children under a choice plan based on this issue. Even less of a factor were the

155

educational reform issues such as improving student outcomes or putting bad
schools out of business. Parents wanted what was best for their children, now. The
rather distant issues or motivations associated with the educational reform
discussion, as well as the free will arguments, did not appear to be immediate or
'real" enough to the families who were choosing and, as a result, were identified as

less important factors in their decision to participate in schools of choice.

Researcbfiuestionl

Do the data suggest other issues or agendas not previously presented?
If so, what are they?

The results of this study did not suggest any other major issues or agendas
that one might argue contributed significantly to the school Choice discussion. All of
the reasons given for participating in school choice (see Table 4.14) and the
responses given by parents varied across the four agendas cited in the previous
section. The school quality/characteristics issues and the family/personal needs
issues tended to dominate. but there was some support for the free will and
educational reform areas. However, none of the reasons parents gave for
participating in school choice, or the explanations and discussions they provided,
tended to stray outside of these four areas. Certainly there was a great deal of
overlap. For example, some families felt strongly about the free will issue, while in
the very next statement they emphasized that their primary reason for moving had
been associated with some quality or characteristic associated with the school.

Although there was much overlap and combination of factors, there did not appear

156

to be any evidence to suggest that there were additional platforms or agendas to be

considered.

Researcbfluesticnfi '

What are the overall opinions of parents concerning the school choice
option in Michigan?

As part of this study, the researcher asked parents their opinions regarding
the school choice program currently in effect in Michigan. Parents also were asked
to identify the barriers or difficulties they faced in making their decision and to

provide suggestions for how the program might be improved.

Wm

Overall, parents indicated a high degree of support for the school choice
program. Table 4.24 contains summary data in this area. As shown in column 1 of
the table, when parents were asked whether they would decide again to participate
in school choice, 100% of them indicated they would do so. In fact, most of them
made very strong affirmative responses to this question. For example, not only did
Mrs. Brennahan, the grandparent of three children, respond affirmatively, she went
on to say how important it was to her and her family. When asked whether, given
the same circumstances, she would again decide to enroll her grandchildren under
a choice plan, Grandmother Brennahan responded,

Absolutely! I feel it [the school choice option for parents] is great. I never did

understand why, when we live in Wicksville, I have to pay taxes to the

Parkwood schools and send my grandchildren there. That has baffled me

since I found out that my grandchildren had to go to the Parkwood schools.
That stuck in my craw.

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6028 32853292.”. ecu—3.88m; mo> 2; 2.20005.
E32: 8

80:8 .mEooEESmEn. oz .44; :mEmmow

.0058 o__n:&_m=:mu_mom cozmtoamcg 5.38:8 xEO>> we> mw> :omcmw
SEE“.

3o: 2 no>oE Lo A233”: scamtcamcmc. wo> 8> .38:
60:8 .mEoemaEmza

.O «0.525 39. 2 85.2 958438 525535; mc> mo> comcoucao

.028 mEOI Oz mo> $.an

.858 o__n=&_m=cwu_mom 538.03%.» mm; mo> 83:00
.858 320053293

.0 85.4.5 3o: 2 $32 cczmtoamcafi mm; 2; Base
.0058 3209530525

.6 65% Sec 2 ego—2 oz mo> acmuam

832: .o 9:92 cO=mEE££

a £3, o>= 2 ucom so xom<co=wtoamcmfi mo> mm> 55:55

.005..." o__n:&_m=cmu_mom oz mm> 5558

.0058 .mEOOEmEBmED 02 mm; =OE<

285m 8326 . $220
, . . .0028 E 236223 «3:20 9: van 30>
26; EEO Sc» 2:03 «>05 So; ,2 :03er 9: eme E Emma c.2285 0E3

Sec} 620:0 .oonum.
.. Rise. .9. 9.63 22?:

 

was; .eoEwn 2o; v.65 z

 

2 28%.. E. ones as
«SEE Eu 9.05 225

 

. 2: ome :0». 2:03.

 

EEK ,

 

 

.865 .858 E 233:3 9 586% 9: 9.5392 2.2823. .weEEmu ”ewe cash

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.0058 EEQESBEZE
.0 6.5% 30: 2 3302 02 90> 8:35
850:. 0:02:88
30: 2 3905 .0 833% .wo<co=mE.o,E_ >0 x03 mw> m0> eomom
60:8 0E0: 833035;. mm; mw> ~m.__Ewm
.0058 520963295 536-38 6030:0088» mm> mm> mecca
60:8 fiEuEwEwfiém oz mw> .053
@526 :30 23 com
.028 o__n3&_m_EmEmom lac >3 35.90.12 8565 00> mm> >__mc:3z
.0058 o__n3&_m=:mu_wmm 02 mm; 203302
.8500 M6 ~30 3300.0
365. £63 .0 02.20.
m 53> 02. o. ucmw oz 00> cmEEw—z
. oo om .33 m . wou_o;u_ . . .
,. _o_ 5,, 303 a . . .0058 3. 20903.00 , . «85:0 05 32 30> ,
. gas 220 50> £303 o>m£ 903 . ., . : . ,. . , _ . . ,

_ , .. . , . . , . .. 0. c0383 05 9.2: m Emma :me003 088 . >=Eau .
...anzvmofizfloocum .23 93:3 203 905.: . .30. . 305.3 .. 00!: .05 ...05 010E 30> .303 _ . ._ .. .,
2530 0: 203 205.: , . . . ,_ .2. .., .. : . . . .. . . . ,2 . . . , ..

. . ,. . . .. ., _, fianiefi 22$ . , . . ,. . _

 

 

60352.00 “vmé 2an

159

The Budsons also responded with strong sentiment. When asked whether
they would decide again to enroll their son under a choice plan, Kimberly Budson
responded. ”You bet! Absolutely! No way was Jason going to go back to the
Parkwood schools.” At that point, Kimberly reiterated some of her unpleasant
experiences with her local, residential district. Other parents, like Brenda Hecker,
echoed the same sentiments. When asked whether she would make the same
decision to enroll her daughter under a school choice plan, Brenda responded:

Absolutely! There is no doubt in our minds that it was a good decision. even

though it was a little inconvenient moving while Kristin was still involved in

volleyball, and still involved as a cheerleader. I would worry sometimes at
night when she would have to drive home from a late-night game and so on,
but like I said, she is such a responsible person, sometimes she would bring

a friend with her and they would drive back together and then drive in to

school the next morning. There were a lot of things we did to try to make it

a little easier. There is no doubt in our minds that it was the right decision to

make at the time.

Table 4.25 contains a rank ordering of the parents’ opinions regarding the
school choice program. Seventy-five percent of the parents made statements
indicating they were very supportive of the school choice program and glad that
choice was an option for their family. Forty percent of the parents believed that all
public schools should be Open under a choice program; in other words, all schools
should be providing a choice plan for all students.

In surveying the parents in this study. there was no doubt that the choice plan
was warmly received and, in some cases, had turned out to be, as one parent put

it. "an answer to [their] prayers." When asked whether she had any final comments

regarding schools of choice, perhaps Rebecca McDonald summarized it best:

160

I am glad we did it. We would have done anything to keep the kids out of
Parkwood [her neighborhood school]. it’s not prejudice or racism; just read
the newspaper and look at what walks through the school, the speech. the
dress, the attitude, the weapons, the drugs. i don’t want that living with me.
It is not as visible in Wicksville because they control it.

Her husband added:

The problem in Parkwood is that more people get away with it. Sixty percent
of the student body is involved in some sort of gang. Even if it doesn’t
happen to my kids. they are witnessing this. This is not what i want them to
learn about civilized humanity.

Table 4.25: Rank ordering of parents’ opinions regarding the school choice
program.

 

 

Opinion About School Choice , . ‘_]Fie®?h¢°¥ Percent

 

Very supportive and glad choice was an option for 15 75

 

 

 

their family

Believe all public schools should be open under a 8 4O
choice plan

Good program, but it needs to be improved, more ' 3 15
open

Not a true ”choice plan“ because some families will 2 10

never be able to choose due to barriers, i.e., lack of
transportation, lack of proper child care. etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should add privatelparochiaischools 1 5
Glad it was available, saved tuition 1 5
Helps with equity/equal opportunity 1 5
Will force poor-quality districts to improve 1 5
Good, but need to be more accommodating to 1 5
nonresident families

 

 

 

 

No opinion 1 5

161

WI iCllll III 'I I'ISI l

Next, parents were asked to identify any barriers they had faced in deciding
to send their children to nonresidential schools and then to provide suggestions for
how the program might be improved. Responses regarding barriers for parents are

summarized in Table 4.26.

Table 4.26: Barriers to parents’ sending their children to nonresidential schools.

 

 

  

 

   
  
 
  

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

arrier =Freouency Percent
i No barrier 9 45 ‘

1 Transportation 9 45

Lack of good information 2 10

' Baby-sitting arrangements 2 10

1 Work schedule 1 5 ||
‘ Distance to drive 1 5 4

   

 

Nine of the families (45%) indicated that they had faced no real barriers in
deciding to participate in school choice. On the other hand, nine other families
(45%) responded that the greatest barrier they had faced was the lack of
transportation provided by the schools. Raquel Ramirez, whose husband did not
drive and who, herself, had to travel to a neighboring town 35 miles away to work,
described it this way:

Transportation is really hard. We have to get up at 5:00 am. Lucy [her

daughter] has to be ready by 5:30. When it is snowing, she has to get up

even earlier. It takes me 10 minutes or more when it is snowing. In the
summer, it just takes me a few minutes. It’s hard because i have to go from

Parkwood to Wicksville. then back to Parkwood; then from Parkwood to Lake
Oslow to work [referring to her factory job]. Then I have to come back to pick

162

my daughter up, then go back to Lake Oslow to work. My work lets me do it

because usually a person can make 400 [referring to her quota] in a day, and

i can make nearly 1,000. it’s hard. it's really hard. But l’m not going to

complain. At least Lucy is in a safe school now, one that I know I can trust.

Mrs. Brennahan, the grandparent in the study, also talked about
transportation as being a barrier:

The transportation issue is very frustrating. In 1992 I had a heart attack. i

also have a blood clot that is still there. It was kind of hectic for me until I got

into a routine. On snowy days, I was afraid to go out. It would have been
better if they had transportation. It takes about ten minutes to get to the

schools. If they went to the Parkwood schools, they would be picked up. I

didn’t have to transport Tessie, but now that they are in the Wicksville schools

we have to provide transportation. It wouldn’t be so bad if they would provide
the transportation. They would only have to pick her up across the railroad
tracks. They won’t do that.

When speaking to all of the parents, it was clear to the researcher that even
though they had, indeed, encountered some barriers, noneof them said they would
change their minds regarding their decision to participate in school choice. As
shown in Table 4.23, all of the parents indicated they would make the same decision
again if given the chance. Although some families faced certain challenges, none
of these challenges or barriers had changed their minds regarding their decision to

participate in a choice plan.

