Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
What factors play a role in making the District of choice program fit a school district's educational mission?
(USC Thesis Other)
What factors play a role in making the District of choice program fit a school district's educational mission?
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running
head:
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
1
WHAT
FACTORS
PLAY
A
ROLE
IN
MAKING
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
FIT
A
SCHOOL
DISTRICT’S
EDUCATIONAL
MISSION?
By
Jon
A.
Duim
A
Dissertation
Presented
to
the
FACULTY
OF
THE
USC
ROSSIER
SCHOOL
OF
EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY
OF
SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
In
Partial
Fulfillment
of
the
Requirements
for
the
Degree
DOCTOR
OF
EDUCATION
May
2013
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
2
Dedication
I
would
like
to
dedicate
my
dissertation
to
my
family
members,
especially
my
wife,
who
have
always
supported
me
to
reach
my
dreams,
and
encouraged
me
in
all
things.
Their
strength
makes
me
stronger,
and
their
love,
patience
and
understanding
has
always
been
instrumental
in
my
accomplishments.
They
have
always
been
an
amazing
presence
in
my
life
as
I
worked
my
nights
and
weekends
to
gain
first
a
Master’s
and
now
through
the
last
three
years,
as
I
have
accomplished
my
dream
of
becoming
Dr.
Jon
Duim.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
3
Acknowledgements
I
would
like
to
thank
my
dissertation
chair
Dr.
Pedro
Garcia.
When
I
did
not
have
a
dissertation
thematic
group,
you
allowed
me
to
join
your
already
full
group.
You
gave
me
the
opportunity
to
pursue
this
dissertation
topic
that
sustained
my
interest
and
allowed
me
to
perceiver
through
the
long
process
of
creating
this
study.
Thank
you
for
your
support
and
guidance.
Also
instrumental
in
providing
help,
encouragement
and
input
in
both
the
writing
process
and
research
aspects
of
my
dissertation
are
my
second
and
third
chairs:
Dr.
Rudy
Castruita
and
Dr.
Julie
Marsh.
They
offered
sage
advice
based
upon
professional
experience.
I
was
lucky
enough
to
work
is
a
school
district
that
values
and
promotes
the
professional
development
of
their
employees.
My
superintendent,
Dr.
Anthony
Knight
provided
me
with
the
extra
time
I
needed
to
make
a
doctoral
program
possible
with
my
work
schedule.
Finally,
My
amazingly
talented
wife,
Joni
read
through
most
of
my
writing
output
in
all
my
many
classes
and
especially
this
dissertation.
Her
proofreading
skills
and
suggestions
were
invaluable.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
4
Table
of
Contents
Dedication
2
Acknowledgements
3
List
of
Tables
6
List
of
Charts
7
Abstract
8
Chapter
1:
Overview
of
the
Study
9
Introduction
9
Statement
of
the
Problem
13
Purpose
of
the
Study
13
Importance
of
the
Study
14
Limitations,
Delimitations
and
Assumptions
16
Definitions
of
Terms
16
Chapter
2:
Literature
Review
19
Introduction
19
Market
Forces
Theory
20
Concerns
About
Segregation
23
Effects
on
Latinos
24
Skimming
25
What
Attracts
Students
to
DOC
Programs
26
Factors
that
Drive
Participation
Rates
28
Capacity
Limits
28
Local
Opposition
30
Informed
Choice
Making
30
Factors
Influencing
School
Selection
31
The
Transportation
Dilemma
32
Financial
Impacts
33
California
and
District
of
Choice
Program
35
The
Role
Administrators
Play
36
Conclusion
39
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
5
Chapter
3:
Research
Methodology
42
Introduction
42
Research
Design
44
Mixed
Methods
Methodology
44
Quantitative
Methods
45
Qualitative
Methods
45
Population
and
Sampling
46
Instrumentation
48
Data
Collection
48
Data
Analysis
49
Ethical
Considerations
49
Summary
50
Chapter
4:
Summary
of
Findings
51
Introduction
51
Response
Rates
52
Findings
by
Research
Question
56
What
Kinds
of
School
Districts
Participate
in
the
DOC
Program
and
Why?
56
What
Kinds
of
School
Districts
Participate
in
the
DOC
Program
57
Why
do
School
Districts
Participate
in
the
DOC
Program
58
What
do
Superintendents
see
as
the
Chief
Advantages
and
Disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
65
Advantages
of
Participating
in
the
DOC
Program
66
Disadvantages
of
Participating
in
the
DOC
Program
69
What
has
been
the
most
Important
Perceived
Impact
of
the
DOC
program?
72
Summary
74
Chapter
5:
Conclusions
78
Summary
of
Findings
78
Implications
for
Practice
80
Future
Research
83
Conclusions
85
References
90
Appendices
94
Appendix
A:
Survey
Instrument
94
Appendix
B:
Interview
Instrument
97
Appendix
C:
Letter
to
Participants
98
Appendix
D:
Advantages
99
Appendix
E:
Disadvantages
100
Appendix
F:
District
Use
101
Appendix
G:
Enrollment
102
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
6
List
of
Tables
Table
1:
District
Students
Populations
of
Survey
Participants
and
53
Non-‐Participants
Table
2:
Types
of
DOC
School
Districts
Represented
in
the
Survey
Including
those
54
That
did
not
Participate
Table
3:
Demographics
of
Interview
Participants
55
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
7
List
of
Charts
Chart
1:
Agreement
with
the
Idea
that
Parents
should
be
able
to
Choose
their
58
Children’s
School
regardless
of
where
they
live.
Chart
2:
The
Effects
of
Financial
Factors
on
the
DOC
Program
66
Chart
3:
Strong
School
Board
Support
68
Chart
4:
A
Disadvantage
of
the
DOC
Program
has
been
the
Tensions
Between
70
School
Districts
as
we
Compete
for
Students
Chart
5:
Interdistrict
Parents
see
our
District
in
a
Positive
Light
and
Requests
for
73
Student
Admittance
Adds
to
our
Prestige
and
Reputation.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
8
Abstract
The
schooling
option
that
is
the
most
widespread
nation-‐wide
is
interdistrict
open
enrollment.
In
California
this
is
called
District
of
Choice
(DOC).
DOC
programs
have
been
recognized
as
a
tool
for
school
improvement.
The
program
is
intended
to
broaden
the
choices
available
and
thus
promote
equity
of
opportunity
by
allowing
students
who
lack
the
means
the
freedom
to
transfer
to
a
better
performing
public
school.
Only
a
fraction
of
California
school
districts
participate
in
the
DOC
initiative.
Laying
aside
the
potential
advantages
accrued
to
students,
why
do
some
districts
choose
to
assume
the
additional
enrollment
procedures
inherent
in
an
optional
state
program?
Districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
are
predominately
K-‐12
school
districts
with
enrollments
under
5,000.
These
small
school
districts
relied
on
the
ADA
from
their
DOC
students
for
an
average
of
a
quarter
of
their
enrollment
revenue.
Superintendents
that
provided
the
survey
and
interview
data
for
this
study,
were
motivated
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program
for
the
prestige,
monetary
factors
and
because
they
believed
in
a
parents’
right
to
choice
their
child’s
school.
This
study
found
that
strong
school
board
support
was
gained
by
promoting
the
important
advantages
the
school
district
could
gain
by
participating.
The
DOC
district
gains
freer
access
to
interdistrict
students
by
bypassing
potential
barriers.
The
study
uncovered
tensions
between
school
districts
as
they
compete
for
students.
The
potential
of
added
prestige
and
reputation
gained
as
a
result
of
being
perceived
by
the
public
as
a
school
district
that
is
attractive
to
family
was
also
a
factor
in
participating.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
9
CHAPTER
1
Overview
of
the
Study
School
choice
programs
have
been
gaining
momentum
in
the
United
States
for
the
past
20
years.
Parents
have
been
seeking
more
educational
alternatives
for
their
children
other
than
the
one
provided
by
their
neighborhood
school.
They
want
to
be
able
to
choose
from
several
options
to
select
one
that
would
be
an
improvement
over
what
had
been
traditionally
offered.
These
demands
for
better
education
have
been
driven
by
reports
of
failing
urban
schools,
poor
graduation
rates
and
dismal
standardized
test
scores.
There
is
a
huge
funding
difference
between
the
highest
and
lowest-‐spending
school
districts.
The
education
of
some
children
is
well
supported
with
for
example,
superior
teachers,
curriculum
offerings,
and
current
technology.
In
contrast,
other
students
attend
schools
in
third-‐world
conditions
or
worse
(Darling-‐Hammond
&
Bellanca,
2010).
The
quality
of
schools
across
the
nation
is
uneven.
School
choice
programs
offer
parents
the
option
to
send
their
children
to
better
performing
schools.
Background
Charter
schools
and
voucher
systems
usually
receive
most
of
the
attention
and
controversy
of
school
choice
programs,
but
the
schooling
option
that
is
the
most
widespread
nation-‐wide
is
interdistrict
open
enrollment.
In
California
this
is
called
District
of
Choice
(DOC).
More
students
are
enrolled
under
this
program,
(available
in
over
40
states),
than
any
other
type
of
school
choice
policy
(Reback,
2008).
DOC
programs
have
been
recognized
as
a
tool
for
school
improvement.
Recently,
there
were
renewed
efforts
to
require
that
all
districts
across
the
nation
adopt
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
10
interdistrict
open
enrollment
as
part
of
the
reauthorized
No
Child
Left
Behind
(NCLB)
legislation.
Although
ultimately
the
program
was
not
included
in
the
current
NCLB
legislation,
it
did
highlight
the
growing
movement
to
expose
public
schools
to
competitive
market
forces
(Holme
&
Richards,
2009).
Making
DOC
programs
mandatory
for
all
the
nation’s
schools
is
an
idea
that
may
re-‐merge
in
the
near
future.
California
Senate
Bill
680
passed
in
2009,
is
the
most
recent
law
to
address
DOC.
It
renewed
the
original
law
establishing
DOC
in
1992.
The
bill
was
authored
by
Republican
Bob
Huff
and
Democrat
Gloria
Romero
and
passed
with
bipartisan
support.
The
reauthorization
took
the
cap
off
the
number
of
districts
that
could
be
designated
as
DOC
and
eliminated
the
loopholes
that
allowed
some
limited
selective
choosing
of
transfer
students.
These
changes
were
greeted
by
a
lot
of
optimism.
The
Los
Angeles
Times
declared
that
the
law
opened
a
new
era
of
entrepreneurship
in
education
because
choice
encourages
excellence
(Los
Angeles
Times,
2009).
With
the
expansion
of
the
program,
potentially
many
more
students
could
take
advantage
of
the
opportunity
of
a
better
education
in
a
high
performing
new
school
district.
State
DOC
initiatives
were
created
to
improve
the
opportunities
of
students
to
receive
a
quality
education.
Disadvantaged
students
in
poorly
performing
schools
were
the
target
audience
for
these
state
initiatives.
The
program
allows
students
to
move
from
their
public
school
district
of
residence
to
a
different
public
school
district
without
the
approval
of
the
home
district
if
certain
guidelines
and
enrollment
dates
are
followed.
The
program
is
intended
to
broaden
the
choices
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
11
available
and
thus
promote
equity
of
opportunity
by
allowing
students
who
lack
the
means
the
freedom
to
transfer
to
a
better
performing
public
school.
Usually
DOC
districts
are
located
in
urban
areas
where
differences
in
quality
among
schools
and
districts
can
be
dramatic.
Often
DOC
is
linked
to
efforts
to
improve
the
quality
of
schools.
The
theory
is
that
DOC
enrollment
policies
create
competition
between
schools
and
districts.
The
threat
of
losing
state
average
daily
attendance
(ADA)
funds
will
lead
to
improvements
to
attract
students
or
to
retain
them.
State
Senator
Huff
(2009
¶3)
explained
that,
“With
the
student
population
declining
statewide,
Districts
of
Choice
has
become
a
tool
that
rewards
schools
doing
a
great
job,
and
motivates
other
schools
to
do
a
better
job
with
our
limited
education
dollars.”
In
California,
over
80%
of
the
funding
for
educating
students
comes
from
state
sources.
The
danger
inherent
in
this
system
is
that
a
significant
loss
of
revenue
may
make
it
more
difficult
for
poor-‐performing
districts
to
improve,
and
the
possibility
of
a
downward
spiral
may
result
(Carlson,
Lavery
and
Witte,
2011;
Ni
and
Arsen
2008).
In
California,
a
DOC
school
district
is
one
that
by
resolution
of
the
local
school
board
becomes
a
school
district
that
will
accept
students
from
other
districts
through
a
special
process.
This
designation
allows
the
district
to
accept
students
from
outside
its
district
boundaries.
Although
there
are
some
requirements,
neighboring
districts
cannot
deny
their
students
permission
to
attend
out
of
district
schools
except
under
certain
conditions.
Permits
are
automatically
renewed
under
the
law
so
that
out
of
district
students
can
remain
in
their
current
school
district
until
graduation.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
12
Although
interdistrict
open
enrollment
policies
differ
according
to
state
laws,
there
are
common
components
to
all
of
them.
First,
in
many
states
funding
for
education
follows
students
across
district
lines
and
is
greater
than
the
marginal
cost
of
educating
an
additional
student
(Reback,
2008).
Secondly,
applicants
can
only
be
rejected
for
a
few
reasons
usually
because
of
limited
capacity
and
districts
cannot
be
selective
in
who
they
accept.
Supply-‐side
decisions
on
accepting
out
of
district
students
are
mostly
influenced
by
capacity.
Inflows
are
driven
by
districts
with
high
test
scores,
but
school
administrators
tend
to
restrict
transferring
students
based
upon
concerns
about
the
negative
effects
on
peers
from
DOC
students
who
enroll
with
relatively
low
test
scores.
Therefore,
the
connection
between
transfer
rates
and
mean
test
scores
will
reflect
some
combination
of
a
positive
effect
on
test
scores
on
demand
and
a
negative
effect
of
test
scores
on
supply
(Reback,
2008).
For
California
school
districts,
capacity,
enrollment
numbers,
performance
data,
and
ADA
funds
typically
are
factors
used
to
determine
which
strategies
are
needed
to
successfully
run
the
DOC
program.
Only
3%
of
California
school
districts
participate
in
the
DOC
initiative.
Laying
aside
the
potential
advantages
accrued
to
students,
why
do
some
districts
choose
to
assume
the
additional
enrollment
procedures
inherent
in
an
optional
state
program?
The
advantages
accumulated
by
participating
districts
are
not
well
known
and
have
not
been
studied.
If
other
school
districts
are
considering
this
program
or
if
the
option
of
not
participating
in
the
DOC
program
is
eliminated,
it
would
behoove
California
school
districts
to
know
more
about
how
the
program
can
benefit
their
districts.
Additionally,
it
is
instructive
to
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
13
know
in
what
ways
participating
districts
use
the
DOC
program
to
enhance
their
district.
How
have
they
applied
the
initiative
to
meet
their
various
needs?
To
duplicate
similar
positive
results,
other
district
may
want
to
adopt
the
strategies
employed
by
a
school
superintendent
and
school
board
that
helps
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
effectively.
The
Statement
of
the
Problem
Although
there
is
an
abundance
of
research
on
the
role
and
importance
of
school
choice
programs
regarding
charter
schools,
voucher
systems,
and
magnet
schools
there
is
insufficient
research
concerning
DOC
and
even
less
still
on
their
role
and
impact
in
California.
Recently,
the
cap
was
removed
on
the
number
of
school
districts
allowed
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
The
freedom
for
California
school
districts
to
now
participate
is
tempered
by
the
lack
of
knowledge
of
the
advantages
and
disadvantages.
Little
is
known
about
how
this
program
is
utilized
by
various
school
districts.
There
are
few
studies
that
measure
their
value
and
effectiveness.