WWII!” ’Sl ICI' E

The final area of questioning concerned parents’ opinions about how to
improve Michigan’s school choice program. Parents were asked to provide
suggestions about how the program could be improved. As the results in Table 4.27

indicate, the most frequently mentioned responses all focused on expanding the

163

program to open it up to all families. with the option to attend any public school.

Three of the top four suggestions dealt with expanding the school choice program.

The top response was to open the school choice program to all families in the state.

The second highest response was to require all schools to offer a choice plan. The

fourth highest response was to let every family choose. based on which school could

best provide for their child. The other suggestions varied from providing better

information about schools of choice to providing busing or transportation; as

indicated earlier, transportation was the greatest barrier faced by most families.

Table 4.27: Families’ suggestions on how to improve the school choice program
in Michigan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A _ . ‘. Suggestion ‘ ". I H ’   7 Freque'lCY' Percent“
Open school choice program to all families in state 7 ~ 35 ll
Make all schools open; make them offer choice plan 6 30
Provide busing or some form of transportation ‘ 6 30
Let every family choose based on what school can 5 25
best provide for their child

I Provide better/more information about school choice to 4 20 ll
all families
No suggestions offered 3 15 II
[More time to enroll in program 2 10
Allow private/parochial schools as choice Option 1
Don’t split up families; allow all in, and place them in 1

the same school if possible

   

 

 

 

 

 

Another line of questioning, which was intended to confirm parents’ resolve

regarding school choice, dealt with parents’ schooling options should schools of

choice not be available. Specifically, parents were asked where their children would

164

have attended school if there had been no school choice program. Responses are
shown in Table 4.28. Of the 20 families in the study, at least nine indicated that they
would have sent their children to either private or parochial schools rather than enroll
them in their residential public schools. Most indicated that such an option wouldbe
expensive, but they were prepared to take that action rather than send their children
to the local residential school. Rebecca McDonald voiced perhaps the strongest
opinion about their decision if there had been no school choice program:

The children would all be in a parochial school. The truth of the matter is we
were not going to send them to Parkwood at any cost because mm
W. I am virtually terrified
of the [Parkwood] school district. A lot of things happen. A lot of kids are
brought up . . .just like the Parkwood police said . . . 11 to 13 year olds
having no respect for life, no moral structure whatsoever. We were spending
$26,000 a year to keep them out of the Parkwood schools. If we had to, we
would do it again.

Table 4.28: If there were no school choice, where would your child have attended

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

school?
A .-... Chm” \. NWPQFZQf._fCi“ iii? Percent"
Private/parochial school 9 45
Moved to a new district 6 30
Residential district 5 25
Lied about residency 3 15
Home school 2 10
Don’t know 2 10
Would have dropped out of school 1 5

 

 

 

 

Note: Nine families gave more than one response; for example, four families
indicated they would either 'move" or consider “private/parochial” schooling.

165

Thirty percent of the parents said they would simply move to another district
if there were no school choice program. Five families said they would either send
their children to a parochial school or they would relocate to another district if choice
were not available as an option. This part of the research confirmed the strong
feelings the parents had regarding the school choice issue. Their 100% support of
school choice and their assertions that they would either move or incur the expense
to enroll their children in private or parochial schools confirms these parents’
convictions about this issue.

In summary, all of the parents indicated that, given the options available to
them, they would again participate in a school choice plan. The few barriers that
existed, mainly surrounding the issue oftransportation, were not enough to dissuade
parents from participating in school choice. The suggestions parents provided for
improving the program tended to center on expanding the program, making it open
to all families, and requiring all districts in the state to provide a choice program. In
addition, parents believed that, iftransportation were provided, other families would

be more likely to enroll in choice programs.

166

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

introduction

The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children’s education.
More specifically, the researcher investigated the extent to which the issues of free
will, educational reform, school quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs
were reflected in parents' decision to participate in school choice. Also examined
was the process by which parents made the decision to choose nonresidential
schools fortheir children. Finally, the researcher studied how the decision to choose
a nonresidential public school by families with high school students compared with
the decision by families with elementary students.

This chapter contains answers to the eight research questions guiding the
study. A summary of the patterns in the findings and conclusions are presented
next. Implications for educators and policy makers are discussed, and
recommendations for a related study are made. The writer’s reflections and

limitations of the study are set forth, followed by a closing commentary.

167

Whoa
W

What are the characteristics of parents who elected to participate in school
choice programs?

To answer this question, personal information on the 20 families was
presented and analyzed. This information included the parents' marital status. the
number of parents in the household, the parents’ educational level, the families'
race/ethnicity, and the family income level. The findings indicated that, for the most

part, there was not a “typical” family involved in choice. The only exceptions were

as follows:
1. Most of the families participating in choice (90%) were Caucasian.
2. Most of the families (80%) had little or no private or parochial school
experience.

3. Approximately half (50%) of the families came from the Parkwood
Schools.

Other than these characteristics, the data did not indicate a typical pattern of
family data. For example, approximately half of the families were either single-
parent households (a by-product of divorce) or two-parent households representing
a second or third marriage. The other half of the households were two-parent, first-
marriage households. The parents’ educational levels varied; about half of the
parents had a high school education, and the other half had a college degree or at
least some college education. The household incomes of the households also

varied, with a distribution of families across all income ranges.

168

In summary, there was no typical family in this study, other than the fact that
they tended to be Caucasian. Because about 94% of the school district of choice
in this study was Caucasian, it reflected the racial composition of the families
participating in the study. In contrast, the marital status, income range, and

educational levels of the participants varied.

Reseammestmz

What is the process by which parents decided to choose nonresidential public
schools for their children?

The study findings indicated that parents discovered the information regarding
school choice in a variety of ways. Approximately one-third of the parents obtained
that information from a newspaper article or an advertisement placed in the
newspaper. Another third of the parents first heard about school choice from family
members, friends, or neighbors. Another third received the information through
contacts with their local schools. When focusing on the quality and type of
information available to them, most families indicated they thought the schools did
a good job of providing information. In general, obtaining that information,
completing the application form and having it processed, and enrolling in a school
choice program took from two to six weeks.

Regarding the decision-making process itself. there were differences in how
the decision was made and who was involved in the decision, depending on whether
the children were in elementary school or high school. The high schoolers played
a far greater role in both exploring options and making the decision to participate in

school choice than did their elementary school counterparts. In only two of the

169

elementary cases were students involved in the decision. The final decision about
whether to participate in school choice almost always rested with the parents,
although six of the families indicated that they thought their high schoolers needed
to be central to the decision process. Only two of the families thought that,
ultimately, it was a decision the students could make on their own.

In summary, families relied on three main sources of information to assist
them in making decisions related to school choice: the media, friends and family
members, and the schools. The receiving school ended up being the most important
source of additional information once families started seeking out more details on
choice. Believing that the schools generally provided adequate information, parents
indicated that enrollment in a school choice program generally lasted from two to six
weeks. Finally, parents of high-school-age students were far more inclined to
include these students in the search and decision process, although in nearly every

case the parents made the final decision to change their children’s schools.

W
How were the issues of dissatisfaction with the sending (residential) school
and/or the attraction of the receiving (nonresidential) school reflected in the
parents’ decision to choose?
In summarizing the major findings for this question, a number of points
became evident:
1. When parents were asked to describe "a good school,” three of the

top four responses dealt with safety issues and good discipline. The remaining top

response was a desire to see a “caring and effective teaching staff.” The responses

170

 

in this section helped the researcher understand the mind-set of the parents
participating in this study. Although in studies by Cogan (1979), Elam (1990), and
others parents made school choices based almost entirely on school quality issues,
the data in this study differed. Although quality of school and staff was the top
response, the three closest follow-up responses all conoemed issues related to
safety and discipline.

2. When grading their own residential schools, most parents gave the
schools low marks (D’s and E's), often describing the unsafe conditions, lack of
discipline, and types of kids/families (suggesting most do not care) as reasons for
the poor ratings. The low marks parents assigned to their residential schools
reinforced and helped explain the descriptors parents used when describing a good
school. Some of the characteristics they used to describe a good school were ones
they thought did not exist in their residential schools.

3. When describing the nonresidential schools, parents gave them much
higher marks (generally A's and B’s), citing good teachers and positive school
climate as major factors. Parents’ positive assessments of the new nonresidential
school setting supported the research suggesting that parents were happier with
their school of choice than with their former school. Raywid (1989) pointed out that
benefits of choice are a higher level of parental satisfaction, less discontent over
issues involving their children 's schooling, and an increase in their support for public
schools. That certainly was evident when analyzing the results from this study.

In this study, parents placed a high degree of emphasis on safety/discipline

issues when rating their new schools. Once the issue of safety had been resolved

171

in their minds, parents focused on school quality issues that more directly related to
classroom teaching, curriculum, and technology. Analysis and follow-up discussion
with parents on this issue indicated that once parents thought the basic-need issue
had been resolved, such as assurance from the school that their children would be
safe and free from negative factors like drugs and/or weapons, they could shift their
attention to the children’s “education."

4. Most of the very low marks (D's and ES) given by parents to their
residential schools were from families who lived in the same school district. This
finding was not surprising, in light of parents’ earlier assessments of that district.

5. When parents identified their reasons for changing schools under a
choice plan; the primary reason was that they believed their residential district was
unsafe (Table 4.14). The next two highest responses dealt with concerns about the
quality of the district and/or its families and kids. Previous research in this area has
had varied results; safety issues were important in some studies, whereas they were
hardly mentioned in others. For example, Cogan (1979) found that parents who
actively searched for school alternatives reported the top four reasons to be
curriculum, school atmosphere, quality of teachers, and the principal’s attitude.
Further down the list came items such as ‘safety in the school” and “discipline.”
Also, in a national survey of 1,500 parents, Elam (1990) reported that respondents
considered, in rank order, the following to be key factors when choosing a school:
(a) quality of the teaching staff, (b) maintenance of student discipline, (c) curriculum
(i.e., the courses offered), and (d) size of classes. Although good discipline was an

important factor, it did not dominate the list of concerns. When examining the

172

decision process of parents changing their children's schools, Uchitelle and Nault
(1977) found that the top concerns were (a) classroom atmosphere, (b) the
principal's philosophy, and (c) the teacher's style and reputation. Although
discipline was identified as a factor in at least one of the studies, this and other
safety-related descriptors were not dominant concerns.

6. Forty percent of the families used school choice as a means of
allowing their children to finish the school year at the old school rather than
relocating the children due to a family move. This family/personal needs issue was
not anticipated and was found to be a major reason for parents' decision to
participate in school choice plans.

7. F inally, the data indicated that, otherthan the issue of moving midyear,
families participating in choice tended to do so to “escape" a poor district (often
described as unsafe) rather than to move their children from an average or good
district to a better one. The strong concerns parents had about their residential
district—dissatisfaction with the district’s ability to provide a safe environment
and/or a high-quality school experience—was the factorthat motivated most families
to participate in school choice plans.

In summary, none of the parents indicated that the primary reason they had
decided to participate in choice was that W1cksville (the district of choice) was a
superior district that “attracted” them. Wicksville was, however, seen as a safe
school district with good teachers and programs. The families leaving another
district to enroll in Wicksville did so because of their dissatisfaction and/or concerns

with their local schools rather than the attraction of what Wicksville had to offer. This

173

is not to say that families did not like much of what Wicksville provided (which was
mainly a safer: orderly environment); however, it was clear from the interview data
that, had the residential schools provided a safe environment, nearly all of the

families would have elected to remain in their residential district.

WM

How do the decisions to choose nonresidential public schools by parents with

high school students compare with those decisions by parents with

elementary students?

Although there were some common issues that influenced both parents of
elementary students and those of high school students to participate in school
choice, there were also some differences. Not surprisingly, one common issue was
the school's ability to ensure that the children would have a safe and protected
school environment. Parents of students in both age groups said that their
children 's safety and the school's ability to ensure a safe environment were very
important.

Specifically, parents of elementary school children cited three main reasons
for participating in choice. These three reasons, cited by nearly two-thirds of the
families. were (a) residential district unsafe (82%). (b) overall poor quality of
residential district (82%), and (0) quality of families/kids, i.e., gangs and so on (64%).
Once parents thought the safety issue had been addressed, they focused their

attention on school quality/characteristics. Especially important to them were issues

such as “good and caring teachers” and “good curriculum and technology."

174

Compared to the findings of Uchitelle and Nault (1977), these results are
mixed. Those researchers found that parents of primary-grade children (especially
those in kindergarten and first grade) cited classroom atmosphere, the principal’s
philosophy, and the teacher’s style and reputation as primary reasons for
participating in school choice programs. Although there was less emphasis on
school safety, that might well be related to the general perception of the public in the
1970s, when schools’ ability to provide a safe environment for students, especially
in the lower grades, was not viewed as a serious problem (Uchitelle & Nault, 1977).
The fact that today’s parents of elementary school children listed their concern for
safety as one of the main reasons for participating in school choice appears to
indicate a shift in parents’ perceptions regarding school safety. Perhaps this is a
local issue, though.

Some of the reasons parents of secondary students gave for participating in
school choice were similar to those given by parents of elementary students.
However, the secondary parents had a different number-one reason; it related to the
families’ decision to move to a new home. Fifty percent of the families of high
schoolers indicated that they were using school choice as a means of keeping their
children in the Wicksville schools so as not to uproot them during the school year.
That is not a school quality issue, but rather a matter of convenience. The second
highest response given by parents of high schoolers dealt with the safety issue and
concern that the residential school had a problem with weapons, drugs, fights,
and/or gangs. In this study. 40% of the families (such as the Heckers, Jansons,

Nunnallys. and Rogerses) cited this reason as a factor in their decision to move their

175

children from the residential schools. Recent studies regarding factors in secondary
school choice have indicated that safety is increasingly cited as a reason for
selecting a nonresidential school. That was especially true in studies in which
parents selected private or parochial schools (Bauch & Small, 1986). However,
using choice simply to avoid making a child change schools midyear because the
family is moving appears to be a more recent phenomenon.

In summary, parents of both elementary and secondary students cited the
lack of a safe school environment in the residential school as a major reason for
changing schools. Although that might have been a local issue, because many of
these families had left the same district (the Parkwood schools), it was nonetheless
a major factor. However, whereas the parents of elementary pupils then focused on
school quality issues such as wanting good teachers or better school programs, the
parents of high schoolers focused more on convenience issues or those related to
their children’s extracurricular activities. The convenience issue often related to not
wanting to disrupt the children’s schooling midyear due to a family move. Parents
wanted to let the children finish the school year with friends or in the school in which
they had started the year. Some parents also wanted their children to be able to
continue participating in an extracurricular activity or sport (i.e., the Bowmans,

Rivards, and others).

Reseamlfiluestionj
To what extent are the issues of free will, educational reform, school

quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs reflected in parents’
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children?

176

The findings indicated that the issues of free will, school quality]
characteristics, and family/personal needs all were important in parents’
philosophical approach to participating in school choice. More than 70% of the
parents involved In this study agreed or strongly agreed with these issues as they
reflected on schools and school choice. However, although the respondents tended
to value these issues philosophically, the issues were not always motivating factors
in parents’ decisions actually to participate in school choice. The findings indicated
that what motivated parents to participate in school choice were issues of school
quality (such as the school’s ability to provide quality teachers in a safe
environment) and the need to respond to a family or personal issue. Free will issues
such as equal opportunity or one’s inherent right as a citizen to choose simply did
not impel parents to participate in school choice. The quality of a school and/or
family/personal needs tended to be the motivating forces in parents’ decision to
change the schools their children attended.

Only one issue area, educational reform, did not elicit parents’ strong
concern or philosophical agreement. Parents did not readily relate to, or identify
with, the educational reform issues included in this study. The suggestion that
school choice would lead to better schools, improved student learning, and/or
greater overall parental involvement (school reform issues) was not something the
vast majority of parents in this study either thought of or cared about. In addition, it
certainly was not a factor in their decision to participate in school choice.

In summary, the issue of free will was one that parents agreed with and

valued philosophically. However, the vast majority of respondents admitted that it

177

tended not to be a factor in their decision to participate in school choice. Educational
reform topics were neither strongly considered philosophically nor factors in
parents’ school choice decision. As one parent put it when commenting on an
educational reform issue, “How’s that [referring to an educational reform issue]
going to keep my daughter safe?”

The two issues that parents both agreed with philosophically and believed
were important to them when deciding to choose a new school were school quality]
characteristics and family/personal needs. The majority of parents (approximately
60%) cited these areas as the motivating factors in their decision to participate in

school choice.

Win05

Which of the four issues surrounding choice (free will, educational reform,

school quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs) dominated the

parents’ decision to choose nonresidential schools for their children?

The findings indicated that, of the four areas being studied, two dominated
parents’ decision to participate in school choice. School quality/characteristics were
philosophically important to almost all of the parents in the study. Ninety-six percent
of them believed strongly in school quality issues such as the need for good and
caring teachers, good discipline, and safe schools. In addition, nearly 60% of the
parents indicated that these issues had been factors in their decision to change

schools or enroll their children in nonresidential schools under a choice plan. School

quality/characteristics was the top issue area for parents, both in how they looked

178

at schools philosophically and in leading them to the 'action” of participating in
school choice.

Following closely behind was the decision to participate in school choice in
response to a family/personal need. Leading this area was parents’ decision to
enroll their children in the nonresidential district to avoid having to take the students
out of school midyear following a family move. It was these responses concerning
family/personal needs that made this issue area as close second to the school
quality/characteristics issue as a factor influencing parents’ decision to participate
in school choice. These two areas took precedence over such issues as educational
reform or free will. Although parents often agreed philosophically with the free will
issues such as consumer sovereignty and equal opportunity, the data did not
indicate that parents "acted” by enrolling their children under a choice plan based
on free will issues. Even less of a factor in parents' decision were educational
reform issues such as improving student outcomes or putting bad schools out of
business. Parents wanted what is best for their children, now. The rather distant
issues or motivations associated with the educational reform discussion, and those
involved in the free will arguments, did not appear to be immediate or real enough

to the families who were choosing.

ReseaLthuestionl

Do the data suggest other issues or agendas not previously presented? If so,
what are they?

The findings did not indicate other issues or agendas that seemed to have

driven parents to participate in school choice. All of the reasons parents in this study

179

gave for enrolling their children in nonresidential schools fell within the four issues
outlined in the study (see Table 4.14). This finding is not inconsistent with results
from other studies on choice. Parental decisions regarding the choice of a school
are not idiosyncratic (Uchitelle 81 Nault, 1977) and involve many factors, which would
suggest a process rather than an event (Bridges & Blackman, 1978). In fact,
Bridges and Blackman found that school choice decisions involved the parents'
educational values, individual needs oftheir children, their beliefs about how children
are motivated to learn, and a desire to become part of a school community of like-
minded parents and teachers—the shared-value concept. All of this suggests, as
the data in this study seemed to corroborate that there is a great deal of overlap of
the four issue areas identified.

However, in a number of cases, the impetus causing parents to change
schools was not so much the desire to “go to a high-quality school”, as it was the
desire to “escape” a poor-quality school. Nearly 50% of the parents indicated that
school quality issues were major factors in their decision to participate in school
choice. At the same time, parents admitted that they were also “getting out of" or
“avoiding” a poor-quality school. In most of those cases, it was an issue of escaping
from a district that they believed did not provide a safe environment for their children.
Although this is technically a school quality issue, it was not an academic or a
curricular program that was drawing parents to the nonresidential district, but rather
a “condition” (lack of a safe environment for example) they wanted to avoid or

escape in their residential district.

180

In summary, parents did not suggest any new issues or agendas when
analyzing their decision to participate in school choice. When the data were
examined concerning parents’ reasons for participation in choice or issues
motivating them to change schools under a choice plan, the reasons or issues all fell

under the four constructs delineated in Chapter I.

Bessandmfluestionfi

What are the overall opinions of parents concerning the school choice option
in Michigan?

Overall, the parents in this study indicated a high degree of support for school
choice. All of them said that, if given the option, they would repeat their initial
decision to participate in a school choice program. In fact, even though a majority
of the families cited at least one barrier or challenge to participating in choice, they
all insisted they would still make the same decision.

Parents offered some suggestions for improving the program, many of which
were connected to the personal barriers they identified. The strongest relationship
between perceived barriers and suggestions for improvement was in the area of
transportation. Two-thirds of the families who cited the lack of busing as a barrier
suggested that addressing that problem would improve the school choice program
in Michigan. The other major improvement suggested was to require all public
schools in the state to open their doors with a school choice program. The current
Michigan school choice guidelines allow local school districts to decide whether they
will participate in the state school choice program by opening their schools to

nonresident students. Requiring all districts to participate in a choice program and

181

allowing all families the option to choose were the two most frequently offered
suggestions for improvement. The only other suggestion mentioned by more than
two families was that the state and local districts need to provide better information
about school choice Options to all families. 1

in summary, parents’ overall opinions about the school choice option in
Michigan were very positive. They urged expanding the program and minimizing

potential barriers to families, such as by providing busing or other transportation.

ll'EII E I'll E'I'

The findings presented in the previous section were presented in a format that
answered the basic research questions that guided this study. The major patterns
found in the findings are as follows:

1. Of the four construct areas presented in discussions regarding school
choice (free will, educational reform, school quality/characteristics, and
family/personal needs), it was the school quality/characteristics and the
family/personal needs areas that were most often reflected in parents’ decisions to
participate in a school choice program. Although the parents tended to agree
philosophically with issues such as consumer sovereignty and the right to choose
as basic freedoms (free will arguments), in reality these “beliefs” were not the
motivating issues for them as parents in changing schools. It was the school
quality/characteristics issue such as the school’s ability to provide a safe

environment, high-quality teachers or the family/personal needs issues such as

182

avoiding moving their children midyear that drove parents to the “action” of actually
changing schools under a choice plan.

2. Parents’ decision to change schools was more often brought about
by their dissatisfaction with or concerns about their residential schools than it was
their attraction to the nonresidential (receiving) schools. Parents were not
attempting to seek out and find schools with superior programs or greater curricular
options for their children as much as they were simply trying to get away from their
residential district schools, which they viewed as unacceptable.