There
is
little
empirical
evidence
that
the
program
works
as
it
was
designed
or
what,
if
any,
are
the
positive
or
lasting
effects
on
school
districts.
The
Purpose
of
the
Study
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
identify
the
strategies
superintendents
and
school
boards
use
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
well
for
the
school
district
they
serve
and
to
allow
the
researcher
to
understand
how
the
DOC
program
fits
into
the
district’s
educational
mission.
Participating
California
school
districts
have
made
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
14
strategic
use
of
this
initiative
to
strengthen
their
districts.
Detecting
and
documenting
these
strategies
is
the
task
that
was
undertaken
in
this
study.
Increasing
student
achievement
is
one
of
the
goals
of
the
DOC
program.
This
must
be
measured
in
any
assessment
of
DOC
program
effectiveness.
The
focus
in
this
study
however,
is
on
the
institutional
effects.
School
districts
must
find
the
program
worthy
of
their
efforts
before
individual
students
can
have
access
to
it.
This
study
has
been
carefully
crafted
to
insure
that
specific
research
questions
are
targeted
to
find
answers
and
gather
information
upon
which
conclusions
can
be
made.
The
research
questions
that
are
addressed
in
the
present
study
are
the
following:
1.
What
kinds
of
districts
participate
in
DOC
and
why?
2.
What
do
superintendents
see
as
the
chief
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
3.
What
has
been
the
most
important
perceived
impact
of
the
DOC
program
on
the
district?
The
Importance
of
the
Study
The
significance
of
this
study
is
its
contribution
to
the
broad
literature
of
school
choice
options.
The
study
provides
data
that
will
have
practical
applications
and
can
be
used
as
a
basis
of
further
examination
by
practitioners,
policy
makers
and
scholars.
The
focus
of
this
study
is
on
the
benefits
that
accrue
to
the
school
district.
These
benefits
may
be
for
example,
an
increase
in
student
enrollment,
or
at
least
maintenance
of
current
ADA
and
an
increase
in
funding
as
a
result
of
additional
students
enrolled
in
the
receiving
school
district.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
15
This
study
will
provide
examples
of
strategies
that
are
associated
with
current
school
district
practitioners
of
the
DOC
program.
The
findings
will
have
direct
implication
for
California
school
districts
regarding
the
best
practices
being
used
by
current
DOC
districts.
The
information
gained
from
this
study
may
potentially
assist
school
districts
in
making
decisions.
With
the
knowledge
gained
in
this
study,
district
leadership
and
local
school
boards
can
apply
this
information
to
make
informed
decisions
about
whether
the
DOC
program
would
be
the
right
course
for
their
district.
Specifically,
enquiry
into
the
data
provided
within
this
study
will
inform
decision
makers
about
the
attractiveness
and
sustainability
of
this
DOC
program.
District
superintendents
in
particular,
will
find
that
this
study
provides
a
leadership
model
on
how
to
apply
the
tried
and
proven
strategies
used
by
other
superintendents.
Understanding
how
DOC
programs
are
implemented
and
how
they
operate
will
inform
practitioners
about
their
practical
use.
Policymakers
will
be
able
to
utilize
this
research
to
help
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
DOC
initiative.
The
findings
from
this
study
may
also
influence
policy
makers
as
they
update
and
put
together
procedures
to
improve
and
modify
future
legislative
reauthorizations.
Additionally,
the
findings
could
inform
new
accountability
policies
that
incorporate
examples
of
how
successful
DOC
programs
are
implemented.
This
study
redresses
the
lack
of
research
on
DOC
in
California.
The
body
of
research
will
be
enhanced
by
the
addition
of
these
findings.
It
will
serve
to
guide
and
suggest
further
study
on
different
segments
of
the
same
topic
for
educational
researchers.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
16
Limitations,
Delimitations
and
Assumptions
The
limitations
of
this
study
involved
restrictions
on
the
amount
of
time,
the
quantity
of
the
participants
and
restraints
imposed
by
geography.
During
the
time
allotted
for
this
study,
many
activities
needed
to
occur:
participants
needed
to
be
contacted,
interviews
needed
to
be
conducted
and
data
needed
to
be
disaggregated.
The
confined
timeline
affected
the
number
of
superintendents
that
could
be
surveyed
for
this
study.
One
delimitation
of
this
study
is
its
exclusive
concern
with
superintendents
in
California
and
the
educational
environment
in
which
they
operate.
The
results
of
this
study
are
based
on
the
assumptions
that
all
participants
were
truthful
and
credible
in
their
responses
to
the
survey
and
interview
questions.
Participation
was
completely
voluntary.
The
study
produces
a
limited
sample
size
and
thus
is
a
snapshot
of
the
DOC
strategies
used.
These
strategies
may
be
unique
to
specific
school
districts
and
the
possibility
exists
that
they
may
not
be
generalized
to
other
schools
and
districts.
Definitions
of
Terms
For
the
purpose
of
clarity
regarding
the
terms
used
within
this
dissertation,
the
following
relevant
terms
have
been
defined:
Average
daily
attendance
(ADA).
The
number
of
students
present
or
excused
from
attendance
for
specific
reasons
(outlined
in
the
state
education
code)
on
each
school
day
throughout
the
year.
ADA
is
based
upon
three
date
samples
and
approximates
95%
of
the
average
enrollment
statewide.
A
school
district’s
revenue
limit
income
is
based
on
its
ADA.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
17
Academic
Performance
Index:
California’s
accountability
system
measures
the
performance
and
progress
of
a
school
or
school
district
based
on
results
of
statewide
tests
at
grades
two
through
twelve.
A
school’s
API
is
a
composite
number
representing
a
the
results
of
these
tests.
District
of
Choice:
This
term
is
the
name
of
California’s
interdistrict
open
enrollment
program
that
allows
school
districts
to
accept
students
from
outside
their
district
enrollment
boundaries
with
few
limitations
from
the
sending
districts.
Charter
School:
Schools
that
receive
public
money,
but
are
not
subject
to
some
of
the
rules,
regulations,
and
statues
that
apply
to
other
public
schools
in
exchange
for
some
type
of
accountability
for
producing
certain
results,
which
are
set
forth
in
each
school’s
charter.
Charter
schools
are
opened
and
attended
by
choice
and
serve
as
an
alternative
to
other
public
schools.
Interdistrict
transfer:
A
term
used
to
refer
to
students
who
switch
from
attending
a
school
in
their
district
of
residence
to
a
school
in
a
different
district
outside
the
boundaries
of
their
resident
school
district.
No
Child
Left
Behind
Act
(2001)
(NCLB):
This
act
is
the
reauthorization
of
the
Elementary
and
Secondary
Education
Act.
It
is
the
current
federal
government
reform
and
accountability
model
of
education.
Resident
School:
The
school
for
the
attendance
area
in
which
a
student
lives.
School
Choice:
This
term
is
used
to
describe
a
wide
array
of
programs
aimed
at
giving
families
the
opportunity
to
choose
the
school
their
children
will
attend.
Usually
the
term
refers
to
choices
other
than
the
school
a
child
is
assigned
to
attend
based
upon
proximity.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
18
School
District:
Local
educational
agency
that
operated
schools
or
contracts
for
school
services
in
specific
geographic
areas.
School
Vouchers:
A
certificate
issued
by
the
government,
which
parents
can
apply
toward
tuition
at
a
private
school
rather
than
at
the
state
school
to
which
their
child
is
assigned.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
19
CHAPTER
2
Literature
Review
Introduction
Providing
many
different
forms
of
school
Choice
has
been
one
way
to
reform
the
American
school
system
for
over
20
years.
The
benefit
of
providing
parents
with
a
choice
of
where
their
child
attends
school
has
been
seen
as
an
obvious
path
to
improve
educational
achievement.
Choice
programs
were
designed
for
less
prosperous
families
that
can
not
afford
to
move
to
neighborhoods
that
are
serviced
by
a
high-‐achieving
school
or
attend
a
private
school.
Typically,
these
programs
provide
educational
options
to
students
in
urban
settings
that
traditionally
had
few
programs.
Additionally,
supporters
claim
that
Choice
programs
allows
parents
to
better
match
their
preferences
for
a
particular
pedagogical
approach
or
emphasis.
These
programs
are
designed
to
provide
students
with
an
escape
from
underperforming
public
schools.
Students
in
schools
in
high-‐poverty
areas
rarely
perform
as
well
as
their
middle-‐class
counterparts
despite
increased
overall
funding.
Many
advocates
of
Choice
programs
support
these
various
school
alternatives
on
moral
and
philosophical
grounds
regardless
of
whether
research
raises
questions
about
their
advantages.
Allowing
poor
children
to
have
contact
to
a
more
academically
motivated
peer
group
would
be
enough
to
justify
such
arrangements
(Feinberg
&
Lubienski,
2008;
Andre-‐Bechley,
(2007).
Libertarian
and
conservative
ideals
form
the
underpinnings
of
some
of
the
arguments
supporting
giving
parents
Choice
options.
“Empowering
parents”
is
the
phrase
used
most
often
by
this
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
20
segment
of
advocates.
Parents
have
the
right
to
the
freedom
of
choosing
their
children’s
schools
without
restrictions,
gains
or
loss
in
academic
achievement
are
not
the
point.
Others
will
argue
against
the
monopoly
and
corrupting
power
of
“government”(public)
schools.
They
see
Choice
programs
as
a
way
to
provide
parents
with
the
opportunities
to
roll
back
the
inappropriate
incursion
of
the
state
into
private
family
life
(Lubienski,
2008).
The
sections
ahead
in
this
literature
review
will
provide
information,
look
at
the
issues
faced
by
school
districts
and
review
the
obstacles
they
may
encounter
should
school
districts
attempt
to
implement
an
interdistrict
transfer
program.
The
on-‐
going
debates
over
Choice
programs
includes
many
arguments
for
and
against
their
implementation.
Both
sides
are
represented
in
the
sections
below.
The
Market
Forces
Theory
The
most
popular
theory
supporting
Choice
programs
involves
harnessing
the
power
of
capitalism
to
aid
the
way
education
is
selected
by
parents.
The
theory
is
that
Choice
programs
can
bring
market
forces
to
bear,
by
creating
a
competition
for
students
and
the
ADA
dollars
that
comes
with
them
and
thus
this
pushes
schools
to
improve
in
order
to
stay
competitive.
Public
schools,
by
themselves
these
advocates
contend,
will
never
improve,
but
market
forces
alone
are
enough
to
produce
both
quality
and
equality
in
education.
In
the
1990’s
interdistrict
open
enrollment
laws
were
enacted
by
a
number
of
state
legislatures
in
response
to
increased
calls
to
subject
public
schools
to
competitive
market
forces.
The
number
of
states
with
the
program
went
from
14
to
44
by
2000
(Holm
&
Richards,
2009).
In
the
ensuing
years,
efforts
to
study
the
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
21
effectiveness
of
interdistrict
programs
have
been
greatly
hampered
by
that
fact
that
for
each
state
there
are
very
different
policies
written
for
the
program.
These
differences,
typically
in
transportation,
funding,
voluntary
vs.
mandatory
district
participation,
ties
to
desegregation
plans,
information
dissemination
and
student
selection
make
it
nearly
impossible
to
generalize
nationally
the
results
of
case
studies
(Jimerson,
2002).
The
positive
assumptions
about
school
Choice
programs
have
come
under
increased
scrutiny
as
more
empirical
evidence
comes
to
light.
Chief
among
these
assumptions
is
the
faith
many
have
in
the
power
of
market
forces
to
affect
school
enrollment
and
by
extension,
academic
improvement.
The
impact
of
market
forces
on
school
improvement
is
widely
contested.
The
theory
is
that
increased
competition
between
schools
would
encourage
heightened
innovation,
entrepreneurship
and
increased
efficiency.
As
Abernathy
(2005)
extols,
“…
giving
parents
the
freedom
to
opt
out
of
the
monopoly
of
residential
public
schools
will
force
all
schools
to
fundamentally
change
how
they
operate”
(p.
9).
Poor
performing
schools
must
improve
quickly
or
face
an
exodus
of
students
that
will
force
their
closure.
Chubb
and
Moe’s
(1990)
work
in
this
topic
is
influential.
They
placed
school
choice
programs
in
a
business
model
of
consumers
and
suppliers.
Demand
for
quality
education
is
the
driving
force
within
the
educational
marketplace.
Creating
less
regulated
choices
in
education
is
the
way
to
improve
the
product.
Many
economic
theorists
and
educational
reformers
have
embraced
this
model
and
have
argued
persuasively
that
competition
should
have
a
positive
impact
on
improving
schools
(Abernathy,
2005;
Armor
&
Peiser,
1997;
Merrifield,
2001).
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
22
Conversely,
many
researchers
have
shown
little
to
no
significant
evidence
of
improvement
as
a
result
of
the
students
enrolling
in
various
types
of
Choice
schools
(Feinberg
&
Lubienski,
2008;
Heise
&
Ryan,
2002).
There
is
a
large
gap
between
theory
and
reality.
The
capacity
of
the
educational
marketplace
to
rescue
the
America’s
education
system
remains
a
theoretical
rather
than
empirical
argument
(Smith
&
Meier,
1995).
Gains
will
come,
supporters
claim,
after
all
the
restrictions
on
the
free
movement
of
students
between
schools
are
removed
and
parents
are
empowered
to
control
their
selection
of
schools
for
attendance
(Merrifield,
2001).
Those
who
would
argue
against
the
market
theory,
warn
that
to
the
extent
that
parents
have
the
right
to
choose
their
schools,
local
schools
and
districts
will
lose
the
right
to
manage
their
populations
and
revenues.
The
result
of
this
far-‐reaching
freedom
would
be
a
corresponding
loss
of
local
control
and
with
that,
all
the
advantages
that
fuel
higher
student
achievement.
The
pressure
of
competitive
market
forces
on
school
districts
will
only
apply
if
parents
strictly
adhere
to
basing
Choice
enrollment
decisions
on
the
academic
quality
of
schools.
Additionally,
schools
and
school
districts
must
experience
the
financial
implications
of
decreased
funding
due
to
the
loss
of
enrollment.
It
is
argued
that
a
lower
achieving
district
with
overflowing
enrollment
would
welcome
the
loss
of
students
and
would
not
be
incentivized
to
make
academic
improvements.
For
the
theory
of
market
forces
to
work
using
Choice
programs,
a
lot
of
different
factors
must
be
nearly
perfectly
aligned.
Opponents
of
Choice
options
and
the
market
forces
theory
specifically,
point
out
that
markets
are
incompatible
with
the
goals
of
public
education
because
they
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
23
regularly
put
the
interests
of
individuals
above
the
public
interest
in
education
(Gutmann,
2003;
Smith
and
Meier,
1995).
Schools
are
not
business
enterprises
and
market
forces
are
not
applicable
to
public
education.
The
use
of
competition
will
stratify
schools
by
race
and
income,
while
making
them
less
accountable
to
the
public.
Families
with
no
transportation
assistance
or
limited
information
about
schooling
options
are
at
a
disadvantage.
By
offering
choice
to
families
with
few
resources
to
access
them,
the
question
of
equity
and
equal
opportunity
must
be
raised
(Andre-‐Bechely,
2007).
Regardless
of
parental
motivations
and
the
value
they
and
the
public
place
on
educational
options,
school
districts
need
to
be
cognizant
of
these
issues
to
inform
their
decisions
regarding
DOC
policies.
These
issues
have
an
impact
on
how
some
parents
view
DOC
programs,
how
districts
can
position
themselves
to
exploit
advantages
and
how
school
districts
can
promote
their
districts.
Concerns
About
Segregation
Another
continuous
debate
centers
on
the
claim
that
school
choice
programs
serve
to
heighten
school
segregation
and
stratification
by
sorting
according
to
race
and
income.
There
are
claims
that
a
racial
sorting
effect
occurs
as
the
racial
characteristics
of
schools
has
been
shown
to
have
important
impacts
on
parental
decisions
on
where
to
enroll
their
children
(Teske
&
Schneider,
2001).
If
this
is
the
case,
then
the
distribution
of
the
benefits
of
interdistrict
programs
will
be
unequal.
Empirical
evidence
from
various
studies
makes
it
unclear
whether
this
is
an
unintended
outcome
of
interdistrict
programs
(Cullen,
Jacob,
&
Levitt,
2004).
Other
researchers
have
made
the
point
that
as
desegregation
programs
have
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
24
disappeared,
schools
are
increasingly
becoming
more
segregated
by
race
and
income
(Smith
&
Meier,
1995;
Levinson
&
Levinson,
2003).
Choice
programs
offer
a
way
for
parents
to
overcome
segregated
schools
and
the
result
is
more
diversity
in
schools
(Greene,
2005).
The
studies
that
only
focus
on
the
possible
increase
in
segregation
of
departing
schools
fail
to
see
that
the
receiving
school
has
become
more
integrated
(Koedel,
Betts,
Rice
&
Zau,
2007).
It
is
important
to
understand
that
American
racial
and
economic
segregation
exists
because
of
housing
patterns
and
thus
segregation
typically
occurs
between
school
districts
rather
than
within
the
same
districts
(Chaplin,
2001).
Interdistict
transfers
thus,
can
be
a
way
to
reduce
segregation.
The
issue
of
whether
interdistrict
choice
programs
make
segregation
and
stratification
worse
has
not
been
answered
because
no
generalizing
conclusions
can
be
reached
by
examining
case
studies
of
individual
school
districts
and
states
operating
under
wide
varieties
of
rules
and
distinctive
conditions.
Armor
and
Peiser’s
(1997)
influential
study
of
interdistrict
programs
in
Massachusetts
found
that
minority
representation
was
low,
but
that
the
problem
could
be
overcome,
since
minority
parents
were
even
more
interested
than
their
White
counterparts
in
participating
in
interdistrict
transfers.
Minority
disinterest
was
not
the
problem,
there
were
other
barriers
for
these
groups
to
surmount.
The
Effect
of
Latinos
A
major
weakness
in
the
literature
on
interdistrict
transfer
programs
has
been
the
lack
of
studies
examining
the
program’s
effect
on
Latinos.
Most
studies
focus
on
Black-‐White
segregation
and
integration.
A
significant
factor
that
has
not
been
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
25
explored
much
is
the
effect
of
non-‐native
languages
on
interdistrict
transfer
rates.
One
lone
study
of
a
California
rural
community
suggested
that
bilingual
education
was
a
significant
reason
for
White
parents
transferring
to
another
district
and
that
as
Latinos
and
the
Spanish
language
become
more
prevalent
in
small
towns,
more
segregated
schools
resulted
(Prins,
2007).
DOC
programs
have
the
power
to
both
increase
and
decrease
integration
and
segregation
and
should
be
examined
closely
by
superintendents
to
monitor
its
use
for
this
purpose.
Skimming
Another
major
criticism
of
school
choice
programs
focuses
on
the
fear
that
these
programs
attract
the
best
and
brightest
children
and
leave
their
departing
school
devoid
of
talented
students.
Several
scholars
have
found
evidence
that
more
privileged
students
and
parents,
in
terms
of
income,
parental
involvement,
motivation
to
do
well
in
school,
and
educational
achievement,
are
most
likely
to
take
advantage
of
choice
options
and
withdrawal
from
their
traditional
public
school
(Abernathy,
2005).
Thus,
it
is
argued
that
choice
will
result
in
draining
departing
schools
of
their
best
students
to
already
advantaged
schools.
The
result
is
that
the
departing
schools
are
left
with
those
students
who
are
less
likely
to
succeed
academically
in
traditional
public
schools.
As
a
result
of
their
exit,
it
is
argued
that
traditional
public
schools
with
many
departing
students
face
a
number
of
potentially
hazardous
consequences.
Removing
high-‐achieving
students
impairs
the
quality
of
student
peer
groups
at
the
underperforming
schools.
Savvy
parents
informed
enough
to
seek
out
educational
options
for
their
children
become
overrepresented
in
Choice
schools.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
26
These
parents
provide
Choice
schools
with
a
more
active
parent
community
and
this
transfusion
of
talent,
Abernathy
(2005)
notes,
“…
has
the
potential
to
create
a
troubling
redistribution
of
political
and
therefore
financial
resources
within
and
between
communities”(p.
105).
Lower-‐income
schools
often
have
considerably
fewer
of
these
parents
to
begin
with
and
skimming
poses
a
considerable
threat
to
schools
by
depleting
talent
and
parental
push
for
educational
quality.
Ultimately,
the
major
criticism
is
that
skimming
results
in
a
two-‐tiered
system,
wherein
disadvantaged
students
are
concentrated
in
one
set
of
schools
(which
are
likely
to
underperform),
while
the
most
advantaged
students
cluster
in
a
different
set
of
higher-‐performing
schools
(Smith
&
Meier
1995).
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
several
empirical
studies
of
charter
schools
and
voucher
programs
have
found
little
evidence
to
suggest
that
skimming
has
occurred.
Jay
Green
(2005)
calls
this
the,
“Draining
Myth”
and
points
to
studies
that
conclude
that
increased
choice
and
competition
lead
to
better
public
schools.
It
is
important
to
note
most
state
statutes,
including
those
in
California,
prohibit
selective
enrollment
in
interdistrict
programs.
What
Attracts
Students
to
DOC
Programs?
It
is
important
for
district
superintendents
to
know
what
attributes
draw
students
to
DOC
districts.
The
factors
that
influence
a
family’s
decision
to
send
their
child
further
from
home
to
another
school
district
are
many
and
varied.
It
is
assumed
that
participation
rates
for
interdistrict
programs
will
flow
directly
in
proportion
to
parents’
dissatisfaction
with
their
children’s
assigned
public
school.
It
might
be
further
assumed
that
rates
of
participation
in
interdistrict
programs
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
27
would
be
greatest
in
the
lowest
performing
districts.
Evidence
to
validate
these
assumptions
have
been
mixed.
The
evidence
to
support
the
conclusion
that
there
is
strong
participation
in
interdistict
programs
among
resident
families
in
academically
struggling
districts
is
not
strong
(Ni
&
Arsen,
2011).
In
fact,
there
are
studies
that
show
that
the
flows
are
highest
between
high-‐performing
districts
to
higher-‐performing
districts
(Armor
&
Peirer,
1998).
Critics
of
how
DOC
policies
actually
work
claim
that
mostly
middle
and
upper
income
families
have
taken
advantage
of
the
program.
The
DOC
program
has
been
described
as
one
that
operates
as
a
public
school
voucher
program
predominantly
for
the
middle
class
(Carlson,
Lavery
&
Witte,
2011).
Middle
class
families
may
not
be
able
to
afford
to
reside
within
the
boundaries
of
higher
performing
districts,
but
DOC
allows
them
to
take
advantage
of
the
most
desirable
educational
opportunities
of
nearby
school
districts.
There
have
been
few
studies
specific
to
interdistrict
choice
programs
regarding
which
types
of
students
participate.
However,
there
are
two
noteworthy
studies
done
about
10
years
apart.
Often-‐cited
studies
by
Armor
&
Peiser
(1998),
and
Holms
&
Richards
(2009)
looked
at
the
school
districts
in
Massachusetts
and
the
Denver
metropolitan
area
respectively.
Both
studies
revealed
that
relatively
higher
income
students
were
more
likely
to
take
advantage
of
interdistrict
choice,
and
that
choice
was
more
often
used
by
students
to
exit
from
a
less
advantaged
district
(as
measured
by
socioeconomic
factors)
to
a
relatively
more
advantaged
one
(Armor
&
Peiser
1998;
Holme
&
Richards,
2009).
Participants
were
more
likely
to
be
White
than
the
students
in
the
district
they
left
raising
concerns
about
how
this
affects
the
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
28
racial
diversity
of
the
departing
districts.
Related
findings
show
a
correlation
between
the
educational
attainment
of
parents
and
the
participation
rates
of
their
children
(Betts
&
Loveless,
2005).
Factors
that
Drive
Participation
Rates
Superintendents
will
need
to
know
how
the
types
of
students
who
are
likely
to
participate
in
DOC
programs
will
impact
their
districts.
Will
the
addition
of
these
students
be
an
advantage
or
a
burden?
What
are
the
reasons
parents
opt
to
transfer
their
children?
Can
this
knowledge
be
used
to
market
the
district
to
future
DOC
families?
Additionally,
what
are
the
barriers
preventing
more
families
from
participating?
Answers
to
these
key
questions
will
drive
school
district
policies
and
actions.
Supporters
of
interdistrict
plans
tout
the
programs
potential
to
have
a
big
impact
upon
public
education,
however
detractors
note
that
the
program
has
attracted
only
a
small
percentage
of
public
education
students.
Additionally,
little
research
has
been
done
regarding
the
attrition
rates
of
students
in
interdistrict
programs.
Capacity
Limits
Although
interdistrict
choice
programs
are
growing
slowly
nationwide,
there
are
some
structural
limitations
that
intentionally
depress
participation
rates
(Tang,
2011;
Heise
&
Ryan,
2002).
Usually
school
districts
have
some
controls
over
the
numbers
of
students
that
they
admit
and
almost
always,
first
priority
is
given
to
residents
(i.e.
intradistrict
transfers).
Whatever
space
is
unused
is
then
available
for
interdistrict
students.
States
require
little
accounting
from
school
districts
that
are
generally
allowed
to
selfreport
available
space.
Data
regarding
district
capacity
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
29
rates
are
scarce
and
no
studies
are
available
measuring
whether
low
participation
rates
are
due
to
limited
capacity
or
disinterest.
In
California,
as
in
most
states,
capacity
limits
and
adverse
financial
impacts
are
the
most
commonly
legally
sanctioned
restrictions
used
to
deny
the
applications
of
DOC
students.
The
program
however,
is
of
particular
advantage
to
districts
with
declining
enrollment
and
excess
capacity.
Critics
of
interdistrict
programs
like
to
cite
capacity
restrictions
to
show
how
school
district
subvert
the
intent
of
the
program
to
insulate
themselves
against
nonresident
students
(Heise
&
Ryan,
2002;
Tang,
2011).
Frustration
at
the
slow
pace
of
implementation
and
the
restrictions
placed
upon
free
access
to
alternate
schools
lead
some
scholars
to
advocate
for
more
radical
solutions
such
as
doing
away
with
district
boundaries
altogether.
As
Merrifield
(2001)
explains,
“It
will
take
20-‐30
years
to
realize
that
helping
a
few
economically
disadvantaged
children
will
not
produce
widespread
academic
improvements
”
(p.
184).
Furthermore
he
argues,
in
time
the
public
will
realize
that
limited
parental
choice
was
an
ineffective
reform
catalyst
because
of
parental
limitations
and
restrictions
on
the
free
access
to
schools
of
their
own
choosing.
With
the
power
to
limit
access,
and
given
that
parents
have
limited
rights
to
contest
school
district
decisions,
Aaron
Tang
(2011)
writes,
“…
a
happenstance
program
of
public
school
choice
that
relies
on
the
good
will
of
self-‐interested
local
school
districts
is
hardly
a
reasoned
approach
to
ensuring
access
to
quality
education
for
millions
of
disadvantaged
students”
(p.
1120).
Yet
in
California
at
least,
school
districts
voluntarily
agree
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
The
goal
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
30
of
these
participating
districts
and
the
superintendents
who
run
them
has
to
be
to
add
students.
Local
Opposition
Increasing
interdistrict
participation
rates
has
been
the
goal
of
supporters,
but
they
must
overcome
some
opposition.
Opposing
these
efforts
at
reforming
schools
and
improving
the
education
of
students
from
high
poverty,
low-‐achieving
schools
and
increasing
access
to
choice
programs,
especially
interdistrict
programs,
has
been
suburban
parents.
According
to
Heise
&
Ryan,
(2002),
it
is
the
suburban
parents
who
closely
guard
access
to
high-‐achieving
schools
and
the
funds
raised
locally
for
their
support,
shield
their
children
from
having
to
attend
schools
with
students
outside
the
neighborhood
and
block
any
effort
that
would
endanger
suburban
school
autonomy.
The
ability
to
protect
their
perceived
interests
rests
in
the
financial
clout
they
can
bring
to
bear
and
the
majority
political
power
they
wield
in
state
legislatures
within
both
the
Republican
and
Democratic
Parties.
These
arguments
are
based
upon
the
logic
of
self-‐interest
and
on
the
example
of
how
some
suburban
parents
have
historically
reacted,
such
as
during
when
school
busing
was
used
as
a
tool
to
integrate
schools.
To
broadly
conclude
that
suburban
parents
are
chiefly
the
source
of
interdistrict
barriers
would
require
specific
targeted
research
to
validate
this
theory.
Informed
Choice
Making
An
additional
factor
depressing
participation
from
low-‐income
families
is
that
they
are
less
likely
to
be
informed
about
choice
options.
Low-‐income
parents
do
not
have
as
much
access
to
information
sources,
volume
of
literature
and
informal
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
31
networks
that
would
guide
and
inform
them
about
alternative
educational
programs
for
their
children.
Several
researchers
make
the
argument
that
unless
knowledge
about
school
quality
is
widely
distributed,
only
some
parents
will
be
in
position
to
select
the
best
school
option
for
their
children
(Van
Dunk
&
Dickman,
2001;
Lubienski,
2008).
Factors
Influencing
School
Selection
Parents
select
alternate
schools
and
school
districts
for
a
wide
variety
of
reasons.
A
study
of
transfer
rates
in
Colorado
and
Minnesota
reveal
that
higher
average
test
scores,
enrollment
space
and
proximity
are
the
main
driving
force
for
these
moves
(Carlson,
Lavery
&
Witte,
2011).
Of
these
three,
some
researchers
have
shown
that
standardized
student
test
scores
or
academic
quality
is
an
important
factor
and
a
strong
predictor
of
demand
(Reback,
2008,
Carlson,
Lavery
&
Witte,
2011).
Making
a
school
change
to
attain
higher
academic
quality
for
their
children
is
the
stated
reason
for
interdistrict
programs
and
has
been
studied
extensively.
However,
academic
quality
is
not
always
the
primary
reason
for
the
move.
The
research
shows
mixed
results
regarding
whether
parents
actually
move
their
children
for
academic
reasons
(Ni
and
Arsen,
2011;
Tang,
2011).
Parents
have
said
that
they
choose
schools
based
upon
academic
standards,
but
their
behavior
many
times
belies
this
assertion
(Betts
&
Loveless,
2005;
Teste
&
Schneider,
2001).
A
better
predictor
of
school
choice
is
the
racial
and
economic
status
of
the
student
body
(Holm
&
Richards,
2009;
Ni
&
Arsen,
2011).
Rather
than
chasing
high
academic
standards,
some
studies
show
families
use
interdistrict
programs
to
escape
from
high
concentrations
of
low-‐income
students
(Ni
&
Arsen,
2011;
Teske
&
Schneider,
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
32
2001).
An
additional
factor
for
superintendents
and
school
boards
to
consider
is
that
perhaps
not
enough
educational
options
have
been
created
in
DOC
districts
to
motivate
students
to
want
to
cross
district
lines
to
participate.
The
Transportation
Dilemma
Studies
have
been
conducted
that
show
that
many
factors
dictate
which
students
are
in
a
position
to
take
advantage
of
attending
an
out-‐of-‐district
school.
One
other
important
factor
affecting
interdistrict
participation
decisions
is
distance
from
home
to
school.