3. A high percentage of families participating in school choice were doing
so because they did not want to make their children change schools during the
middle of the year/semester. It was not a quality-of-schools issue, but a response
to parents’ concern about disrupting their children’s school experience midyear
because they, as a family, were relocating. By enrolling their children in a school
choice program, parents were able to keep the youngsters in the same school
through the school year/semester.

4. Although parents often agreed with the philosophical arguments in
support of school choice, many of those arguments alone were not major factors in
motivating parents to enroll their children under a choice plan. The decision to
participate in school choice generally was related to very real and personal issues
directly pertaining to their children ortheir own family circumstances (concern for the
safety of the child, the family's relocating midyear, and so on). Generally, the
decision was related to what they saw as an issue of “What is best for my child right

now?”

183

5. Among the quality and characteristic issues, the parents were more
likely to change schools due to their concern over the school’s inability to provide
a safe school environment over other issues such as the quality of the teachers or
curricular options available to their child. Although the issues are interconnected,
parents’ concern for their children ’s safety tended to be a more important factor in
causing them to change schools than were other issues. When the decision to
change schools did not focus on safety and discipline issues, parents of elementary-
age children focused on school quality and value issues, such as wanting good
teachers or children with similar values. Parents of high schoolers, on the other
hand, focused on convenience issues or extra-curricular activities for their children.

6. Parents who chose to participate in a school choice program did not
regret their decision. Not only did they believe the program was a good option for
them and their children, they believed it should be expandedto include all public

schools in Michigan.

QQanusiQns
Much of the early literature on school choice was anchored in the argument
that school choice is an issue of free will; that all families should be free to choose
the best of all educational options when deciding on the schools for their children.
In addition, it was argued that school choice would be the vehicle needed to help
reform a failing public school system (Nathan, 1989). By expanding the free-market
approach through choice plans for parents and students, reform and improvement

of public education would follow (Chubb 81 Moe, 1990). These two issues (free will

184

and educational reform) generally provided the basis for nearly all of the arguments
in support of school choice. The findings of this study suggest that for the parents
actually participating in school choice options there are additional issues that need
to be considered. I

The passage of Public Acts 338 and 339 in the mid-1990s authorized the
establishment of public charter schools and other school choice options. These acts
were Intended to support and ensure that parents could freely choose the best
schooling options for their children. Parents, it was believed, would be using school
choice as a vehicle for seeking out and finding educational opportunities not
otherwise available to their children. The freedom to choose argument would be
realized andthe impact of school choice would be to reform and improve all schools.
That is what advocates of school choice believed, and used as arguments in support
of the school choice debate. These goals were often described as being in the best
interest of, not only individual parents, but also in the best interest of society in
general. The larger public good was at stake. Failing schools would either reform
and improve or go out of business while the principles of the free will issues upon
which this country was founded would be elevated and reconfirmed (Chubb 8 Moe,
1990). However, as has been revealed in this study and summarized in the findings,
those goals have not been the driving motivators to participate in school choice by
those who choose—the parents. The findings of this study tend to show that,
although parents may philosophically agree with free choice and reform issues, it is
not the larger societal interest/right, but the private self-interest, that is often being

met by those who are participating in school choice.

185

In practice, parents are often using school choice as a vehicle to escape or
get away from situations or schools that they believe are not able to guarantee the
safety of their children. Others are using the choice system as a matter of
convenience or in response to their own personal/family circumstances, i.e. not
moving their child midyear following their family’s relocation to a home outside the
district. While this study included an interviewed population that may be too small
to generalize to the entire parent population who move their children under a choice
plan, the findings do suggest that there are additional issues that need to be
considered beyond the freedom to choose or school reform issues. The quality and
characteristics of schools and the families' concern regarding their own
personal/family circumstances appear to be key areas of concern for families
involved in school choice. As such, those examining the issue of school choice need
to view choice beyond the free will or educational reform issues. Although the
philosophical arguments for choice as a principle of free will may well have merit,
and the less abstract arguments for choice as a vehicle for educational reform are
worthy of discussion, it is often the “quality/characteristics of schools” and the
“personal and family needs” issues that offer the clearest meaning for the true

choice advocate—the parent who “chooses”.

ll'l' iEll IEl'lll

As a result of this study, the researcher recommends that educators, parents

and policy makers consider the following:

186

1. There is a general belief or “hope” that if people have the freedom to
choose, they will do the right thing. It supports the free will issue and the claim that
choice supports a larger, public good. However, in this study, although the freedom
goal is realized in that individual families are, indeed, allowed to exercise their free
will by choosing, their choosing is satisfying what might be described as rather
“selfish” interests. Parents are generally choosing an altematlve school for their
child for personal or self-interest reasons. People are not participating in school
choice programs in response to, or in support of, what has been described as a
larger societal goal, such as the improvement of education for all. The parents'
decision to choose is a direct response to their desire to satisfy personal, self-
interests or goals. Nearly every family in this study participated in a public school
choice option to either escape from what they viewed as an “unsafe” school or they
“chose” in order to avoid causing their child to have to change schools mid-year
because of a family relocation. These are not “public good” issues, nor are they
designed to lead to an improved educational system for all. This is not a criticism
of their choosing or of the advocates claim that choice is a right of our citizenry.
However, the suggestion that participation in a choice program is a response of the
“peOple’ to do the right thing as a reflection of a larger societal good such as
improving all schools is difficult to support. This is particularly evident in light of
nearly every family choosing, and admittedly doing so, based on their self-interest
and private motivations.

2. Another issue that this study surfaced and an implication that

educators might consider involves what might be described as a “tension” between

187

the “safety concerns” and the “instructional curricular concerns”. both of which are
quality and characteristic issues. Parents in this study were very concerned with the
safety and welfare of their children while at school. Most parents did not select a
nonresidential school based on instructional or curricular issues/needs, but instead
to escape a school that they perceived to be unsafe. Schools chosen by parents
under a schools of choice plan were generally viewed as safe, orderly places with
good discipline. The implications for schools should be obvious. Most parents in
this study indicated that if the residential schools had provided a safe, well-
disciplined setting, they likely would not have opted to change schools under a
school choice plan. While parents want, and certainly hope, for schools that offer
high quality instruction and a variety of curricular options, it was more important that
the schools be able to ensure that a safe, protected environment be provided. Once
thesafety issues are addressed, then, and only then, did the instructional and
curricular issues become important or of greater concern to the parents/families.
3. And finally, writers and advocates for school choice have often claimed
that school choice will lead to reform of education in general and improved
educational experiences for all students; that a larger “public good” will have been
satisfied. First, they argue that students participating in choice gain an improved
education by attending schools which they view as being of higher quality or schools
offering greater educational options. Second, these same proponents of choice add
that those students who don’t choose to change schools under a choice plan also
benefit from choice because all schools will be forced to improve in quality/offerings

or face going out of business (Chubb & Moe, 1990). In essence, the vision for

188

choice is that the educational experiences and options will improve for all students.
As a result, all students will benefit from choice. There were, however, some
recommendations from the parents in this study that, ifaddressed by the legislature
or policy makers, might help this vision for choice be more fully realized.

First, parents suggested that the failure of schools to provide transportation
for nonresident students enrolled under choice made it difficult and perhaps
impossible for families to participate in school choice. A number of the parents
suggested that the law be changed to require schools to provide transportation for
all students including nonresident students enrolled under choice plans.

A second recommendation by parents was that the law be changed to
“require” all schools to offer school choice plans for nonresident as well as resident
students. The current law allows each local public school district to independently
decide ifthey wish to open their doors to nonresident students. . Parents in this study
indicated that their choice options were limited to only a few neighboring schools
offering choice plans. They believed that if all of the school districts in their area
were “open” under a choice plan, all students, including their own, may have
benefited. To change the law in these two areas, to eliminate these barriers (lack
of transportation and the option by local schools to offer choice) would, according to
many of the parents in this study, help lead to attainment of that overall vision for
choice—an improved education for all children. That societal goal to improve
education for all students, often championed by choice advocates, could then be
realized. Will providing transportation to any student who chooses and requiring all

schools to open their doors under choice legislation lead to an improved education

189

system? Will schools improve? Will parents feel more empowered and be more
involved? W1|l the larger societal interests and goals be met? The findings in this
study do not support these claims. In fact, the findings in this study tend to show
that parents were less involved with their child’s education after participating in
school choice and, in many ways, felt less empowered. In addition, the parents not
only were not convinced schools would improve, they admitted they were not sure
ifthey even cared or thought about that aspect of choice. And finally, it needs to be
pointed out that it was the personal, private interests that were being met by families
choosing. Participation in a school choice option to avoid paying tuition to a private
school, to escape a district not viewed to be safe, or to avoid having to cause the
student to switch schools mid-year after the family relocated, etc, are responses to
“personal or private interests.” In the end, even if the barriers are removed and
choice is, indeed, available to all, there is no guarantee the result would be improved
schools/education for all students; no guarantee that families would be more
involved in their child’s education or feel a greater empowerment; and certainly, no

guarantee that the greater societal good will have been met.

W
The researcher’s purpose in this study was to describe and explain parents'
decision to choose nonresidential public schools for their children ’s education. An
appropriate and related study would be to interview families from the Parkwood
schools who did not choose to participate in school choice. Such a study might yield

some important findings. The Parkwood district has a reputation for having many

190

problems (concerns regarding safety, lack of proper materials/curriculum, poor
teachers/administrators, and so on) that many families believe are not being
addressed. In this study, the families who left the Parkwood schools made it clear
that they were dissatisfied with the district and were prepared to leave at any cost.
All of them said that, even when facing barriers such as lack of busing. additional
day care costs. or inconvenient schedules, they believed they needed to leave the
Parkwood schools, using the school choice process as the means to do so.
Although the researcher did not interview or survey any families who had remained
in the Parkwood system, it would be interesting to seek out those who did not
choose and to listen to their stories. It may well go back to the free will issue and the
question of whether there are families who, indeed, have the “liberty" to choose.
Concerning liberty and the freedom to choose, Partridge (1973) wrote:
Many of the assertions frequently made about liberty in recent political
thought assume that possession of the means or power to realize preferred
objectives is part of what it means to be free. For example, the contention
that men who suffer from poverty or have a low level of education cannot
really be free, or that they cannot be as free as the well-to-do and the well
educated, relies on the assumption that “to be free to do X" includes within
its meaning “to be able,” “to have the means,” and “to have the power” to
do X.
Partridge went on to make another related point by citing an often-quoted statement
by Bertrand Russell (1940): “Freedom in general may be defined as the absence
of obstacles to the realization of desire.” The families in this study made it clear that
they participated in choice and were prepared to go to great lengths to choose

despite any barriers or obstacles they encountered. Do families who do not choose

face similar, or perhaps different, obstacles? And if some families overcome those

191

obstacles, why cannot all families do so? Why can some surmount the hurdle
whereas others cannot? Are they simply unaware of the alternatives available to
them? There are some interesting stories yet to be heard on this issue, and those
stories could well form the basis of an important related study on school choice.
On a related front, one who reads this study may wonder to what extent a
deeper prejudice might be at work for families involved in this study. Many of those
who choose to attend the Wicksville schools under a choice plan left the Parkwood
schools, a predominantly African-American district which was often described as
“poor”. When questioned regarding their reasons for leaving the Parkwood schools,
most parents cited the concern for the “safety of their children” as the primary factor,
suggesting that the Parkwood schools simply could not guarantee their child a safe.
protected school environment. And although only three of the ten families leaving
the Parkwood schools alluded to “race” as a related factor, the reader is left to
wonder if race or other deeper prejudices might be at work for the other families as
well. That issue was not directly addressed in this study. This researcher's sense,
as the interviews were being conducted, was that it was genuinely a concern for
“the safety of their children” that moved most parents to opt for choice. Although
parents may blame some of that fear on the racial/ethnic make-up of the Parkwood
school families, it would be inappropriate, and perhaps a mistake, to conclude that
racial prejudice, alone, was the motivating factor causing the ten families to leave the
Parkwood schools. This certainly could also be a related study. Not only could that
study attempt to describe and explain to what extend some prejudicial attitudes

might be at work for those choosing, but the study might also examine to what extent

192

those who don’t choose do so because of any prejudicial attitudes they hold about
a potential receiving district. There may be some interesting stories to be heard and
described on that front that could well provide the framework for a relevant and

related study.

Reflections

Having presented the major findings, conclusions, implications, and
recommendations, the researcher now shares the following reflections.

The researcher’s main purpose in this study was to investigate the extent to
which the issues of free will, educational reform, school quality/characteristics, and
family/personal needs are reflected in parents’ decision to participate in school
choice. Although much has already been written in this dissertation about the data
and findings regarding this aspect of the study, some additional reflections of the
researcher on these topics follow.

All four of the constructs or issue areas (free will, educational reform, school
quality/characteristics, and family/personal needs) remain and deserve to be
considered when discussing school choice. When the researcher began to review
the literature related to school choice, he found that much of it comprised the well-
argued points of writers such as Joe Nathan, Mary Ann Raywid, J. Coons, John
Chubb, and Terry Moe. These and other writers have eloquently and often
persuasively presented their case in support of school choice and contributed to the

discussion of what has become a developing educational issue. Much of their

193

writing focused on school choice as either an issue of free will or an issue of

educational reform.

IhersueoLELeeJMll

School choice often has been championed by those who support the
individual-freedom doctrine incorporated into the United States Constitution (Smith,
1776/1952). Parents’ right to chose what school their children attend and to do so
under the banner of consumer sovereignty have long been compelling arguments
among school choice advocates (Friedman, 1979). Those arguments were
supported in principle by the parents involved in this study. Having the freedom to
choose a nonresidential school was a valued right that they acknowledged they were
fortunate to have as parents. In fact, every parent agreed philosophically with the
interview survey statement that “School choice is an issue of freedom, a basic right
that we as citizens and parents have a right to enjoy.” They also supported the
principle of consumer sovereignty, the right of parents to be consumers of education.
As consumers, they as parents had the ultimate control and authority over the kind
of education their children would receive through their decision to participate in
school choice.

However, nearly every parent also admitted that these free will issues (the
individual-freedom doctrine and the principle of consumer sovereignty) were, in truth,
not major factors motivating them to change their children ’3 schools. Their decision
to participate in school choice, opting for a nonresidential school, was simply not

motivated by their philosophical or political views or by their desire to champion

194

these causes. Did they value the right to choose? Yes. Would they participate in
school choice ifthey felt a need to do so in the future? Yes. But was their decision
to choose based on an ideological belief in their right to do so as consumers or
people of free will? No. As Laurie Gables put it, “I certainly am glad we had a
chance to choose a different school for our children, but if the truth were known, I
never really thought about whether I had a right to choose as much as l was just
thankful I could.”

During the course of this study and following in-depth interviews with parents,
it became evident that the families valued the chance they had to exercise their
“right” to choose a new school for their children under a school choice plan. The
reality is, however, that the parents viewed this “right” as being important to them
when—and only when—they actually felt compelled to “choose” because of other
motivating factors. For some families, the motivating factors. included fear for their
children’s physical safety while at school or perhaps concern about the quality of
the teachers or principal. For others, it was an issue of convenience or comfort; for
example, not wanting to move one's child midyear following a family move.
Whatever the reason, it was not the cause of freedom that led to their decision to
choose. Although nearly every family interviewed, when asked to reflect on it, did
agree with the concept of consumer sovereignty, not one could say that had been
a factor in their decision to choose.

The same was true of the suggestion that choice helps provide equal
educational opportunities for all students, another free will issue (Nathan, 1989).

Other writers, such as Coons (1992) and his colleague Sugarman (Coons &

195

Sugarman, 1978), have argued extensively that school choice is a justice issue, that
the option to choose helps ensure that all students will enjoy equal opportunities,
and that all can, indeed, choose the school that best ensures those opportunities will
be available. The findings in this study did not support the theory that choice
enhances equity and educational opportunities for students. The respondents
tended to be better educated than most in the state, and they also had annual
incomes averaging nearly $45,000. Most of them readily admitted that if school
choice had not been available, they still had, or would find, the means to get their
children into another school of their choosing.

This researcher did not interview parents who “did not choose.” That could
well be considered a limitation of the study. After all, had those parents been part
of the study (certainly that could be a separate study), the data might well have
indicated that there are, indeed, many who would like to choose but simply do not
have the resources or the confidence to do so. This is, after all, one of the fallacies
of the free will argument, for if a family lacks the information, the resources, or
perhaps the support necessary to participate in a school choice process, are they
really fraato do so? It may well go back to a basic argument regarding the concept
of free will. If one lacks the means or power to achieve something, is that person
really free to choose? One cannot truly be said to be free to choose some preferred
alternative unless he or she has the means or the power to achieve it (Partridge.
1973)

The families in this study “chose” and believed they had the means to choose

even ifthere were no school choice program. That cannot be said of others who, if

196

given the means, might well opt to choose. The fact that only those who had
actually participated in school choice were informants in this study limits the findings

to a select group.

W

The second area of discussion regarding school choice is the suggestion that
public schools are failing and in need of reform. Advocates for choice have argued
that school choice is a vehicle for reform of a failing school system (Nathan, 1989).
School choice, according to those advocates, provides a number of reform benefits,
including revitalized schools, empowered parents, and reform of education through
a free-market system (Paulu, 1989). For example, Murnane (1984) and Bauch
(1992) suggested that there will be increased motivation and performance/
involvement by all participants of choice. Students, they claimed, will be more
motivated to engage in learning and parents will be more motivated to engage in
school-related activities because they chose the school, all of which will help in the
revitalization of schools. Yet the results of this study did not provide evidence to
support that assertion. Parents indicated that they had more confidence and trust
in the schools they chose, but admitted that they made little, if any, extra effort to
engage in school activities or decisions. If anything, parents suggested that they
saw less need to get involved because most of them (those leaving the Parkwood
schools) thought it was no longer as necessary for them to be involved to ensure the

safety of their children, the primary reason for their school involvement before

197

participating in choice. As a result, they tended not to be as active as they had been
in the residential schools.

When asked whether they thought schools had been reformed or in any way
been revitalized as a result of choice, nearly every parent responded in the negative.
One, Doug McDonald, said he hoped that school choice would cause poor schools
to get better or face going out of business. But he followed that statement with the
assessment that he thought nothing would really change. That was the general
belief of other parents, as well.

Likewise, parents offered no evidence or comments to suggest that schools
would be reformed through a competitive, free-market system. When asked about
such a possibility, they indicated it was almost too abstract or complicated an issue
for them to address. Reforming poor schools was something they neither thought
about nor believed they would accomplish through their decision to choose.
Advocates such as Nathan (1989) and Chubb and Moe (1990) have rigorously
claimed that the competitive, free-market system supported through school choice
will, indeed, help to reform schools. Parents in this study simply were not convinced
of that occurring and generally had not given it much thought. In fairness, it should
be pointed out that this researcher did not examine the rise or fall of schools.
Rather, he focused on parents’ decision and perspective relative to the school
choice plan available to them. Nor did the researcher investigate the short- or long-
terrn effect on schools when parents choose to leave their residential schools under

a choice plan. That might well be an important, related topic for future research.

198

Ill [SI ID l'IICI |.|.

The third area of discussion surrounding school choice that was examined in
this study was school quality/characteristics. The literature indicated that the vast
majority of parents of school-age children are generally happy with the local schools
their children attend (Carnegie Foundation, 1992). For those participating in school
choice plans, choice provided a means of gaining access to better quality education
(Glenn, 1989a). For researchers studying the issue of school choice. parents’
decision to choose to leave their residential school appears to be the natural reaction
to dissatisfaction (Seeley, 1985). Seeley reasons that choice will continue to receive
more attention in the public forum because there is increasing dissatisfaction with
the public schools. Coons and Sugarman (1978) suggested that it is common for
Americans to search for alternatives to institutions with which they are dissatisfied,
especially public education. The quality and characteristics of the schools did,
indeed, turn out to be an important issue to the families in this study. Nearly all of
them agreed philosophically with the belief that it was important that their children’s
schools be of high quality; this included, among other things. having good personnel,
good facilities, good curriculum and materials, and perhaps most important, being
a safe and positive place fortheir children. These requirements were consistent with
those cited in other studies, in which parents frequently cited academics, discipline,
and teacher qualities as characteristics associated with good schools (Williams,
1983).

This researcher expected that many, if not all, of the families would describe

their decision to participate in choice as a desire to seek out better programs or

199

greater options for their children. In other words, choice would provide them the
means to seek out the best schools with the best teachers, the latest technology, the
smallest class sizes, the best special education services, or the greatest range of
extracurricular offerings. Yet the interviews with parents and the data collected
yielded little such evidence. Certainly, a few parents commented that they were
pleased with the teachers (the Arnetts and Ramirezes) and others said the principal
and staff were “caring.” But in nearly every case in which the family participated in
school choice in order to leave their residential school, it was not because the
Wtcksville schools (the schools of choice in this study) attracted them as much as
it was the powerful need they felt to escape or avoid their residential schools. For
many of these families, the decision to choose a new school was driven by
unhappiness, fear, or dissatisfaction with their residential school rather than by the
attraction or desire to find something better for their children. Dissatisfaction was
afar greater motivator for parents to participate in choice than this researcher could
have predicted. Although the researcher theorized that the school quality/
characteristics issues and the family/personal needs issues were important to
parents, he underestimated the power of the dissatisfaction factor.

To the 20 families in this study, the decision to participate in a school choice
program was one that dealt with immediate and tangible needs and their
dissatisfaction with the residential school over the attraction of the nonresidential
school. When, for example, Doug McDonald said, “I just want my kids to come
home” (referring to making it home from school safely and alive), he was saying his

immediate need was to know that whatever school his children attended, it needed

200

to be safe—free of weapons, fights, drugs, and gangs. And, as the data and findings
clearly indicated. the safety of the school setting often was the major factor causing

parents to opt for nonresidential schools for their children.