Distance
represents
a
substantial
constraint
on
families’
DOC
decisions
and
is
thus
a
significant
predictor
of
interdistrict
flows.
A
study
of
Chicago
Public
Schools
showed
that
the
more
educational
options
available
to
students,
the
more
they
availed
themselves
to
them
(Cullen,
Jacob,
&
Levitt,
2005).
Those
families
who
choose
a
longer
travel
time
rather
than
attend
their
residential
school
incur
both
increased
travel
cost
and
time.
These
costs
must
be
compensated
by
an
academic
benefit.
In
California’s
DOC
program,
receiving
schools
do
not
have
to
provide
transportation
across
school
district
lines.
One
study,
using
Geographic
Information
Systems
mapping
technology,
concluded
that
even
under
the
best-‐designed
interdistrict-‐choice
programs,
80
to
90
percent
of
students
in
low-‐performing
schools
would
not
participate
in
the
program
due
to
driving
times
over
20
minutes
long
and
limited
capacity
of
about
10
percent
in
higher
performing
schools.
Using
these
criteria,
the
possible
participation
rate
for
California
is
12
percent
(Robelen,
2008).
While
it
is
difficult
to
determine
the
capacity
at
higher
performing
schools,
there
is
no
denying
the
fact
that
the
ability
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program
often
requires
that
families
have
the
time
and
ability
to
provide
transportation.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
33
One
of
the
less
studied
issues
of
interdistrict
programs
are
those
relating
to
integrating
outsiders
into
their
new
schools.
These
students
may
need
social
and
emotional
supports
to
help
them
transition
to
a
school
that
could
be
quite
different
from
their
old
residential
school.
Topics
about
maintaining
a
healthy
racial
identity,
racial
discrimination,
and
the
effects
of
long
trips
on
student
academic
progress
rarely
show
up
in
Choice
literature.
Additionally,
students
that
are
schooled
far
from
home
have
fewer
opportunities
to
socialize
with
peers
and
to
participate
in
after
school
activities.
Financial
Impacts
Public
school
districts
can
afford
to
accept
interdistrict
students
only
if
their
admission
does
not
financially
harm
the
district
budget.
For
school
districts
that
have
had
various
Choice
programs
for
over
a
decade
and
a
high
percentage
of
participation,
such
as
in
Detroit,
there
appears
to
be
several
negative
ramifications
to
the
districts
with
departing
students.
Severe
financial
stress
has
been
experienced
by
urban
school
districts
because
of
the
loss
of
students
to
suburban
districts
through
interdistrict
choice
(Ni
&
Arsen,
2011).
The
loss
of
students
and
the
funds
that
travel
with
them
causes
district
revenues
to
decline
faster
than
costs.
The
transfers
force
districts
to
cut
programs,
close
schools,
and
relocate
personnel
all
of
which
result
in
additional
students
leaving
and
a
situation
that
is
difficult
to
stem.
These
results
were
found
in
a
study
conducted
in
the
early
2000’s
of
the
implementation
of
school
Choice
programs
in
Michigan
with
the
most
severe
negative
results
occurring
in
Detroit
(Ni
&
Arsen,
2011).
For
the
schools
being
emptied
of
students,
improvement
is
essential.
In
Chicago,
there
have
been
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
34
attempts
at
both
innovations
and
better
responses
to
the
interests
of
consumers
because
as
then
Superintendent
Arne
Duncan
said,
“Every
school
has
to
be
a
school
of
choice,
and
to
do
that
we
have
to
have
dramatically
higher
quality
schools
that
are
good
enough
to
attract
the
middle
class”
(Colvin,
2004,
p.
31).
For
receiving
interdistrict
Choice
districts,
out-‐of-‐district
students
are
either
a
financial
burden
or
a
windfall
depending
upon
how
a
state
funds
the
education
of
these
students.
Many
states
do
not
reimburse
receiving
schools
for
the
full
cost
of
educating
nonresident
students
(Tang,
2011).
A
financial
incentive
to
accept
these
students
does
not
exist.
In
other
states,
such
as
California,
the
funding
follows
the
students
so
a
financial
motive
is
in
place
to
accept
additional
students.
Parents
need
to
realize
however,
that
funding
follows
the
student
not
to
the
receiving
school,
but
to
the
school
district.
There
has
not
been
studies
documenting
how
school
district
administrative
or
school
board
decisions
are
influenced
by
some
of
the
financial
implications
of
the
DOC
program.
It
must
be
noted
that
the
state
funds
do
not
cover
the
financial
support
given
to
school
districts
by
the
local
community.
High-‐spending
districts
may
determine
that
interdistrict
students
cost
too
much
to
accept.
Affluent
school
districts
have
the
advantage
of
raising
funds
locally
to
serve
neighborhood
students
who
are
easier
to
educate
than
outsiders
who
may
come
with
all
the
problems
associated
with
poverty.
An
additional
consideration
however,
is
that
there
is
an
advantage
to
taking
a
certain
amount
of
high
poverty
students
for
the
federal
funding
that
districts
can
claim
when
they
enroll.
School
district
administrators
must
make
a
financial
calculation
to
determine
the
monetary
benefit
that
enrolling
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
35
interdistrict
students
will
provide.
A
positive
answer
to
this
estimate
can
be
used
to
rally
community
support
for
the
program.
California
and
the
District
of
Choice
Program
Given
that
in
California,
school
districts
voluntarily
sign
up
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program,
there
must
have
been
an
administrative
assessment
that
concluded
that
participation
in
the
program
would
benefit
the
district.
Uncovering
these
reasons
would
provide
useful
information
to
considering
participation.
Currently,
as
a
way
to
increase
student
achievement
in
low
performing
schools,
interdistrict
programs
are
being
eclipsed
by
Charter
Schools
especially
when
considering
their
ability
to
provide
access
to
schools
with
high
academic
records.
Increasing
access
will
be
the
most
critical
problem
to
overcome
if
interdistrict
choice
programs
are
going
to
be
an
effective
tool
to
raise
the
academic
abilities
of
more
students.
While
there
are
problems
with
access
to
DOC
programs
and
a
continuing
debate
about
the
effects
on
the
departing
school,
there
is
little
dispute
about
the
merits
that
accrue
to
the
individual
student
with
the
right
school
placement.
Richard
Kahlenberg
(2006),
a
leading
proponent
of
socioeconomic
integration,
calls
interdistrict
choice
programs
the
“single
most
promising
step
for
raising
achievement
of
low-‐income
students
“
(p.
13).
These
programs
allow
interdistrict
students
to
attend
high-‐quality
middle
class
public
schools
with
students
who
want
to
excel
academically
and
whose
families
support
such
goals.
Middle
class
schools
are
22
times
more
likely
to
be
consistently
high-‐performing
than
are
high-‐poverty
schools.
Implicit
in
the
many
positive
statements
of
the
merits
of
school
choice
is
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
36
the
assumption
that
attending
a
high-‐performing
school
will
raise
transferring
students’
achievement
(Dillon,
2008).
There
is
a
limited
amount
of
research
on
the
academic
impact
on
transfer
students
and
the
result
of
that
research
that
does
exist
is
mixed
(Dillon,
2008)
The
research
specific
to
interdistrict
choice
programs
tend
to
conclude
that
they
have
had
little
or
no
effect
on
student
achievement
(Dillon,
2008).
Transferring
students
from
one
district
to
another
alone
has
not
had
a
dramatic
effect
on
their
achievement.
However,
looking
more
closely
at
the
academic
level
of
who
participates
in
these
programs
(using
the
limited
data
available),
reveals
that
transfer
students
as
a
group,
were
already
high
achieving.
Also,
high
attrition
rates
were
an
important
variable
depressing
rates
of
achievement.
Some
argue
that
designing
better
state
and
district
policies
that
target
underperforming
students
in
underperforming
California
school
districts
and
providing
them
with
academic
and
social
supports
would
help
the
DOC
program
reach
it’s
full
potential
(Dillon,
2008).
The
Role
that
Administrators
Play
Although
one
of
the
most
important
and
logical
questions
raised
about
an
educational
initiative
is
its
effect
on
student
achievement,
this
study
is
broadly
focused
on
how
school
districts;
specifically
the
superintendents
who
run
them,
use
the
DOC
program
to
benefit
the
organization.
There
has
been
a
strong
foundation
of
research
examining
central
components
of
interdistrict
choice
and
on-‐going
debates
about
their
value
and
success.
However,
other
areas
central
to
this
study
have
received
considerably
less
attention.
There
has
been
a
near
absence
of
research
that
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
37
attempts
to
understand
how
school
administrators
perceive
and
react
to
interdistrict
choice
programs
(Rabovsky,
2011).
One
study
specifically
examined
superintendent’s
views
regarding
a
newly
passed
interdistrict
initiative
in
Washington
State.
A
surrey
was
conducted
using
a
representative
school
district
size
and
geographical
location
sample
of
about
one
third
of
the
state’s
school
districts
with
a
62
percent
response
rate.
Currey,
McPherson
and
Shorr
(1991);
found
that
superintendents
named
enrollment
loss
or
gain,
financial
impacts,
planning
tasks,
public
misperceptions
as
the
program
being
a
“cure-‐all”
and
student
equity
issues
as
disadvantages.
Advantages
included
positive
parental
attitudes,
school
improvement
and
increased
student
opportunities.
The
major
conclusion
of
this
study
is
that
superintendents,
particularly
those
from
small
school
districts
with
less
than
5,000
students,
do
not
support
interdistrict
transfer
programs.
It
was
surmised
that
small
district
superintendents
feared
that
they
would
lose
enrollment
and
thus
the
program
would
have
a
negative
financial
impact
on
their
district
budgets.
This
study,
while
not
current,
is
one
of
the
few
of
its
kind
and
does
illustrate
the
reasoning
of
superintendents
about
interdistrict
programs.
As
an
education
reform,
its
implementation
does
entail
significant
school
district
policy
changes.
Administrators
will
be
intimately
involved
and
simultaneously
impacted
by
this
process.
Their
views
regarding
the
merits
of
such
reforms
as
interdistrict
Choice,
and
the
rationale
for
these
views,
are
likely
to
have
critical
impact
on
their
chances
of
success
(Currey,
McPherson
&
Shorr,
1991).
In
a
study
that
used
interviews
to
understand
administrator’s
views
on
Choice
programs
in
Tulsa,
Oklahoma
in
2005,
suggests
that
if
administrators
are
denied
the
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
38
ability
to
accept
or
reject
nonresident
students
on
a
case-‐by-‐case
basis,
as
is
the
rule
in
California,
they
view
choice
as
a
nonfactor
in
their
management
style
(Rabovsky,
2011).
Other
evidence
suggests
that
if
administrators
believe
interdistrict
school
choices
are
being
made
based
upon
factors
beyond
their
control,
they
are
not
responsive
to
competitive
forces
(Ni
&
Arsen,
2011).
These
individual
studies
will
need
more
corresponding
research
to
add
weight
to
our
understanding
of
administrative
actions
and
views.
The
way
parents
and
communities
view
the
DOC
program
should
also
be
taken
into
consideration
in
implementing
this
program.
Regardless
of
whether
skimming
occurs
or
if
outsiders
are
lowering
standards
or
increase
segregation
is
occurring,
district
administrators
must
cope
with
the
beliefs
held
by
their
constituents
or
initiate
plans
to
change
the
views
of
the
community.
Informing
administrative
decisions
about
DOC
policies
and
actions
must
be
an
understanding
of
the
reasons
why
parents
choose
to
participate
and
how
attracting
these
students
will
affect
surrounding
school
districts.
Superintendents
that
feel
increased
competition
for
students
from
surrounding
districts
report
a
loss
of
collegiality
among
their
peers
and
a
compulsion
to
spend
more
time
and
funds
on
public
relations
and
marketing
their
schools
(Powers
&
Cookson,
1999).
In
addition
to
the
practical
decisions
school
administrators
make
about
their
DOC
programs,
there
are
numerous
political
ones
to
contend
with.
Adding
students
from
outside
the
district
has
the
potential
to
change
the
demographics
and
academic
standing
of
the
individual
schools.
Resident
parents
may
feel
threatened
by
the
changes
that
may
occur
and
local
taxpayers
may
object
to
letting
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
39
non-‐contributing
non-‐residents
share
in
the
school
district’s
“bounty”.
To
the
extent
that
Choice
may
threaten
the
exclusivity
and
superiority
of
high-‐performing
schools,
it
may
also
threaten
housing
values,
especially
suburban
ones
that
are
linked
to
the
quality
of
neighborhood
schools
(Heise
&
Ryan,
2002).
Being
inclusive
towards
interdistrict
transfers
and
protective
of
advantages
that
the
district
offers
requires
the
administrator
to
maintain
an
uneasy
balance.
Critical
to
gaining
the
support
of
the
district
stakeholders
to
the
DOC
program
is
to
provide
initial
buy-‐in
regarding
the
district’s
objective
in
participating
(Finnigan
&
Stewart,
2009).
Conclusion
There
is
still
a
lot
of
optimism
about
the
future
of
the
DOC
program
in
California.
The
program
can
be
an
important
Choice
option
for
many
parents.
However,
in
the
opinion
of
researcher
Richard
Colvin,
(2004),
after
more
than
three
decades
of
experience,
it’s
apparent
that
Choice
programs
alone
are
not
powerful
enough
remedy
for
the
problems
confronting
American
education.
The
DOC
program
may
not
be
the
revolutionary
educational
change
that
many
had
hoped,
but
it
is
one
important
piece
in
the
Choice
options
available
to
families.
Many
families,
especially
poor
families,
lack
the
knowledge
and
experience
about
school
quality
and
how
to
navigate
the
process
of
transferring
to
a
new
school
district,
but
the
potential
for
them
to
quickly
obtain
this
knowledge
remains
available.
Examples
of
the
way
successful
schools
and
school
districts
who
attract
many
transfer
students
will
help
to
guide
superintendents
to
better
maximize
the
benefits
available
to
them
and
avoid
miscalculations.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
40
Administrators
in
DOC
school
districts
must
be
aware
of
the
debates
surrounding
interdistrict
programs.
Parent’s
views
of
how
education
should
be
organized
and
the
values
they
place
on
their
freedom
to
choose
the
best
school
for
their
children
will
often
guide
their
actions.
Their
perceptions
of
comfort
in
the
racial
composition,
socioeconomic
status
and
academic
rigor
of
a
school
or
school
district
plays
an
important
role
in
who
they
invest
their
child’s
education
with.
Creating
a
school
district
that
provides
the
level
of
comfort
parents
want
should
be
a
goal
of
school
personnel
in
DOC
school
districts.
In
California,
DOC
programs
are
relatively
new
compared
to
other
states
and
just
recently
the
program
was
uncapped
to
allow
other
interested
school
districts
to
be
included.
There
is
a
large
potential
for
increased
participation,
but
as
has
been
seen,
there
are
a
number
of
obstacles
to
overcome.
As
of
yet,
the
promise
of
the
program
is
unrealized
because
too
few
students
are
taking
advantage
of
these
opportunities.
Several
researchers
have
provided
detailed
possible
solutions
to
low
participation
rates
in
interdistrict
programs.
These
changes
include
providing
district
and
other
funded
transportation
to
nonresidents
(Colvin,
2004;
Dillon,
2008),
providing
more
outreach
and
information
to
prospective
parents
(Van
Dunk
&
Dickman,
2002;
Colvin,
2004;
Teske
&
Schneider,
2001;
Dillon,
2008),
providing
monetary
incentives
to
school
districts
that
take
interdistrict
students
(Tang,
2011;
Finnigan
&
Stewart,
2009;
Dillon,
2008),
limiting
the
ability
of
school
districts
to
use
capacity
restrictions
to
deny
applicants
(Tang,
2011)
and
providing
academic
and
social
support
(Dillon,
2008).