W

A fourth important set of issues considered in this study as parents
participated in choice focused on the individual families’ needs and on the values
they held to be important. Although less seems to have been written on this area,
the researcher proposed that the individual circumstances or experiences that
families bring to the choice process warrant serious study. In addition, families’
value systems are likely to influence their decisions both to participate in choice and
to decide on a particular nonresidential school. Two of the writers on this aspect of
choice are Bridges and Blackman (1978), who suggested that choice is a process
and not simply an event. They believed that parents' decision to choose (private
and/or parochial schooling options, in their study) was based on a combination of
factors, which generally included both individual family needs and the desire to
select a school that somehow matched the family’s value structure.

Other researchers have found that school choice decisions involved the
parents' educational values, individual needs of children, and the families’ desire
to become part of a school community of like-minded parents and teachers (Scott,
1983). The results of this study tended to support Scott” findings, although with a
slight variation. Whereas in previous studies parents sought other schools whose

families had similar educational, curricular, and religious values (Scott, 1983), in the

201

current study it was found that parents “chose” in order to escape families and
students who they believed did not share their value system.

It is interesting that the decision regarding what nonresidential school to
select either was based on convenience (proximity issue) or was simply a matter of
having few choices. For example, Wendy Jessman, the single parent of three
school-age boys, indicated that she had selected the Wicksville schools as her
school of choice because she thought she had no other option; no other area district
offered a school choice program that would accommodate all three of her sons. The
Wicksville schools were the closest ones that offered her a choice option. She
admitted that she had not really considered the school quality/characteristics issue
as much as she was simply seeking to escape the Parkwood schools and get to a
district where her boys could fit in, both racially and socially. In this case, choice did,
indeed. allow her to seek out and locate a school that more closely fit what she
“valued,” children of the same race and similar economic means.

Finally, many parents in this study ended up using the school choice process
to avoid having to relocate their children midyear due to a family move. in effect,
school choice was a convenient way to solve a personal/family relocation challenge
for the child. These findings support the notion that public school choice tends to
promote the private interests of the individual or family over the public interests of
society (Boyer, 1992). Students/families in this study selected public schools based
on convenience or personal/family values. Social relationships, proximity to schools,
or the anxiety of changing schools midyear often drove the choice decision. Policy

makers hope that choice responds to public interest and societal demands (Chubb

202

 

8 Moe, 1990). In this study, however, it appears that the private interests of
individuals and families dominated the discussions regarding the rationale for

participating in choice.

MW

Finally, the researcher needs to comment on the power of the interview, the
method used to collect the important data used in this study. The very first interview
in this study took place in the Bowmans’ backyard. It was a sweltering evening in
mid-July. When the researcher arrived, Lori Bowman, clad in shorts and a tank top,
was drinking a cold can of beer with a neighbor. Because her house was not air-
conditioned, she suggested that we conduct the interview in the backyard. If Lori
Bowman was embarrassed or uncomfortable under such conditions—meeting with
a college researcher working on a study about school choice—she never gave such
an indication. The researcher was amazed at her candor, her honesty, and her
willingness to talk. She, like nearly every parent interviewed, did not hesitate to tell
her story. In fact, like many of the interviewees, she thanked the researcher for
listening. These parents wanted the investigator to know that they were glad there
was someone who cared and wanted to hear their stories. To each of these
families, choice was a welcome option. For some, like the Naguchi family, it was an
unexpected surprise, which gave them a chance to let their daughter remain in the
school she had attended with her friends all through high school. For others, like the
Arnetts, it was a chance to save tuition costs; for still others, like Raquel Ramirez,

it was “an answer to [her] prayers.” The passion, the relief, and, in many cases, the

203

feeling of desperation to escape their residential school was evident throughout the
interviews. The power of the interview lay in the parents’ opportunity to look the
researcher in the eye and tell their stories, knowing that someone—perhaps for the
first time—was really listening. Maybe someone for the first time was interested in
them, in their family, and in their children.

Certainly the qualitative research approach has its limitation. In this study, for
example, only 20 families were interviewed, which was a limitation. As is true with
any interview, biases on the part of the researcher can contaminate the data,
another limitation. However, the emphasis of the informants’ responses, the
passion with which they described the fear they had for their children’s safety, and
the relief they felt when they learned their children did not have to be uprooted
midyear because of a move, all helped underscore the quality of the data gathered
from the one-on-one interviews. Perhaps Raquel Ramirez, more than any other
parent, helped the researcher appreciate the qualitative approach and the value of
the interview. An immigrant from Puerto Rico, Raquel struggled with English and
had little formal education herself. Yet she made it clear that she wanted someone
to hear her story. “It is very hard for me,” she said. “People don't know, but I want
you to know. It [school choice] was an answer to my prayers.” Would Raquel
Ramirez have responded to a survey or filled out a questionnaire? This researcher
doubts it. Yet the information she shared, the story she told, was very powerful and
an important part of the data in this study, contributing to the discussion of school

choice.

204

APPENDICES

205

APPENDIX A

SCHOOL DISTRICT CONTACT LETTER

206

[Current Date]

Dear

As a doctoral candidate in educational administration, i am conducting research for a dissertation
concerning the parents’ decision to choose a non-residential public school for their child’s
education. I would like your cooperation in allowing me to interview some of the parents of
students enrolled in your school district under your choice plan.

To conduct the research, I respectfully request that you send me the NAMES OF STUDENTS,
THEIR GRADE LEVEL AND THE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS OF
PARENTS of the students who have transferred into your school district under the provisions of
your district's choice plan. I will use this list to take a random sampling to obtain twenty (20)
parents' names in your district.

These parents will then be mailed an informational letter and contacted by telephone to arrange a
semi-structured interview about public school choice. Their names and answers, and the names
of your school district, and the names of your students will be strictly confidential and this
information will not be used when reporting the data.

I would appreciate it if you could send me the names of students, their grade level and the
parents' names, addresses, and phone numbers by May 15, 1997.

If you have any questions about my research study, please feel free to write to me at the address
listed above or call me collect. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Joe Koenigsknecht
Assistant Superintendent
West Bloomfield School District

207

APPENDIX B

PARENT CONTACT LETTER

208

[Current Date]

Dear

I am a graduate student at Michigan State University. I am conducting research for

a study concerning parents’ decision to participate in school choice for their child. As you well
know, Michigan now allows local school districts to establish a school choice plan that enables
non-residential students to attend their schools.

As a parent of a student who has elected to attend a non-residential school, this study is an
opportunity for you to voice your reactions to this law. It may also give ideas for possible
improvement or expansion of the program.

In this study, instead of having you answer “yes” or “no” answers to written questions, I would
like to meet with you to allow you to personally answer my questions regarding your decision to
send your child to a neighboring school district. Any data or information I collect through the
interview process will remain anonymous. No names will be used at any time and all
information will remain confidential. The interview will last about 45-60 minutes in a place of
your choosing — a restaurant, your home, your business, or possibly the school.

I will be calling you in the near future about a possible interview and hope that you will be able

to participate in this study. If you have any questions, please feel free to write or call me
collect. I can be reached as indicated on the enclosed business card.

Sincerely,

Joe Koenigsknecht
Assistant Superintendent
West Bloomfield School District

209

APPENDIX C

PARENT TELEPHONE CONTACT

210

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Hello, my name is Joe Koenigsknecht. In the past few days, you should have received
from me a letter requesting permission to speak with you regarding your decision to enroll your
child in School District. As the letter pointed out. I am conducting
research as part of a doctoral study at Michigan State University. My research includes
interviewing parents like you to get your opinions and thoughts relating to your decision to choose
a non-residential school for your child.

It is my understanding that you have at least one child whom you have enrolled in the
W1cksville School District under their open enrollment school choice plan. Is this correct? If so, it
would be of great help to me if I could meet with you for approximately 45 minutes to one hour and
ask you some questions about your decision to switch schools. Any information you share with
me will be kept strictly confidential. At no time will I use your name or the name of your child as
part of my research. In fact, if there are any questions during my interview with you that you
would rather not answer, you will not need to respond. Would you be willing to let me interview
you and/or your spouse so I can consider your opinions and decision to switch schools as part of
my research?

Thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. Can we try to identify a time and location where we can
meet that is convenient to you. As I indicated to you earlier, we will need approximately 45-60
minutes to complete the interview.

Please let me give you my phone number in case you have any follow-up questions or if you

should need to change the date of the interview. Again, thank you for agreeing to meet with me. I
look fonuard to meeting you.

211

APPENDIX D

INTERVIEW ASSESSMENT FORM

212

INTERVIEW ASSESSMENT FORM

 

 

 

 

 

Informant Date

Time Started Time Ended

Time Duration Taped: YES NO
1) Informant seemed:

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

 

 

 

Uninterested Interested
Reluctant Straightforward
Uninformed Knowledgeable

 

Interview seemed:

Hurried Comfortably paced
Tense Conversational/relaxed
Were there any interruptions? If so, specify:

Were there questions the informant was unable to answer? If so, specify:

Were there questions the informant was unwilling to answer? If so, specify:

Did a post-interview contact occur? Explain:

Comments/observations (Le. anything that is very interesting, illuminating/new questions
to follow up on, themes, etc.) '

 

Adapted from: Hittman, LD. The Political Process of Implementing Selected State Standards.

Ph.D. diss. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN: 1990.

213

APPENDIX E

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

214

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL/FORMAT

 

 

 

 

Date: Time:
Location:
INTRODUCTION
1. Hello, my name is Joe Koenigsknecht. I am from West Bloomfield, Michigan . . .

Assistant Superintendent for West Bloomfield Schools

Doctoral Candidate at Michigan State University

Lived in Michigan all my life, served as teacher for 7 years, principal for 7 years and
assistant superintendent for 14 years

Have an interest in the role of parents in the school choice process

2. The purpose of this study is . . .

To get your feelings, as a parent, about the public school choice program.

To discover the process that you used to arrive at your decision.

To understand some of the reasons you, and other parents, are choosing to send your
child to another public school under a choice plan.

To obtain information that might be helpful in improving and/or expanding public school
choice and schools In general.

3. This study will safeguard your privacy by . . .
Names and personal information about you and your family will be kept completely
anonymous and confidential.
Only I will have access to the tapes and/or transcripts.
You can refuse to answer any questions that make you feel uncomfortable.
4. I would like to tape record the interview so that . . .
Notetaking will not interfere with the interview and possibly distract either of us.

The information from the interviews will be more accurate.
Is it okay to tape this interview?

215

FAMILY BACKGROUND

 

1. Let's begin with some background information about your family.
A. _Pa_rent's Background
Gender
Marital Status
Race

Years of education

Schools they have attended

Private school involvement

Post-high school education or training

Occupation

Family income (optional page to complete if willing)
Level of involvement in child’s school/education

B. Children’s Background
Number of children
Ages
Grade levels in school
School they now attend
Schools they have attended in the past
Private school involvement
School activity participation
Special program requirements
Unique educational needs
Post-high school plans
Social profile
Academic profile

SCHOOL INFORMATION

1. How would you describe a good school? (Probe: If you walk into a school, how do you
know it is good?)

2. What is the name of the sending school?

3. Do you consider the “sending" school a good one? Why or why not?

4. What is the name of the receiving school?

5. Do you consider the “receiving" school a good one? Why or why not?

6. If you could grade these schools (A-F), how would you grade the sending and receiving
schools?

7. Were you unhappy about any aspect of your prior school? (programs, teachers, facilities,

administrators, students?)

8. How far do you live from the sending school? The receiving school?

216

THE DECISION PROCESS

How did you .fir_st learn about the program that allows you public school choice?

Students Parents

Friends/neighbors Media, TV, radio, newspapers
School sources Community sources
Enrollment options hotline State publications

Enrollment options hotline State publications
Brochures/fliers Church sources

Public meetings Employer

Family member(s) Other sources

When you first began thinking about sending your child to a different school, what action
did you take?

Phoned a school
Visited a school

Talked with parents - who?
Consulted with spouse, child

Who did you talk to in the schools?
How long was the process? Was it quick or drawn out?
Days

Weeks
Years

217

THE CHOICE DECISION

The most important question is why did you choose to send your child to fie different
school?

Neighborhood concept

Geographic location of the schools

School climate, norms

Disciplinary climate

School appearance, facilities

Special programming requirements for your child
Scheduling concerns

School programs

Co-curricular programs

Academic standards/rigor

Religion

Athletics

Racial proportions

Convenience reasons such as job or day care
Personal issues

Transportation issues

Can you recall the “critical moment” when you finally decided to change schools for your
child? Please describe the moment.

Talks with school officials

School visitation

Conversations with someone - who?
Crucial factor - what?

Do you feel you had enough information from the schools to make an informed decision?
Were the schools helpful in providing this information?

Did your child have much say in the final decision? In what ways?
Did you have a family meeting to discuss the options?

If your student wanted to attend a different school or remain at your local school, what
would have happened?

218

INTERVIEW STATEMENTS/SURVEY

1. Please indicate the extent to which you “Agree<—->Disagree' with each statement and
then please explain your answer.

2. To what extend was the statement (or its message) a factor in your decision to participate
in school choice? Again, please explain your response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATEMENT AGREE. >DISAGREE AGREE. >DISAGREE

[ FREE WILL STATEMENTS
1. School Choice is an issue of free- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
dom. It isabasic aright that we, as Explain: Explain:
citizens have.

2. Asconsumers, we should be able to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
choose whatever school/program we Explain: Explain:

think is best for our child(ren).

3. Every person hasaright to equal 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
opportunity and school choice helps Explain: Explain:
guarantee that.

FEDUCATIONAL REFORM ISSUES I
1. Schools will improve students 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
will learn more with school choice in Explain: Explain:
place.

2. Parents will be more involved and 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
have more confidence in their schools Explain: Explain:
under choice.

3. Bad schools will go out of business 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
and good schools will add more Explain: Explain:
students.

[QUALITY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS ISSUES J
1. Quality ofeducational programs 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
including personnel are key to school Explain: Explain:
success.

2. The safety ofthe children and the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
control of discipline, weapons, drugs Explain: Explain:

are critical in schools.

3. The quality ofthe facilities, the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
technology and condition of buildings Explain: Explain:
affect education of children.

UAMILYIPERSONAL NEED ISSUES J
1. The type of kids/families at the 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
school affects the quality of school. Explain: Explain:

2. The families personal needs/ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
circumstances are a critical factor in Explain: Explain:

their right to participate in a school of
choice program.

3. The school needs to reflect/support 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
the values of my family and beliefs we Explain: Explain:
hold important.

219

IMPACTS OF CHOICE

Would you make the same decision again if you had the chance?
Have you noticed any difference in the schools (sending or receiving) since school choice
has been allowed in Michigan?

More or less responsive to parents, communities

Allow more or less parent involvement

Program changes

Facility changes

Teacher, staff, personnel changes

School climate

Co-curricular offerings

Discipline policies/practices

Were there any barriers that made it difficult to make your decision? If so, what?

Lack of cooperation from any of the schools
Are you more or less involved in your child's school now? If so, in what ways?
Are you now more or less satisfied with your child’s school?

OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
If there was not public school choice, where would your child have attended school?

If this program could be improved in Michigan or expanded in other states, how would you
improve the program?

Overall, what is your opinion about public school choice?

Do you think school choice should be expanded to include private schools?

Are there any final comments that you want to make?

Do you have any questions of me?

Family income (form available if you choose to complete).

If you have some additional information you want to give me, feel free to call me collect.

Give business card.

THANK YOU.

220

APPENDIX F

FAMILY INCOME FORM

221

$0

$15,001
$30,001
$45,001
$60,001

$75,001

to

10

to

10

tO

to

$15,000 ,
$30,000
$45,000
$60,000
$75,000

$90,000

OVER $90,001

222

APPENDIX G

CONSENT FORM

223

cons_ENT FORM

To Whom It May Concern:

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of why parents choose to send their
child(ren) to non-residential public schools in the state of Michigan. I will be asking you some
questions about your family background, your experiences with school, and your decision to
choose a non-resident public school for your child. In addition, I will be asking your opinion about
parents’ right to choose a non-resident public school for their child.

This interview will take approximately one hour. If we do not complete all of the questions, I would
like to have the chance to talk to you again. The total time involved in our interviews should not
exceed two (2) hours.

All of the results will be treated with strict confidentiality and your name, the name of your child, or
your child’s school will not be used in any research report.

Participation is voluntary; you may choose not to participate at all, refuse to answer some
questions, or discontinue the interview at any time. There is absolutely no penalty for taking any
of these actions.

By signing this form, you:
. indicate that you understand the purposes of this study
0 voluntarily agree to participate in this study
0 give permission to have the interview tape-recorded

RESPONDENT'S NAME:

 

(Please type or print)

RESPONDENT’S SIGNATURE:

 

DATE OF INTERVIEW:

 

224

 

 

APPENDIX H

INTERVIEW SURVEY

225

W:

1. Ask parents to respond verbally to the 12 statements below by indicating the extent to

which they “agree<—->disagree" with the statement.

their answer.

They are asked to then explain

2. Ask parents to indicate, "To what extent is the statement (or its message) might have
been a factor in their decision to participate in school choice. Please explain.

 

STATEMENT

 

1. School Choice is an issue of freedom.
It is a basic right that we. as citizens.
have.

  
 
 

I AGREE<—-)DISAGREE I

  

FACTOR IN DECISION

   

 

 

Explain:

 

2. As consumers. we should be able to
choose whatever school/program we
think is best for our child(ren).

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

I
Explain: ;
I
i
I

Explain:

 

3. Every person has a right to equal
equal Opportunity and school choice
helps guarantee that.

 

1. Schools will improve and students
will learn more with school choice in
place.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain.

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain.

 
 

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

2. Parents will be more involved and
have more confidence in their schools
under choice.

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

3. Bad schools will go out of business
and good schools will add more students.

 

1 2 3 4 5

12 3 4.5

 

Explain:

QUALITY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SCHOOLS ISSUES

Explain:

 

 

critical in schools.

 

1.Quality of educational programs includ- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ing personnel, are key to school success. Explain: Explain:

2. The safety of the children and the con- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
trol of discipline. weapons. drugs are Explain: Explain: '

 

3. The quality of the facilities, the tech-
nology '& condition of buildings affect
education of children.

1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5

 

Explain:

Explain:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FAMILY/P RSONAL NEED ISSUES
1. The type of kids/families at the school 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
affects the quality of school. Explain: Explain:
2. The families personal needs/circum- 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
stances are a critical‘factor in their right Explain: Explain:
to participate in a school of choice
program.
3. The school needs to reflect/support 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
the values of my family and beliefs we Explain: Explain:
hold important.

KEY: W KEY: W

album-A

Strongly Agree
Agree

Not Sure

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

226

1 I A Strong Factor

2 g A Eosslble Factor

3 I Not Sure

4 = Not Likely a Factor

5 8 Definitely Not a Factor

REFERENCES

227

REFERENCES

Alexander, K., 8 Alexander, M. D. (1985). W (2nd ed.).
St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.

Amen, D. E. (1989). WWW
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University.

American Association of School Administrators. (1996). Etmatischml
WW Arlington, VA: Author.

Archbald D. A. (1988). WW

I. .3 I 0| II .I0 0' .0 Iv... ' I00 ‘ll.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (1990). Eublic
schoolschhQice. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Bane, M. J., 8 Jencks, C. (1972, September). The schools and equal
opportunity. SatuLdaLBeview. 55. 3742.

Bauch, P. A. (1992, April). WWW.
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, CA.

Bauch, P., 8Small, T. (1986). EatentereasonsJOLscbooLchoiceJnjouLinner;

I
0
..e lo. .00 I ‘.H||00‘0,.0||on In

W. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO.
ED 298 650)

Bennett, D. A. (1984). Aplan for increasing educational opportunities and
improving racial balance in Milwaukee. In C. V. Willie 8 S. L. Greenblatt

(Eds..) SchooLdesegregaticnblanthatmm. Westport, CT: Greenwood

Press.

228

Blank, R. K., Baltzell, D. C., Chabotar, K. 8Dantler, R. A. (1983).Suntey_91

II-0I3 100’“ II'vllOO o o .. t i‘!- 0:0 ..1(Final
report of a national study for the US. Department of Education). (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 236 303)

Blum, V. C. (1958). Ereedemetcneieeinedueatien. New York: Macmillan.

Bogdan, R. C., 8Biklen, S. K. (1982). Qualitativeresearchjnedueatien.
Boston, MA: Allyn 8 Bacon.

Bridges, R. G. 8 Blackman J. (1978). AstudLeLalternativeanAmeriean
edueatienLAlelA._EamiltLeneice_in_seneeline. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Bush, G. (1992). Remarks by the president in a ceremony for GI Bill
opportunity scholarships for children. White House press release.

Butts F. R. (1989). WWW
eublleandjheeretessien. Stanford, CA. Hoover Institution Press.

Capell, F. J. (1981). A_study_eLaltemati1es_in_Ameriean_edueatien:_ieL_6.
StudenteutcemeeatAlemBeekJQEJfle. Santa Monica. CA: Rand.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (1992). Scncelcneice.
Princeton, NJ: Author.

Carnegie Task Force on Teaching as a Profession. (1986). Anatienjteeared;
Ieacners_fer_tne_nrrenly;firsl__cenlunr. Washington, DC: Carnegie Forum

on Education and the Economy.

Catterall, J. S. (1984). Educaljenieucbers. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappan
Educational Foundation.

Chubb. J. E.,&Moe, T. M. (1990). EefltiesmadseteeniAmeneaeseneels.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Clinchy, E. (1989, December). Public school choice: Absolutely necessary but
not wholly sufficient. EnLDellalgapean, 11, 289-294.

Cogan, S. (1979). DeterminantLeLearentaleheieeinjebeelineJhefieeuitlam
experience. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 173 973)

Coleman, J., Hoffer,T., 8Kilgore, S. (1981). Questions and answers: Our
response. WW. 51(4). 526-545-

229

Cookson. P. w. (1994). SebeeleheieedhestnlegleientneseuLetAmeriean
educatien. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Coons, J. E. (1990, January 17). Choice plans should include private Option.
EducatienJllLeek. p. 36.