Many
of
these
ideas
are
not
new
and
many
require
funding
that
may
be
difficult
to
secure.
School
district
superintendents
will
need
to
consider
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
41
these
ideas
along
with
others
and
incorporate
them
into
the
individual
and
unique
school
districts
that
they
operate.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
42
CHAPTER
3
Research
Methodology
Introduction
Interdistrict
Open
Enrollment
programs
are
designed
to
give
parents
an
additional
educational
option
and
provide
an
escape
for
those
families
trapped
in
low
performing
schools.
California
calls
this
interdistrict
transfer
program,
District
of
Choice
(DOC)
and
it
is
one
of
many
alternative
educational
options
available
to
parents.
All
of
these
options
have
been
expanded
tremendously
over
the
last
20
years.
Together
they
are
fashioned
to
reform,
transform
and
improve
educational
outcomes
in
America.
Although
DOC
programs
have
long
been
lauded
for
their
potential
to
improve
the
achievement
of
large
numbers
of
California
students,
the
program
has
so
far
been
a
disappointment
in
its
limited
reach
and
the
small
numbers
of
school
districts
participating.
The
potential
advantages
accrued
to
interdistrict
students
and
students
who
participate
in
other
Choice
programs
have
been
the
source
of
many
investigations,
however
studies
that
specifically
target
school
districts
are
scarce.
The
actions
and
motivations
of
the
school
districts
that
participate
in
interdistrict
programs
need
to
be
explored
to
garner
information
that
could
lead
to
increased
student’s
participation
and
possibly
achievement.
The
advantages
and
disadvantages
accumulated
by
participating
districts
are
not
well
known,
nor
have
they
been
publicized.
The
superintendents
who
administer
these
DOC
programs,
that
their
school
districts
have
voluntarily
adopted,
have
a
unique
and
specific
perspective
to
share.
Anyone
concerned
about
the
future
of
school
Choice
policy
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
43
should
be
interested
in
the
opinions,
actions
and
attitudes
of
those
who
implement
the
policies,
because
these
individuals
are
likely
to
influence
the
future
(Armor
&
Peiser,
1997).
This
study
used
various
means
to
uncover
how
participating
school
districts
have
used
the
DOC
program.
For
California
school
districts,
it
was
expected
from
a
review
of
the
literature
that,
capacity,
enrollment
numbers,
performance
data,
and
ADA
funds
typically
are
factors
used
to
determine
which
strategies
are
needed
to
run
the
DOC
program.
These
areas
were
targeted
in
this
study.
Positive
results
were
determined
by
the
benefits
that
accrued
to
the
school
district.
Benefits
can
be
defined
by
many
school
districts
as
an
increase
in
student
enrollment,
or
at
least
maintenance
of
current
ADA
and
an
increase
in
funding
as
a
result
of
additional
students
enrolled
in
the
receiving
school
district.
The
purpose
of
this
study
is
to
identify
the
strategies
superintendents
use
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
well
for
their
districts.
It
can
be
surmised
that
participating
California
school
districts
have
made
strategic
use
of
this
voluntary
initiative
to
strengthen
their
districts.
Detecting
and
collecting
these
strategies
is
the
task
that
was
undertaken
in
this
study.
The
following
research
questions
were
formulated
to
provide
the
needed
data.
1.
What
kinds
of
districts
participate
in
DOC
and
why?
2.
What
do
superintendents
see
as
the
chief
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
3.
What
has
been
the
most
important
perceived
impact
of
the
DOC
program
on
the
district?
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
44
Research
Design
To
provide
the
most
complete
analysis
of
how
superintendents
successfully
run
DOC
programs
in
their
school
districts,
a
combination
of
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
methods
were
employed.
The
complexity
of
the
research
questions
calls
for
answers
that
go
beyond
numbers
and
words
alone.
The
audience
for
this
research
will
include
policy
makers,
practitioners
and
others
in
the
education
field.
They
will
need
multiple
forms
of
evidence
to
document
and
inform
them.
According
to
Cresswell
(2009),
the
use
of
quantitative
and
qualitative
approaches
in
combination
provides
a
better
understanding
of
research
than
either
approach
alone.
Mixing
these
methods
helps
to
compensate
for
the
possible
research
weaknesses,
such
as
biases,
difficulty
in
generalizing,
and
understanding
contexts
or
setting
in
which
people
talk.
Each
single
research
method
can
contain
these
drawbacks,
but
a
mixed
method
provides
strengths
that
offset
the
weaknesses.
This
mixed
method
focuses
on
collecting,
analyzing
and
reporting
data
to
provide
a
more
comprehensive
picture
of
various
aspects
of
the
study.
Mixed
Methods
Methodology
The
mixed
methods
approach
for
this
study
was
the
connect
strategy
(Cresswell,
2009).
Data
was
collected
at
two
points
or
time
periods.
Data
from
a
survey
was
collected
first
and
then
interview
data
was
collected
shortly
after.
The
data
from
the
survey
led
to
decisions
regarding
data
collection
from
interviews.
The
survey
and
interview
data
are
connected
to
target
answers
to
the
research
questions.
The
qualitative
research
was
used
as
a
means
of
exploring
and
understanding
the
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
45
themes
and
relationships
attributed
to
individuals
or
groups.
Quantitative
research
was
used
as
a
means
for
examining
relationships
among
variables
which
can
be
analyzed
using
statistical
procedures.
Quantitative
Methods
The
quantitative
data
collected
are
the
results
gathered
from
a
single
survey
using
Likert
scales
given
to
DOC
superintendents.
The
data
was
intended
to
ascertain
the
extent
to
which
the
DOC
program
is
used
in
the
district
and
the
way
in
which
it
is
implemented.
All
three
research
questions
are
employed
to
garner
school
district
information
that
yielded
data
that
revealed
the
size
of
the
school
district,
the
purpose
interdistrict
transfer
students
served
and
lead
to
categorization
of
DOC
efforts
among
school
districts.
The
information
from
the
survey
was
gathered
and
then
analyzed
using
statistical
procedures.
This
process
provided
the
investigator
with
an
initial
understanding
of
how
DOC
programs
actually
worked
across
California.
Qualitative
Methods
Using
the
results
from
the
quantitative
survey,
qualitative
interviews
were
conducted.
The
qualitative
research
used
Basic
design
features
to
search
for
knowledge.
This
study
was
naturalistic
in
that
superintendent
interviews
were
conducted
face
to
face
in
their
own
office
in
their
own
comfort
zone.
These
interviews
were
conducted
to
find
out
things
that
cannot
be
directly
observed
and
were
based
upon
the
assumption
that
the
perceptions
of
others
are
meaningful,
knowledgeable
and
able
to
be
made
explicit
(Patton,
2002).
The
interview
approach
that
was
used
was
the
standardized
open-‐ended
semi-‐structured
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
46
interview.
It
was
used
to
provide
consistency
across
interviews
and
at
the
same
time
provide
some
flexibility
in
asking
follow-‐up
questions.
Interview
questions
were
designed
to
discover
strategies
used
by
the
superintendent
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
well
for
his/her
particular
school
district
and
to
allow
the
researcher
to
understand
how
the
DOC
program
fit
into
the
district’s
educational
mission.
The
questions
were
open-‐ended
and
allowed
the
superintendents
to
share
freely
what
was
on
their
minds
without
the
limitations
of
choosing
provided
answers
on
a
questionnaire.
The
data
from
these
interview
sources
were
analyzed
to
discover
patterns
within
their
answers.
Additionally,
these
interview
answers
were
analyzed
to
find
correlations
to
the
survey
answers.
Population
and
Sampling
The
population
for
the
survey
portion
of
this
study
was
the
California
superintendents
of
school
districts
that
have
been
identified
as
participating
in
the
District
of
Choice
Program.
The
superintendent
is
the
unit
of
analysis.
Although
the
program
has
recently
been
uncapped
in
the
reauthorization
of
the
California
law
that
established
the
program,
the
number
of
school
districts
is
still
relatively
small
compared
to
the
total
number
of
existing
school
districts
in
the
state.
Of
the
nearly
1050
school
districts
in
California,
31
could
be
identified
as
DOC
districts
and
a
portion
of
these
are
rural,
single
school-‐school
districts.
The
school
districts
were
identified
by
the
researcher
using
the
internet,
school
district
web
sites,
contacts
from
school
administrators
and
telephone
calls
to
school
district
offices.
All
the
school
districts
that
could
be
identified
as
participating
DOC
districts
were
contacted
in
this
study
except
for
the
school
district
employed
by
the
chief
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
47
researcher.
They
range
from
small
single
school
elementary
school
districts
to
large
urban
K-‐12
districts.
A
fuller
analysis
of
the
types
of
school
districts
that
are
DOC
districts
are
presented
in
chapter
4.
Two
school
district
superintendents
that
are
included
in
the
interview
data
do
not
participate
in
the
DOC
program,
but
are
included
in
this
study
to
get
a
more
complete
picture
of
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
as
well
as
to
provide
informed
answers
to
the
research
questions.
These
two
are
not
included
in
the
data
regarding
the
characteristics
of
DOC
participant
school
districts
or
any
statistical
data
regarding
the
research
questions
and
survey
responses
presented
throughout
this
study.
It
was
important
that
the
data
from
the
survey
purely
reflect
the
views
of
participating
DOC
superintendents,
however
interview
responses
from
non-‐
participating
DOC
superintendents
helped
provide
a
contrasting
element
from
which
to
interpret
the
data.
The
sampling
used
for
the
interviews
consists
of
six
superintendents
selected
from
the
population
of
those
who
participated
in
the
survey
and
agreed
to
be
interviewed.
These
participants
were
volunteers.
This
small
sample
size
was
a
purposeful
sampling
designed
to
yield
insights
and
in-‐depth
understanding
rather
than
empirical
understanding
(Patton,
2003).
Maximum
variation
or
heterogeneity
sampling
was
done
because
the
population
contained
a
great
variety
of
school
districts
of
different
types,
sizes
and
settings
across
a
large
geographical
area.
This
type
of
sampling
allowed
for
the
encapsulating
of
central
themes
from
a
great
variety
in
the
population
while
also
incorporating
descriptions
of
the
uniqueness
of
each
school
district.
This
strategy
turns
what
would
be
considered
a
weakness
of
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
48
too
much
variation
in
the
population
into
a
strength.
As
Patton
(2003)
logically
explained,
“Any
common
patterns
that
emerge
from
great
variation
are
of
particular
interest
and
value
in
capturing
the
core
experiences
and
central,
shared
dimensions
of
a
setting
or
phenomenon.
(p.235)”
Instrumentation
The
roster
of
both
survey
and
interview
questions
was
field-‐tested
beforehand
for
biases
and
to
ensure
that
instructions
were
clear,
concise
and
easily
understood.
The
field
trials
also
tested
whether
the
instruments
and
questions
could
be
completed
within
the
allotted
time
of
between
15
to
20
minutes
for
the
survey
and
approximately
45
minutes
for
the
interview
questions.
Both
instruments
were
tested
on
a
superintendent,
assistant
superintendent
and
a
former
assistant
superintendent
who
were
not
included
in
the
actual
study.
Modifications
to
the
instruments
and
in
the
interview
questions
were
made
based
upon
the
input
and
experiences
of
those
research
respondent
proxies.
Data
Collection
All
the
school
district
superintendents
in
this
study
received
a
letter
(see
Appendix
C)
from
the
chief
investigator
outlining
the
purpose
of
this
study
and
the
time
commitment
involved.
The
letter
asked
them
to
volunteer
to
take
a
survey
and
stated
that
all
participants
would
remain
anonymous.
The
survey
came
to
the
participants
in
an
email
and
later
by
mail
from
the
chief
investigator.
Within
the
survey
was
a
question
asking
survey
participants
whether
they
were
willing
to
be
interviewed
for
this
study.
The
chief
investigator
telephoned
those
selected
to
be
interviewed
to
set
up
a
time
and
date
for
these
interviews.
All
interviews
were
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
49
recorded
and
transcribed.
As
an
incentive
for
superintendent
interview
participation
they
were
offered
a
summary
of
the
final
study.
All
communication
between
parties
in
both
data
collection
stages
remains
confidential
and
the
identities
of
participants
remains
anonymous.
This
information
was
given
to
all
the
participants.
Data
Analysis
The
quantitative
data
collected
from
the
surveys
that
used
Likert
scales
were
organized
and
submitted
for
analysis.
The
data
were
coded,
scored
and
analyzed
using
a
computer
program
called
Qualtrics.
The
analysis
will
include
a
detailed
description
of
the
rankings
of
the
responses
and
their
distribution
as
calculated
using
the
data
collected.
The
qualitative
data
were
collected
during
one-‐on-‐one
interviews
with
superintendents
using
open-‐end
questions.
The
resulting
data
provided
in-‐depth
information
with
regard
to
successful
practices
that
illuminated
how
the
DOC
program
is
implemented
in
a
wide
variety
of
school
districts
across
California.
The
analysis
of
the
qualitative
data
included
determining
the
extent
to
which
the
findings
of
this
study
are
consistent
with
the
current
literature
reviewed
here
in
chapter
2.
Furthermore,
the
interview
answers
were
analyzed
for
trends
and
patterns
in
common
responses
between
the
survey
and
the
interviews.
Ethical
Considerations
Several
ethical
considerations
were
followed
during
the
design
of
this
study,
as
well
as
at
each
stage
of
the
research.
All
University
of
Southern
California
Institutional
Review
Board
(IRB)
guidelines
and
procedures
were
judiciously
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
50
followed.
Each
participant
voluntarily
agreed
to
participate
in
the
study
and
all
were
informed
of
the
nature
and
purpose
of
the
study.
Confidentiality
and
anonymity
of
all
the
participants
in
the
study
was
strictly
observed.
Summary
This
chapter
outlined
in
detail
the
process
used
to
answer
three
research
questions
that
shed
light
on
how
school
districts
use
the
DOC
program
to
benefit
their
organization.
Mixed
methods
research,
combining
both
quantitative
and
qualitative
methods,
were
employed
so
that
the
collected
data
resulted
in
a
clear
and
complete
understanding
of
how
the
program
is
used
in
California.
The
number
of
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
is
relatively
small
so
almost
all
superintendents
of
those
districts
were
contacted
for
this
study.
A
discussion
of
which
superintendents
were
selected
for
the
sample
was
described.
The
instrumentation
that
included
surveys
and
interview
questions
was
explained
as
directly
tied
to
the
research
questions.
Finally,
the
collection
of
data
and
methods
of
analysis
for
each
of
the
instruments
and
set
of
questions
were
outlined.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
51
CHAPTER
4
Summary
of
Findings
Introduction
This
chapter
contains
the
findings
from
the
data
that
were
collected
from
California
school
district
superintendents
to
determine
what
factors
play
a
role
in
making
the
DOC
program
fit
a
school
district’s
educational
mission.
The
data
from
all
sources
were
compiled
and
analyzed.
The
analyzed
data
are
presented,
explored
and
discussed
in
this
chapter.
The
data
were
collected
in
three
ways.
Quantitative
data
were
collected
through
an
online
survey
containing
questions
about
the
DOC
program
in
the
superintendent’s
district
and
about
the
characteristics
of
school
districts
that
used
the
program.
Two
types
of
questions
were
used.
Likert
scales
were
used
to
rank
possible
responses
and
open-‐ended
questions
were
used
to
gather
specific
information.
The
survey
was
mailed
approximately
a
month
later
to
superintendents
who
did
not
respond
to
the
initial
online
survey
requests.
Additional
surveys
were
successfully
collected
in
this
manner.
Finally,
six
superintendents
who
agreed
in
the
survey
to
be
interviewed,
were
selected
to
provide
qualitative
data
for
this
study.