Coons, J. E. (1992). School choice as simple justice. Eirsllhinge, 5-12.

Coons, J. E., 8Sugarman, S. D. (1978). Wily
00011.01. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cronbach, L. J. (1975, February). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific
psychology. Amefleanfisyeheleeisl. 30(2). 116-126.

Doyle, D. P., 8 Levine, M. (1989, September). Magnet schools: Choice and
quality in public education. EnLDellaJSaepan, Ll, 41-54.

Education Commission of the States. (1983). Actienjerexeellenee. Boulder.
CO: Author.

Elam, S. M. (1990, September). The 22nd annual Gallup poll of public attitudes
toward the public schools. EhLDeltaJSappan. 12. 41-55.

Elam, S. M., 8 Gallup, A. M. (1989, September). The 21st annual Gallup poll of
public attitudes toward the public schools. Eni_De|1a_Kannan, 11, 41-54.

Elmore, R. F. (1990). W. New

Brunswick, NJ: Center for Policy Research in Education.
Fantini, M. (1973). Eunljesehcelecicneice. New York: Simon 8 Schuster.

Finch, L. W. (1989, March). My choice, dump Minnesota’s parental choice. Ihe
ExeeitiyeEdueater. 11(3), 44.

Fizzell, R. L. (1987, June). Inside a choice school. EhLQelliKaenan, 68, 758-
760.

Fliegel, S. (1989). Parental choice in East Harlem. In J. Nathan (Ed.), Eublic
seheeLbyeneiee. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone.

Fliegel, S. (19903). Creative non-compliance. In W. H. Clune8J. F. Witte
(Eds.,) 10.: 10 0101.111 ..1 1 ,.'.. . .;.r.,..

eheice._decentralizatien_and_seheel_restructurine(pp. 199-216). New York:

Falmer.

230

Fliegel, S. (1990b, May). School choice must balance private, public good.
W313. 32(4). 2-

Friedman, M. (1962). Caeilalisrnendjreedern. Chicago: University Of Chicago
Press.

Friedman, M., 8 Friedman, R. (1979). Ereedernjcchecee. New York; Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.

Gallup, A. M. (1986, September). The 18th annual Gallup Poll of the public’s
attitudes toward the public schools. Wartime. 68(1).

Gallup, A. M., 8 Clark, D. L. (1987, September). The 1ch annual Gallup Poll of
the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. EhLDeItaJSaeean. 68(1).
17—30.

Garforth. F. W- (1964). JeheLeekeJemeJnouebteeeneernineedueafien

Woodbury, MA: Barron's Educational Series.

Gerritz, w. H. (1987).Eamily_eLeterences_teLlS_12_edueatlen_An_exelanateni
made. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California-

Berkeley.

Glenn, C. L. (19893). Cheice_ef_sebeels_jn_six_natiens. Washington. DC: US.
Government Printing Office.

Glenn, C. L. (198%) BarenteneieeaneAmerieanyalues. In J. Nathan (Ed.),
Public schools by choice. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone.

Goodlad, J. (1984). W. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gratiot, M. H. (1979). Wbyearentseheeseeeneublmeheelsiemeatanye

1: r1 |._ .11 11. 1 11' ._|1 1| . - I00 1|

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

Guba, E. 8Lincoln, Y. (1981).Efl2flmiflammmmnm1mgihfl§£flflnm

, | 1 1 | ‘ 1 11 10.33“
FranciscO, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Hess, G. A., Jr. (1992). Mmuehflemeqacyefleejtflez Unpublished

manuscript.

Holt, J. (1969). Ibeunderaenieyineseeiety. New York: Pitman.

231

Kamin, J., 8Erickson, D. A. (1981). Earsnteheiceetsebeelingjnjritish

CelumlziaJLeliminamflndings. Institute for Study of Private Schools.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 203 516)

Kozol, J. (1992, November). ldislike the idea Of choice, and lwant to tell you

why.. .EdueatienaLLeadestie. 50(3). 90—92;

LaNoue, G. R. (1972). Wes.
New York: Teachers College Press.

Lieberman, M. (1989). W. New York: St.
Martin’s Press.

Lindelow, J. (1979). EducatienaLveueher. Reston, VA: National Association of
Secondary School Principals.

Livingston, R. K. (1982). Anenalyslsetscneeumthiniseheeleregrams
tSWASLaeeubhescheelset—ebelanALLSD Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Los Angeles.

Maddus, J. (1987). Besidentialmeeifityandjeheelenmflmem. Paper presented

to the New England Educational Research Organization. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 307 680)

McCurdy, J. (1985). Chelceaneeheeleflhateaheadjndmhanaede
Special report to the National School Public Relations Association. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 264 649)

Merriam. 5- B- (1988). WWW
aneLQaCh. San Francisco, CA: Jossey—Bass.

Metz, M. A. (1987). Issues in designing magnet schools. In R. K. Blank8 P. R.

Messier (Eds) BlaneineendeesigninemaenetsenoelLExperiences
andebsenraliene. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 284

946)

Miles, M. B., 8 Huberman, A. M. (1984). WWW“
seurcebeeketnemmetheds. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mill, J. S. (1971). QnJlberly. London: Oxford University Press.

Moore, D. R., 8 Davenport, S. (1989). School choice: The new improved sorting
machine. In Qesigneiemhange. Chicago, IL.

232

Mueller, V. D. (1987, June). Choice: The parents’ perspective. EnLQella
W0. 68. 761-762.

Murnane, R. J. (1984). Eamflyehemneubhcedueafienmmmieeand
limilaliene. Washington, DC: National Institute Of Education.

Nathan, J. (1989a, October). More public school choice can mean more

learning EducatienaLLeadeLship. 41 51-56

Nathan, J. (1989b, August). Apowerful force to improve schools, learning. Ine E
ScbeelAdministrater. 46. 8- 12.

Nathan, J. (1989c). Wm. St. Paul, MN: Institute for

Learning.

 

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983).A_natien_at_riek;_1ne

W. Washington, DC: U. S. Government
Printing Office.

[f ‘. -

National Governors’ Association. (1986). Ajimel‘enresulle. Washington, DC:
Author.

Nault, R. L., 8 Uchitelle, S. (1982). School choice in the public sector: A case
study of parental decision making. In M. E. Manley (Ed.). Eamilyeheicein
ecnecllng. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Oakley, H. T. (1985).

EarenLeheieeeLelementaiyseneelinealternatiyesjnen
aflluentsueurbancenmunlty. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The
Ohio State University.

Ogawa, R. T., 8 Dutton, J. S. (1994, October). Parental choice in education.
UrbanEdueatien. 29(3).

Olfalpour. 3- (1984). W.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of San Francisco.

Olson, L. (1990, June 6). Open market Of schools needed, new book argues.
Educatienfleek. pp. 1-12.

Partridge, P. H. (1973). Freedom. In P. Edwards (Ed) Ineencyeleeeeiaef

philesenhyNol. 3, pp. 221-225). New York: Macmillan and The Free
Press.

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitatiyeeyaluatienmetbeds Newbury Park. CA:
Sage.

233

Paulu, N. (1989). WWW—(209166.10
Amencaneducalien. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Perpich, R. (1989, March 6). Choose your school. InerleyLYenLIimee, p. A17.

Raywid, M. A. (1983, June). Schools of choice: Their current nature and
Prospects. Wm. 64. 684-689.

Raywid, M. A. (1984, April). Synthesis of research on schools of choice.
Educatienalieadershie. 41. 70-78.

Raywid, M. A. (1985). Family choice arrangements in public schools. A review
Of the literature. BeyieMLeLEdueatienaLBeseaLtn 55(4). 435-467

Raywid, M. A. (1987, June). Public choice, yes; Vouchers, NO! EnLDelta
Kappan. 68(10). 762-769.

Raywid, M. A. (1989). The mounting case for schools of choice. In J. Nathan
(Ed.), Bublicecnmlncneice. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone.

Reitman, s. w. (1987). IaleneaehaneeeneaLenchelcereasieleapeLeaeh
teeneineArnerieaeeeueatieneLMessiaheemelex. Paper presented to

the American Educational Studies Association. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service NO. ED 293 776)

Robinson, P. K. (1984). AseheeleLeheiee. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Iowa.

Rossell, C. H. (1985). What is attractive about magnet schools? Urban
Educatien. 26. 7-22

Rossell, C. H. (1987). The Buffalo controlled choice plan. UrbamEdueatien.
22(3), 328-354.

Scherer, M. (1993, January). On savage inequalities: A conversation with

Jonathan Kozol. EducatienaLLeadetshie. 50(4), 4-9.
Seeley, D. S. (1985). Educatieanreueneartnership. Washington, DC: AEI.

Sheane, K., 8Bierlein, L. (1991). QeenenrellrnentLedueatienaleheleeJ
nalienaLreyiew. Tempe: Arizona State University.

Sizer: T- R- (1984)- tieraceiecemerenflseLJbedjlemmaetheAmerieanjien
$609.01. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. ‘

234

Smith, A. (1952). Wealthfinatiens. Chicago. IL: Great Books Edition,
Encyclopedia Britannica. (Original work published 1776)

Sonnenfeld, D. (1973). '
cneicejnjcnceling. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 082
375)

Tyack, D. B. (1974). WWW.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Uchitelle, S., 8Nault, R. L. (1977). Ineseheeleneicebehayiemtearents”

in_ene_sub_urban_cernrnlrnlly. Paper presented to the American

Educational Research Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 141 736)

Urbanski, A. (1989). Public schools of choice and education reform. In J.

Nathan (Ed.). Bublieecheeebuneice. Bloomington, IN: Meyer-Stone.

Uzzell, L. A. (1983. August 5). The next ten years. IbeNallenaLBeyiew, pp.
932-934.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). WWW Chicago IL:

University of Chicago Press.

Veal, B. J. (1989).A_cen1pensen_ei_m1nenty_and_nenminenty_earenLcheice_in

I00 3 01.0lll3110l .' L‘i ‘ ‘ II- 'I‘ I00 000 -ll.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts.

White, J. w., Bailey,A. B. 8Thom, C. A. (1992). Secondyeaueeere
MflnaukeeearentaLeheieeeLogram. Madison: University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

Williams, M. F., Hancher, K. S., 8 Hutner, A. (1983). EarenleanischeeLcheice;
AW. Office Of Educational Research and Improvement.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 240 739)

Witte, J. W. Bailey,A. B, 8Thom, C. A. (1992). W
Milwaulseeearenlalcnciceprograrn. Madison: University of Wisconsin-

Madison.

Worthen, B. R. 8Sanders J. R. (1987). EmiratienaLemluatienJlternatiye
WW. White Plains, NY. Longman.

235

Wright. C. M. (1986). W
mamaoflhefilendalielementauschmlflsmm. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, Northern Arizona University.

Zaerchykov, R. (1987). W

W. Institute for Responsive Education. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 283 270)

236