These
superintendents
have
been
referred
to
as
Superintendents
A-‐F,
and
no
identifiable
information
has
been
reported
in
these
findings.
Specific
information
regarding
the
school
district
demographics
of
the
survey
and
interview
participants
is
provided
in
the
following
sections.
This
chapter
presents
the
response
rates
on
both
the
online
and
mailed
surveys,
the
demographic
information
of
the
school
districts
represented
by
superintendents
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
52
and
the
process
used
to
select
superintendents
for
interviews.
This
information
helps
to
put
the
data
findings
into
perspective,
provides
validation
and
balance
for
the
study
results,
and
the
conclusions
that
were
arrived
at.
The
data
from
all
sources
was
collected
to
answer
the
three
research
questions
designed
for
this
study.
Research
Questions
1.
What
kinds
of
districts
participate
in
DOC
and
why?
2.
What
do
superintendents
see
as
the
chief
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
3.
What
has
been
the
most
important
perceived
impact
of
the
DOC
program
on
the
district?
Response
Rates
The
participants
in
this
study
were
selected
from
almost
all
California
school
districts
that
have
self-‐identified
themselves
as
a
DOC
school
district
or
have
been
identified
as
such
within
the
last
school
year.
The
pool
of
available
survey
respondents
is
small
compared
to
the
total
number
of
California
school
districts.
The
researcher
could
identify
31
DOC
school
districts
that
represent
3%
of
the
school
districts
in
California.
Of
those
31
districts,
23
superintendents
participated
in
the
survey
representing
a
response
rate
of
74%.
The
tables
that
follow
illustrate
the
range,
types
and
numbers
of
school
district
participation
in
the
survey
that
are
DOC
school
districts.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
53
Table
1
District
Student
Populations
of
Survey
Participants
and
Non-‐Participants
District
Size
Number
Percent
of
Number
this
size
Total
Number
of
this
size
Participants
of
Non-‐Participants
DOC
districts
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Less
than
1,000
7
30%
3
10
1,000
to
5,
000
8
35%
3
11
5,000
to
10,000
2
9%
0
2
10,000
to
15,000
2
9%
0
2
15,000
to
20,000
1
4%
0
1
Over
20,000
3
13%
2
5
Totals
23
100%
8
31
School
districts
utilizing
the
DOC
program
represent
a
wide
variety
of
school
districts
as
far
as
their
student
body
sizes.
The
DOC
program
is
used
by
many
small
school
districts.
Table
1
is
broken
down
into
student
population
groupings
of
5,000
to
compare
district
sizes,
however
to
illustrate
the
large
number
of
very
small,
many
times
single
school
school
districts,
a
subgroup
of
districts
less
than
1,000
students
is
listed.
All
school
districts
less
than
5,000
students
represent
65%
or
slightly
less
than
two
thirds
of
the
total
number
of
participants
in
the
survey.
This
number
is
actually
a
little
larger
when
the
eight
DOC
school
districts
that
did
not
respond
to
the
survey
are
added
to
the
totals
of
those
who
did
respond.
Including
all
DOC
school
districts
gives
a
clearer
picture
of
the
types
of
school
districts
who
participate.
Sixty-‐eight
percent
of
all
school
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
are
small
school
districts
with
fewer
than
5,000
students.
This
percentage
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
54
represents
two-‐thirds
of
the
participating
school
districts.
According
to
2012
data
compiled
by
the
California
Department
of
Education,
a
68%
DOC
participation
rate
for
small
school
districts
under
5,000
students
roughly
mirrors
the
percentage
of
school
districts
in
the
state
that
are
that
size
at
72%.
Table
2
Types
of
DOC
School
Districts
Represented
in
the
Survey
Including
those
that
did
not
Participate
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Types
Number
Percentage
Non-‐Participants
Total
All
Represented
Percentage
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
K-‐12
12
52%
4
52%
K-‐8
Single
School
5
22%
3
26%
K-‐8
Multiple
Schools
3
13%
0
10%
High
Schools
Only
0
0%
0
0%
Other
3
13%
1
13%
Totals
23
100%
8
101%
School
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
represent
a
wide
range
of
grade
level
configurations.
Slightly
over
half
the
DOC
districts,
52%
are
K-‐12
school
districts.
The
percentages
do
not
change
much
when
those
DOC
districts
that
did
not
participate
in
the
survey
are
included.
The
Other
category
was
included
on
the
survey
for
school
districts
that
did
not
fit
into
the
other
major
school
district
configurations.
The
four
school
districts
that
make
up
the
Other
category
include
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
55
three
K-‐6
single
school
elementary
school
districts
and
one
school
district
configured
as
separate
K-‐3
and
4-‐8
schools.
Recent
State
Department
of
Education
directives
that
gives
high
school
interdistrict
juniors
and
seniors
the
right
to
continue
to
attend
their
current
high
schools
until
graduation,
may
be
a
factor
in
lessening
the
motivation
for
high
school
districts
to
participate
in
DOC.
Table
3
Demographics
of
Interview
Participants
Name
District
Type
District
Size
California
Years
as
Location
Superintendent
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Superintendent
A
K-‐12
Rural
1,000-‐
Central
11
Superintendent
B
K-‐8
Rural
1,000-‐
Southern
5
Superintendent
C
K-‐12
Urban
25,000+
Southern
24
Superintendent
D
9-‐12
Rural
1,000-‐5,000
Northern
7
Superintendent
E
K-‐12
Suburban
15,000-‐25,000
Southern
14
Superintendent
F
K-‐12
Suburban
15,000-‐25,000
Southern
14
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Using
the
affirmative
response
to
requests
for
interviews
in
the
survey
as
the
selection
pool,
six
interviews
were
conducted
to
provide
qualitative
data
for
this
study.
These
were
selected
from
13
possible
willing
participants.
The
superintendents
that
were
interviewed
were
purposefully
selected
to
provide
representation
of
a
wide
range
of
different
DOC
districts
and
diverse
settings.
Two
of
the
superintendents
selected
represent
school
districts
that
are
not
participating
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
56
in
DOC.
One
of
these
non-‐DOC
superintendents
was
selected
because
of
his/her
involvement
in
successful
efforts
to
change
DOC
provisions
in
the
reauthorization.
The
impacts
of
the
DOC
program
in
his/her
district
provided
key
insights
into
current
and
past
DOC
practices.
The
other
non-‐DOC
superintendent
represents
a
school
district
that,
never-‐the-‐less,
has
a
significant
interdistrict
enrollment
of
20%
and
is
surrounded
by
DOC
school
districts
in
a
county
that
offers
a
wide
variety
of
heavily
used
Choice
options.
All
the
interviewed
superintendents
support,
at
least
in
theory,
parental
choice.
Geographically,
superintendents
were
interviewed
from
Northern,
Central
and
Southern
California.
A
superintendent
from
a
small
rural
single
school
school
district
with
less
than
a
1,000
students
was
interviewed
as
well
as
one
from
a
large
urban
school
district
of
over
25,000.
Many
different
types
or
configurations
of
school
districts
were
represented
including,
K-‐12,
K-‐8,
and
9-‐12.
Of
the
six
interviewed
superintendents,
four
were
male
and
two
were
female.
The
wide
range
of
school
districts
represented
was
intended
to
collect
the
views
of
a
diverse
group
of
experiences
and
perceptions.
The
interviews
captured
how
school
districts
crafted
and
used
the
DOC
program
to
fit
their
unique
communities
and/or
how
the
DOC
program
impacted
a
school
district
even
if
that
school
district
was
not
currently
a
DOC
school
district.
Findings
by
Research
Question
What
Kinds
of
School
Districts
Participate
in
DOC
and
Why?
The
answer
to
this
first
research
question
will
help
to
understand
which
types
of
school
districts
participate
in
DOC
and
why.
It
is
generally
assumed
that
a
school
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
57
district
would
only
participate
in
this
voluntary
program
if
it
reaped
an
advantage
of
some
type.
The
findings
for
this
research
question
will
be
divided
into
separate
sections
on
the
kinds
of
school
districts
that
participate
and
why
they
take
part.
What
Kinds
of
School
Districts
Participate
in
DOC?
The
kinds
of
school
districts
that
participate
were
illustrated
in
the
presiding
tables
1
and
2.
Table
2
indicates
that
the
majority,
52%,
of
school
districts
that
participate
are
K-‐12
school
districts.
Table
1
indicates
that
68%
of
DOC
school
districts
are
small
school
districts
with
populations
under
5,000
students.
Since
slightly
more
than
two-‐thirds
of
those
participating
in
the
DOC
program
are
small
school
districts
under
5,000
students,
this
group
of
participants
in
particular
must
see
an
advantage
in
participating.
However,
the
survey
responses
indicate
no
significant
difference
between
the
answers
supplied
by
small
school
districts
and
other
sized
districts.
Using
2011-‐2012
data
retrieved
from
the
California
Department
of
Education
website,
DOC
school
districts
had
an
average
API
score
of
833.
This
score
is
above
the
state
average
of
788
meaning
that
DOC
school
districts
are
academically
higher
achieving
than
non-‐DOC
school
districts.
Higher
API
test
scores
could
be
used
as
a
way
for
DOC
school
districts
to
attract
interdistrict
students.
Where
a
difference
between
different
sized
school
districts
could
be
detected
was
in
the
percentages
of
school
district
students
who
attend
out
of
district.
Small
school
districts
averaged
27%
of
their
student
population
as
interdistrict.
This
ranged
from
a
high
of
90%
to
a
low
of
5%.
All
the
other
sized
school
districts
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
58
averaged
6%
of
their
student
population
as
interdistrict
and
all
but
one
were
in
the
single
digits.
Why
do
School
Districts
Participate
in
the
DOC
Program?
The
second
half
of
the
first
research
question
asked
why
school
districts
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
Beyond
practical
reasons
for
participating
in
Choice
programs
and
specifically
DOC,
the
survey
responses
indicate
that
there
are
philosophical
reasons
why
school
districts
make
the
DOC
program
a
part
of
their
district’s
educational
mission.
Many
superintendents
have
strong
philosophical
motivations
for
providing
choices
for
families.
Chart
1
Agreement
with
the
Idea
that
Parent
should
be
able
to
choose
their
Children’s
School
regardless
of
where
they
live.
Surveyed
superintendents
believed
strongly
in
the
idea
of
parental
choice
as
indicated
in
Chart
1.
After
combining
the
Strongly
Agree
with
the
Agree
answer
the
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
59
percentage
of
agreement
is
78%.
These
responses
were
under
the
survey
question
of,
“What
factors
played
a
role
in
your
district’s
decision
to
accept
interdistrict
transfer
students?”
Interview
data
also
indicate
a
link
between
the
philosophical
belief
in
parental
choice
and
the
action
to
accept
interdistrict
students.
As
Superintendent
A
explained,
The
most
compelling
factor
for
us
was
that
we
believed
and
that
it
was
a
part
of
our
mission
that
parents
have
the
right
to
choose
what
is
best
for
their
kids.
And
when
our
neighboring
districts
began
to
tell
parents
they
didn’t
have
the
right
then
we
acted
on
that
to
fulfill
our
core
beliefs.
Another
superintendent
described
the
common
practice
of
providing
choices
to
parents
that
had
become
widespread
countywide.
It
is
a
parent-‐driven
expectation.
Superintendent
D
observed,
“I
think
the
choice,
the
belief,
the
attitude,
the
concept
that
students
should
be
allowed
to
attend
their
school
of
choice
is
very
strong
among
parents
in
this
geographical
area
not
just
in
our
district,
but
in
this
county.”
An
alternate
view
by
non-‐DOC
Superintendent
E
observed,
“You
could
say
philosophically
that
they
[interdistrict
students]
were
welcome
because
they
wanted
to
give
parents
a
choice
and
blah,
blah,
blah,
but
in
reality
there
were
empty
seats
and
they
[neighboring
DOC
school
districts]
did
not
want
to
close
schools.”
Interviewees
had
strong
opinions
about
parental
choice.
These
strong
views
may
have
been
a
factor
in
their
willingness
to
be
interviewed
and
thus
may
result
in
opinions
that
are
skewed
outside
the
mainstream.
On
the
other
hand,
these
strong
opinions
are
formed
by
these
veteran
superintendents
based
upon
and
validated
by
their
own
experiences
in
the
field
with
the
DOC
program
and
interdistrict
transfers
in
general.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
60
A
common
thread
among
interviewed
superintendents
was
the
belief
that
not
only
do
parents
have
a
right
to
choices
in
where
they
send
their
children
to
school,
but
that
the
choices
that
already
exist
will
expand
markedly
in
the
future.
Once
parents
know
that
choices
are
possible,
they
will
demand
them.
A
sort
of
consumer
marketplace
of
school
options
will
be
created.
The
current
proliferation
of
educational
options
cannot
be
stopped
or
contained.
Superintendent
F
explained
his
thoughts
on
this:
When
I
got
into
this
[superintendency],
before
all
this
craziness
with
the
budget,
it
was
philosophical.
It
is
a
philosophical
feeling
that
if
a
parent
wanted
to
go
to
school
here
instead
of
there
they
ought
to
be
able
to
do
that,
it’s
part
of
this
country’s
fabric.
The
state
of
California
has
massive
walls
built
to
keep
any
of
that
from
happening….
I
think
central
to
the
whole
issue
is
philosophically,
what
do
you
think
a
parent
ought
to
be
able
to
do
with
their
children
and
I
think
that
in
this
day
and
age
more
than
ever,
if
you
don’t
pay
attention
to
this
issue
its
going
to
come
over
us
in
a
wave.
There
is
going
to
be
a
big
paradigm
shift
and
these
kids
are
going
to
be
taking
classes
and
courses
from
all
over
the
world
and
they
ought
to
be
able
to.
These
views
are
from
superintendents
that
are
supporters
of
the
DOC
program.
There
are
school
districts
that
have
in
the
past,
lost
significant
numbers
of
students
to
neighboring
DOC
school
districts.
Court
ordered
caps
were
put
in
place
before
the
recent
reauthorization
of
the
DOC
program.
These
caps
were
put
in
place
to
regulate
the
number
of
DOC
students
that
an
individual
school
district
can
surrender.
The
caps
acted
as
safeguards
so
that
districts
would
not
be
unduly
harmed
financially
by
the
loss
of
state
ADA
funds.
Enrollment
shifts
larger
than
10%
of
a
school
district’s
attendance
are
no
longer
allowed,
however
the
impacts
of
losing
students
can
still
affect
a
school
district
negatively.
An
alternate
view
by
a
non-‐DOC
school
district
superintendent
that
has
had
to
weather
negative
financial
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
61
and
program
impacts
illustrates
an
opposing
philosophical
and
practical
view
of
giving
parents
interdistrict
choices.
Superintendent
E
explained,
What
is
the
opposite
end
of
parental
choice?
What
is
it
that
becomes
an
impact
on
that
home
district?
So
in
some
environments,
the
home
districts
have
really
struggled
with
stability,
with
performance
issues
and
people
say
all
of
the
districts
are
not
functioning
well
or
it’s
dysfunctional
so
therefore
parents
should
have
maximum
options,
but
then
you
don’t
typically
run
into
a
district
like
ours,
which
is
a
stable
hard-‐working
district,
you
know,
trying
to
do
it’s
best
for
it’s
community.
Several
interviewed
superintendents
had
no
sympathy
with
the
above
view.
They
agreed
with
the
Market-‐Forces
Theory
discussed
in
Chapter
2
championed
by
researchers
Abernathy,
(2005);
Armor
&
Peiser,
(1997);
Merrifield,
(2001).
The
theory
is
that
Choice
programs
can
bring
market
forces
to
bear,
by
creating
a
competition
for
students
and
the
ADA
dollars
that
comes
with
them
and
thus
this
pushes
schools
to
improve
in
order
to
stay
competitive.
Superintendent
F
observed
that,
I
think
if
I
have
a
school
district
that
kids
didn’t
want
to
go
there,
I
ought
to
be
asking
some
hard
questions
about
why
they
don’t.
I
don’t
care
what
the
conditions
are,
whether
it
is
low
social-‐economic
conditions
or
not.
I
understand
those
issues
because
I
ran
a
low
social-‐economic
district.
And
I
think
you
just
have
to
work
harder
than
ever
at
coming
up
with
approaches
and
I
did
that
there.
School
districts
need
to
maintain
their
attractiveness
to
parents
to
retain
their
students.
As
Superintendent
B
explained,
“I
believe
if
you
don’t
have
something
that
is
going
to
help
parents
to
want
to
remain
at
your
school,
parents
should
be
able
to
go
where
they
want.”
Many
interviewed
superintendents
observed
that
the
idea
that
school
districts
need
to
or
should
compete
for
students
is
a
novel
and/or
foreign
idea
to
many
school
districts
and
parents.
Parents
have
been
conditioned
to
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
62
accept
their
assigned
neighborhood
schools.
Superintendent
F
expressed
the
view
that,
Part
of
the
problem
in
California
is
that
they
[parents]
don’t
know
they
have
a
right
to
that
[choice].
If
they
knew
they
had
a
right
to
that,
I
think
we
would
see
a
wildfire.
I
really
do,
but
they
don’t
…
a
lot
of
parents
are
basically
pretty
good
about
complying
about
[the
commonly
held
view
that]
this
is
your
area
of
residency
so
this
is
where
you
have
to
go
to
school.
Many
of
the
concerns
noted
in
chapter
2
by
researchers
Andre-‐Bechely,
(2007)
and
Carlson,
Lavery
&
Witte,
(2011)
regarding
fairness
were
mentioned
in
interviews.
The
fairness
of
a
DOC
system
that
was
intended
to
benefit
students
in
low
performing
schools,
but
instead
is
used
mainly
by
savvy
Middle
Class
parents
to
upgrade
the
educational
options
for
their
children.
This
was
a
concern
of
an
interviewed
superintendent
of
net
departing
students.
Some
of
these
specific
concerns
include
skimming,
sometimes
called,
“cherry
picking”
and
the
overall
access
to
the
program
for
all
students.
Superintendent
E
expressed
some
of
these
fairness
concerns,
What
I
have
found
interesting
is
that
people
will
say
this
is
about
parents
having
the
choice
to
get
the
best
education
possible
for
their
kids.
And
it
sounds
really
great
as
a
sound
bite.
And
people
will
say
we
think
that
the
kids
in
the
most
impacted
schools
need
that
the
most
so
we
support
it
because
it
gives
them
a
chance,
but
when
you
look
at
it,
are
those
the
kids
that
are
going?
I
looked
at
my
most
high
poverty
school,
I
have
one
that
is
almost
100%,
and
those
are
not
the
kids
who
are
in
the
Choice.
They’re
not
the
ones
going.
So
it’s
really
great
and
sounds
wonderful
to
say
that,
but
what’s
the
actual
reality
of
it?
Is
there
a
priority
given
to
those
students
to
ensure
they
are
the
ones
who
are
benefiting
or
do
you
continue
to
have
a
public
system
that
may
not
really
be
serving
as
well
as
it
should,
those
who
are
the
ones
who
need
it
the
most.
All
the
other
interviewed
DOC
Superintendents
were
not
sympathetic
to
the
above
view.
The
survey
showed
that
their
motivations
for
DOC
participation,
for
the
most
part,
did
not
include
causes
such
as
increasing
district
diversity,
turning
around
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
63
struggling
DOC
learners
or
even
raising
standardized
test
scores.
These
factors
were
positively
rated
at
22%,
52%,
and
34%
respectively
(See
Appendixes
D
and
F).
Their
motives
were
more
practical
and
they
viewed
accepting
the
students
from
other
districts
in
a
self-‐serving
way
and
as
a
basic
parental
right.
As
Superintendent
A
frankly
stated
it,
You
got
to
do
what
you
got
to
do.
And
if
you
believe
that
your
product
is
good
and
the
other
communities
either
respond
by
making
their
produce
better
or
they
lose.
And
I’m
okay
with
them
losing.
Our
product
is
the
good
education
that
we
provide
our
kids.
Many
superintendents
mentioned
the
difficult
politics
involved
at
their
County
Board
Of
Education
as
a
big
factor
in
pushing
them
toward
the
DOC
program.
When
neighboring
school
districts
began
to
deny
interdistrict
transfers,
especially
during
times
of
steep
state
education
budget
cuts,
school
districts
increasingly
began
to
protect
their
enrollment
and
in
many
cases
deny
interdistrict
requests
that
they
had
for
years
routinely
approved.
Superintendent
B
explained,
It
had
always
been
kind
of
a
flexible
thing
with
the
districts
that
are
close
to
us.
If
parents
wanted
their
kids
to
go,
they
would
just
let
them
go.
Well
they
decided
not
to
be
so
flexible
because
they
were
losing
enrollment
and
so
I
was
looking
at
a
variety
of
ways
to
keep
our
interdistrict
students.
Even
students
that
had
been
interdistrict
transfer
students
for
years
were
being
forced
to
return
to
home
school
districts.
Superintendent
B
continued,
They
[parents]
were
going
through
the
[appeal]
process,
they
were
going
all
the
way
down
to
the
county
offices
to
have
the
meetings
to
see
whether
they
could
be
approved
and
those
were
being
denied.
And
we
were
having
situations
where
lets
say
a
parent
had
a
sixth
grader
and
an
eight
grader
in
our
school.
They
were
approving
the
eight
grader
because
it
was
their
last
year,
but
they
were
making
the
sixth
grader
now
start
at
a
new
school.
So
they
were
having
families
broken
up.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
64
Parents
could
appeal
interdistrict
denials
by
appealing
to
their
County
Board
Of
Education.
Inconsistency
in
the
rulings
of
these
County
Boards
of
Education
is
often
cited
as
a
frustration
of
both
recipient
districts
and
their
neighboring
donor
school
districts.
Superintendent
F
recounted
that,
The
county
sometimes
approves
them
[appeals
to
be
released
from
home
school
districts]
and
sometimes
they
don’t.
And
if
you
ask
them
well
how
come
this
one
and
not
that
one
I
don’t
think
they
could
tell
you.
It
depends
on
the
day.
It
depends
upon
if
the
whole
board
is
meeting
or
just
a
small
group.
Because
you
have
a
certain
number
of
them
that
are
politically
motivated
to
protect
the
whole
process,
that
is
the
integrity
that
they
think
is
there.
Now
that
is
your
school
district
and
that
is
where
you
go
to
school,
period.
They
are
driven
that
way
because
of
a
political
motivation.
School
districts
that
switch
from
being
a
district
that
accepts
interdistrict
students
that
requires
the
approval
of
the
resident
school
district,
to
one
that
is
a
DOC
circumvents
this
process.
An
out
of
district
student
transferring
to
a
DOC
school
district
does
not
have
to
get
any
approvals
from
their
resident
school
district,
thus
county
Boards
of
Education
are
rarely
involved
in
this
DOC
enrollment
process.
Becoming
a
DOC
school
district
becomes
a
way
to
get
around
the
home
district’s
restrictions
regarding
regular
interdistrict
transfers.
Becoming
a
DOC
was
reported
to
be
the
logical
next
step
for
school
districts
unwilling
to
accept
the
actions
of
uncooperative
neighboring
school
districts
and
the
inconsistency
of
the
County
Office
of
Education
Appeals
Boards.
As
Superintendent
B
explained,
When
the
two
adjoining
big
districts
said
we
are
not
going
to
allow
parents
to
come
[here]
any
more,
it
was
like,
well
some
of
them
have
been
coming
here
for
a
long
time
and
you
have
been
allowing
it
so
really,
by
default
you
gave
them
DOC.
Now
you
are
just
making
me
do
DOC.
Becoming
a
DOC
school
district
provided
a
guarantee
that
students
who
wanted
to
transfer
to
a
district
outside
of
their
resident
district
would
not
be
denied
by
County
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
65
Boards
of
Education
or
resident
school
districts
if
all
the
proper
deadlines
and
requirements
were
met.
Geography
too,
plays
a
role
in
why
school
districts
participate
in
DOC.
There
are
school
districts
that
have
boundaries
that
do
not
make
sense
to
families.
There
may
be
a
school
across
the
street
from
a
family’s
residence,
but
in
a
different
school
district.
The
closest
school
to
a
household
is
not
always
in
the
same
district
as
the
residence.
Why
should
a
family
be
forced
to
attend
a
school
miles
away
if
a
closer
one
is
nearby?
As
Superintendent
A
explained,
Four
miles
from
our
high
school
is
a
large
part
of
another
district.
From
that
intersection
to
get
to
their
high
school
you
have
to
go
over
a
large
mountain
that
is
closed
in
the
wintertime.
18
more
miles.
And
so
the
families
asked
a
question.
Why
should
I
have
to
drive
18
miles
when
I
can
drive
four?
So
it
is
sometimes
just
the
proximity
to
the
schools.
So
that
is
why
we
worked
to
allow
those
families
access.
I
lived
in
that
community
and
I
sent
my
kids
in
the
wintertime
with
a
four
wheel
drive
and
snow
chains
to
make
it
to
school
and
worried
every
day.
So
it
just
makes
sense.
Involvement
in
school
activities
was
limited
because
of
that
distance.
What
do
Superintendents
see
as
the
Chief
Advantages
and
Disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
In
this
second
research
question
both
surveyed
and
interviewed
superintendents
were
asked
what
they
saw
as
the
chief
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program.
Most
of
the
specific
questions
related
to
advantages
and
disadvantages
were
taken
from
the
findings
of
previous
research
noted
in
Chapter
2.
The
findings
for
this
research
question
will
be
divided
into
separate
sections
on
advantages
and
disadvantages.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
66
Advantages
of
Participating
in
the
DOC
Program.
The
advantages
that
superintendents
see
in
the
DOC
program
serve
as
motivation
to
join
or
sustain
the
program.
These
advantages
will
need
to
outweigh
any
disadvantages
for
any
growth
to
occur.
Chart
2
The
Effects
of
Financial
Factors
on
the
DOC
Program
First
left-‐hand
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
The
advantages
of
the
DOC
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
response:
The
ADA
from
Interdistrict
Students
has
a
Positive
Effect
on
District
Finances.
Second
right-‐hand
Column
–
Survey
Question:
What
factors
that
played
a
role
in
your
district’s
decision
to
accept
interdistrict
transfer
students?
Possible
response:
Pressure
to
find
resources
to
fill
budget
gaps.
The
data
shows
that
financial
considerations
are
strong
factors
in
DOC
participation.
On
surveys,
91%
agree
or
strongly
agree
that
the
ADA
from
interdistrict
students
has
a
positive
effect
on
district
finances.
This
is
illustrated
by
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
67
combining
the
data
from
the
first
two
left-‐hand
columns
on
Chart
3.
A
similar
survey
question
is
illustrated
in
the
second
right-‐hand
columns.
This
question
asks
to
what
extent
pressure
to
find
financial
resources
to
fill
budget
gaps
played
in
a
school
district’s
decision
to
accept
interdistrict
transfer
students.
Combining
the
first
two
right-‐hand
columns
produces
a
78%
agreement
rate.
Small
DOC
school
districts
in
particular,
have
a
significant
financial
stake
in
the
program,
if
on
average,
over
a
fourth
of
their
ADA
funds
come
from
interdistrict
students
(See
pages
45-‐46).
Superintendent
D
described
accepting
interdistrict
students
as,
“It
is
all
driven
by
finances.
Maintaining
enrollment
increases
revenue
that
provides
the
ability
to
hire
teacher
and
support
diverse
programs.
It
really
has
everything
to
do
with
finances.”
Enrollment
declines
and
efforts
to
boost
enrollment
as
a
result
of
a
steady
multi-‐
year
decline
in
financial
support
from
the
state
explains
some
of
the
immediate
financial
needs
of
California
school
districts.
Superintendent
E
expounded,
When
you
start
looking
at
it,
it
was
clear
that
it
was
very
much
driven
by
the
economics
of
running
a
school
district.
And
in
the
rural
setting
I
completely
get
it.
If
you
have
500
kids,
you
know
that
10
kids
on
DOC,
that
can
make
or
break
you
financially.
It
is
not
just
rural
school
districts
that
have
a
big
financial
stake
in
DOC,
but
small
districts
as
well.
Each
additional
student
makes
a
bigger
financial
impact
on
a
small
school
district’s
budget,
than
a
school
district
with
a
larger
enrollment.
To
determine
if
interdistrict
enrollment
was
growing
from
the
past
school
year
(2010-‐2011),
to
the
next
(2011-‐2012),
two
survey
questions
asked
superintendents
what
percentage
of
their
student
bodies
were
interdistrict
students.
The
data
shows
the
percentages
between
the
years
remaining
virtually
the
same
(See
Appendix
G).
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
68
Interviewed
superintendents
indicated
that
they
would
be
willing
to
take
more
DOC
students
if
more
were
available.
Chart
3
Strong
School
Board
Support
Survey
Question:
What
factors
that
played
a
role
in
your
district’s
decision
to
accept
interdistrict
transfer
students?
Possible
response:
Strong
initial
school
board
support.
Strong
initial
school
board
support
for
interdistrict
transfers
was
one
of
the
highest
scores
of
the
findings
from
surveyed
superintendents.
Combining
the
two
affirmative
answers
of
Strongly
Agreed
and
Agree
results
in
an
91%
positive
outcome.
Community
support
for
interdistrict
transfers
as
reflected
through
their
school
board
representatives
is
strong.
Related
to
this
is
a
similar
question
about
the
existence
of
community
opposition
to
interdistrict
students.
In
this
question,
only
20%,
(combining
Strongly
Agreed
and
Agree)
of
surveyed
superintendents
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
69
reported
the
existence
of
opposition.
Although
research
by
Heise
and
Ryan
(2002),
noted
in
chapter
2,
noted
community
opposition
as
a
cautionary
factor,
it
did
not
appear
to
play
a
large
role
in
this
study.
It
could
not
be
determined
in
this
study
how
strong,
persistent
or
what
form
any
community
opposition
to
interdistrict
transfers
has
taken.
No
interviewed
DOC
superintendent
noted
any
opposition
to
their
district
DOC
program
from
within
their
school
district.
Most
superintendents
perceived
that
they
enjoyed
strong
School
Board
support
for
their
DOC
or
interdistrict
transfer
program.
Interviewed
superintendents
reported
that
they
carefully
prepared
the
arguments
for
becoming
a
DOC
district
to
the
School
Board.
The
results
seem
to
indicate
strong
leadership
on
this
issue.
Many
superintendents
had
been
content
to
continue
to
accept
interdistrict
students
under
an
older
established
model,
but
convinced
their
School
Board
to
become
a
DOC
district
when
conditions
changed.
As
Superintendent
A
related,
“We
talked
about
it.
My
board
is
very
open
to
new
and
different
ideas.
And
we
looked
at
it
before
about
4
years
ago
but
didn’t
see
the
need
[until
recently]
because
of
the
openness
of
the
districts
around
here.”
When
surrounding
school
districts
cut
off
the
supply
of
new
and
existing
interdistrict
transfer
students,
superintendents
acted.
Superintendent
B
explained,
“We
talked
to
the
board
and
talked
about
the
issues
we
were
having
with
adjoining
districts
and
made
the
determination
that
we
would
be
a
DOC
school
and
school
district.”
Disadvantages
of
Participating
in
the
DOC
Program.
Every
program
has
its
shortcomings.
There
is
no
exception
for
the
DOC
program.
For
programs
to
be
sustainable
they
must
be
continually
altered
and
improved.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
70
Exploring
a
program’s
disadvantages
may
provide
information
about
why
the
DOC
program
is
not
more
widely
implemented.
Chart
4
Tensions
Between
School
Districts
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
a
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
has
been?
Possible
response:
Causes
tensions
between
school
districts
as
we
complete
for
students.
Tension
between
school
districts
was
a
DOC
disadvantage
for
56%
of
surveyed
superintendents,
and
only
13
%
disagreed
that
is
was
a
concern.
While
over
a
quarter
of
surveyed
superintendent,
30%,
neither
agreed
nor
disagreed,
there
was
no
ambiguity
among
interviewed
superintendents.
They
all
agreed
that
tensions
caused
by
interdistrict
transfers
and
the
DOC
in
particular,
existed
between
neighboring
school
districts.
Many
forms
of
the
words,
“stealing
students”
were
repeatedly
used
in
several
interviews
to
describe
how
neighboring
school
districts
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
71
have
responded
to
the
implementation
of
DOC
programs.
A
breakfast
meeting
between
two
superintendents
to
talk
over
DOC
students
resulted
in
Superintendent
B
observing
that,
“…
she
just
sees
it
as
we
are
stealing
their
kids.”
Superintendent
F
has
heard
complaints
that
his
district
has
an
unfair
advantage
attracting
students
because
of
a
perceived
higher
economic
clientele,
however,
“…
they
don’t
have
any
trouble
at
all,
this
is
why
it’s
so
frustrating;
they
don’t
have
any
trouble
at
all
stealing
kids
from
other
districts
themselves.”
Overcoming
barriers
to
interdistrict
transfers
thrown
up
by
neighboring
school
districts
was
not
an
uncommon
problem
among
interviewed
superintendents.
As
Superintendent
A
expounded,
“They
[other
districts]
have
sued
us.
It
has
come
to
major
blows.
But
we
keep
looking
at
ways
to
comply
with
their
lawsuits
but
still
empower
parents
to
decide.”
Despite
the
difficulties,
none
of
the
interviewed
superintendents
indicated
any
inclination
to
change
course.
Instead
of
being
intimidated
by
opposition
from
other
school
districts,
they
spoke
of
finding
better
ways
to
comply
with
DOC
rules
and
deadlines
and
efforts
to
make
their
districts
more
attractive
to
future
DOC
families.
Superintendent
B
shared
her
view
about
continually
improving
education
in
her
district,
I
think
education
is
evolving
right
now
and
I
think
that
you
don’t
stay
ahead
of
that
curve
and
make
changes,
because
parents
are
very
savvy
about
what
they
want
for
their
kids
and
they
should
be.
And
with
all
the
educational
cuts
we
have
now
they’re
going
to
be
shopping
for
districts
that
can
still
give
their
kids
the
education
that
they
need.
So
we
need
to
be
able
to
take
the
little
bit
of
money
we
have
and
do
what
ever
we
can
to
make
the
best
program
for
instruction
for
kids.
For
every
school
district
that
gains
interdistrict
students,
there
are
those
that
lose
them.
The
pressure
and
the
need
to
retain
students,
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
72
can
be
the
cause
of
disagreements
and
tensions
between
competing
school
districts.
Superintendent
D
described
the
situation:
“It
is
a
huge
competitive
issue
in
our
county.
It’s
a
quiet
competition
that
at
times
results
in
hard
feelings”
What
has
been
the
most
important
perceived
impact
of
the
DOC
program
on
the
district?
This
last
research
question
involves
perceived
impacts
of
the
DOC
program
on
school
districts.
The
factors
that
have
been
discussed
earlier
in
this
chapter
that
are
identified
as
advantages
or
disadvantages
certainly
have
an
impact
on
the
DOC
program
in
a
school
district.
The
research
questions
are
similar.
This
research
question
refers
to
the
item
that
had
the
most
perceived
impact
on
a
school
district.
This
item
received
the
highest
rating
from
surveyed
superintendents.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
73
Chart
5
Added
Prestige
and
Reputation.
Survey
Question:
The
advantages
of
the
DOC
program
to
our
district
has
been?
Possible
response:
Interdistrict
parents
see
our
district
in
a
positive
light
and
requests
for
student
admittance
adds
to
our
prestige
and
reputation.
Ninety-‐five
percent
of
superintendents
agree
or
strongly
agree
that,
as
they
perceive
it,
the
DOC
program
has
a
big
impact
on
how
others
view
their
district
(See
Chart
5).
The
increase
prestige
and
reputation
the
school
district
enjoys
for
being
seen
as
a
district
that
families
outside
the
district’s
boundaries
want
to
attend
is
an
important
benefit.
Superintendent
E
noted
that,
“I
guess
you
could
argue
that
[the
DOC
program]
was
really
good
for
a
good
school
district
that
was
offering
a
great
education
and
the
kids
that
could
take
advantage
of
that
got
the
choice
to
do
that….”
Those
school
districts
that
already
had
a
good
reputation
and
high
standardized
test
scores
could
trade
on
that
to
attract
DOC
students.
New
generations
of
parents
who
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
StronglyAgree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
74
are
more
mobile,
engaged
and
involved
are
ready
to
look
at
a
variety
of
educational
options
for
their
kids.
Superintendent
D
described
these
parents
and
how
they
select
schools
for
their
kids.
There
is
a
great
deal
of
shopping,
yes
that
is
really
what
it
is.
Parents
tend
to
transfer
their
students,
they
find
ways,
they
look
for
ways
to
transfer
their
students
from
schools
that
they
either
feel
are
unsafe
or
unsavory
or
you
know
a
lot
of
this
is
perspective
vs.
what
may
be
real,
but
it
is
based
a
great
deal
on
perception.
Surveyed
superintendents
were
not
highly
motivated
to
accept
DOC
students
to
fill
up
classrooms,
although
they
were
motivated
by
the
financial
bonus
of
more
students.
The
possibility
that
DOC
students
could
raise
test
scores
or
that
they
had
a
duty
to
accept
struggling
students
were
not
highly
rated
advantages
or
motivations.
For
all
three,
superintendents
did
not
rate
filling
capacity,
raising
standardized
test
scores
or
the
ability
to
service
struggling
students
as
DOC
big
advantages.
These
factors
were
rated
positively
at
69%,
34%,
and
52%
respectively
(See
Appendix
D).
Summary
Findings
gathered
through
this
study
showed
the
kinds
of
school
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program,
the
perceived
advantages,
disadvantages
and
impacts.
The
data
for
this
study
comes
from
the
information
provided
by
school
district
superintendents.
This
information
was
gathered
using
online
and
mail
surveys
and
interviewing.
Of
the
31
known
DOC
California
school
district
surveyed,
there
was
a
74%
survey
response
rate.
Interviewed
school
district
superintendents
covered
a
wide
range
geographically
within
California.
These
superintendents
represent
small
and
large
school
districts
in
many
grade
level
configurations.
The
large
variety
of
different
school
districts
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
75
represented
was
designed
to
capture
a
wide
diversity
of
superintendent
experiences
and
opinions
about
the
DOC
program
and
interdistrict
transfers.
The
first
research
question
asked
about
the
kinds
of
school
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
and
why.
The
preponderance
of
school
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
are
small
school
districts
of
less
than
5,000
students.
In
these
small
school
districts
the
number
of
interdistrict
students
average
27%
of
their
student
population.
This
makes
these
students
a
significant
source
of
ADA
funds
for
these
districts.
These
small
school
districts
rely
on
the
ADA
funds
that
come
from
accepting
interdistrict
students
to
help
them
with
their
budgets.
Sixty-‐
five
percent
of
participating
DOC
school
districts
have
less
that
5,000
students.
A
majority,
52%,
are
K-‐12
school
districts.
The
second
part
of
the
first
research
question
asked
why
superintendents
and
school
boards
decided
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
The
superintendents
of
school
districts
that
participate
in
the
DOC
program
strongly
believe
philosophically
that
parents
should
have
a
choice
in
the
selection
of
the
school
their
children
attend.
This
view
played
a
big
part
in
the
decision
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
Interviewed
superintendents
often
viewed
the
right
to
choose
the
schools
for
their
children
as
a
consumer
option
along
the
lines
of
the
Market
Forces
Theory.
There
were
many
other
reasons
that
played
a
role
in
decisions
by
superintendents
and
local
school
boards
to
participate
in
DOC.
Chief
among
them
was
the
perceived
unpredictable
nature
of
County
Boards
of
Education,
the
uncooperative
neighboring
school
districts
and
travel
distances.
Many
school
districts
felt
compelled
to
participate
in
response
to
the
actions
of
other
governing
bodies.
County
Boards
of
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
76
Education
rulings
on
interdistrict
transfer
cases
were
viewed
as
not
consistent,
which
caused
uncertainty
with
both
school
districts
with
incoming
and
outgoing
interdistrict
students.
Neighboring
school
districts
began
to
restrict
the
flow
of
interdistrict
student
coming
out
of
their
districts
making
the
whole
process
difficult
for
families.
School
district
boundary
lines
often
did
not
make
sense
to
parents
as
local
geography
could
result
in
long
travel
times
to
assigned
schools
when
a
school
in
a
neighboring
school
district
was
closer.
The
second
research
question
asked
about
the
perceived
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
participating
in
the
DOC
program.
The
survey
indicated
that
financial
reasons
were
a
big
perceived
advantage.
Ninety-‐one
percent
agreed
that
interdistrict
students
have
a
positive
effect
of
district
finances
and
78%
agreed
that
the
DOC
program
provided
a
way
to
fill
district
budget
gaps.
Another
reported
advantage
was
the
strong
school
board
support
superintendents
enjoyed
for
initially
participating
in
the
DOC
program.
Ninety-‐one
percent
of
surveyed
superintendents
agreed
this
was
an
advantage
in
their
district.
The
biggest
reported
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
was
the
tensions
caused
between
school
districts.
While
the
surveyed
results
indicated
that
56%
of
superintendents
thought
this
was
a
concern,
30%
neither
agreed
nor
disagreed.
All
interviewed
superintendents
agreed
that
tension
existed
and
had
many
examples
to
share
with
the
interviewer.
The
tensions
between
school
districts
occur
because
the
DOC
program
creates
a
form
of
competition
for
students.
The
final
research
question
asks
about
the
most
important
impact
that
the
DOC
has
had
on
the
participating
school
districts.
The
increase
in
prestige
and
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
77
reputation
was
cited
as
an
impact
by
95%
of
surveyed
superintendents.
Being
perceived
as
a
desirable
school
district
adds
to
the
attractiveness
of
the
school
district
and
can
aid
in
drawing
even
more
DOC
students.
The
results
of
these
findings
shows
that
participation
in
the
DOC
program
is
a
reflection
of
surveyed
superintendent’s
beliefs
in
parental
choice
and
the
financial
advantages
that
their
school
district
could
expect
to
accrue.
These
are
especially
important
for
school
districts
with
small
enrollments.
DOC
superintendents
had
the
support
of
their
Boards
of
Education
to
move
forward
with
this
program.
By
participating
they
sensed
that
they
increased
the
public
esteem
for
their
school
district.
The
barriers
put
up
by
outside
government
entities
and
the
tensions
caused
by
their
participation
were
seen
as
challenges
to
overcome
and
not
roadblocks
that
would
stop
their
interdistrict
transfer
efforts.
In
chapter
5,
implications
of
these
findings,
as
well
as
limitations
of
the
research
and
suggestions
for
further
research
are
presented.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
78
CHAPTER
5
Conclusions
Summary
of
Findings
The
growth
in
choice
programs
and
their
variety
shows
no
signs
of
slowing
down,
nor
are
the
options
for
students
diminishing.
As
more
parents
become
aware
of
these
options
and
their
right
to
take
advantages
of
them,
they
will
gain
wider
public
acceptance
and
use.
Increasingly,
various
systems
of
educational
Choice
are
not
only
looked
at
as
individual
options
by
parents,
but
as
ways
to
provide
the
freedom
to
choose.
The
rules
that
govern
each
Choice
option
are
just
barriers
for
parents
to
overcome.
As
a
Choice
option,
DOC
has
fewer
of
these
barriers
and
thus
provides
easier
access
to
the
schools
and
programs
that
parents
seek.
Those
school
districts
in
California
that
have
chosen
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program
can
be
examples
of
how
to
successfully
implement
the
program,
deal
with
the
barriers
that
depress
student
participation,
provide
a
better
option
for
students
from
poor
performing
schools
and
fulfill
the
objective
of
providing
a
choice
to
parents.
The
DOC
program
has
great
potential
to
expand,
but
currently
is
not
widely
used
by
California
school
districts.
This
study
sought
to
uncover
the
reasons
existing
DOC
school
districts
value
the
program
and
what
are
the
benefits
and
drawbacks.
The
use
of
quantitative
surveys
and
qualitative
interviews
provided
the
data
for
this
study
in
order
to
gain
insights
into
how
school
districts
use
the
DOC
program
and
why.
Two-‐thirds
of
school
districts
that
participate
in
DOC
are
small
school
districts
under
5,000
students.
More
than
a
fourth,
27%
of
small
school
district’s
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
79
ADA
revenue
comes
from
DOC
students.
This
represents
a
significant
portion
of
their
budgets.
It
can
be
concluded
that
there
is
a
strong
correlation
between
the
higher
the
percentage
that
DOC
students
represent
in
a
school
district
student
body
and
their
importance
in
maintaining
a
school
district’s
programs
and
finances.
The
financial
advantage
of
adding
students
using
the
DOC
program
is
a
key
factor
in
a
school
district’s
decision
to
participate
in
the
program,
especially
for
smaller
enrollment
districts.
As
long
as
California
school
districts
are
predominately
state
funded
on
a
per
student
basis
and
underfunded
based
upon
the
monies
they
received
in
previous
years,
school
districts
will
look
for
extra
ways
to
enhance
their
revenue.
More
than
half,
52%,
of
participating
DOC
school
districts
are
K-‐12
school
districts.
Larger
school
districts
had
smaller
percentages
of
their
student
body
as
DOC
students,
and
thus
the
DOC
can
be
assumed
to
have
a
lower
financial
impact
on
the
larger
school
districts
overall.
It
must
be
kept
in
mind
that
smaller
percentages
of
DOC
students
in
large
districts
may
in
fact
be
larger
in
size
in
actual
numbers
of
students
than
the
higher
percentages
of
DOC
students
in
small
school
districts.
The
survey
data
showed
that
78%
of
superintendents
believe
in
a
parent’s
right
to
choose
the
school
that
their
children
attend.
Interviewed
superintendents
even
more
strongly
echoed
this
view.
This
belief
played
a
role
in
deciding
to
participate
in
the
DOC
program.
Superintendents
of
DOC
school
districts
possessed
the
firm
backing
of
their
constituents
as
represented
by
the
local
Board
of
Education
in
deciding
to
become
a
DOC
school
district.
DOC
superintendents
believe
that
providing
increased
options
to
parents
is
the
future
course
of
education.
Barriers
to
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
80
interdistrict
transfers
imposed
by
County
Boards
of
Education
and
neighboring
districts
did
not
dissuade
DOC
superintendents,
instead
they
and
their
Boards
of
Education
found
ways
around
them.
This
is
especially
true
when
district
boundary
lines
conflict
with
practical
solutions
for
students
to
attend
the
nearest
school.
A
reported
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
is
the
tensions
generated
between
districts
accepting
and
losing
interdistricts
transfer
students.
Beyond
a
10%
cap
in
the
number
of
students
a
school
district
can
relinquish,
a
school
district
that
is
a
net
loser
of
students
to
other
DOC
school
districts
does
not
have
much
control
over
this
process.
The
DOC
program
places
school
districts
in
the
unfamiliar
and
uncomfortable
role
as
competitors
for
students.
Many
school
administrators,
particularly
most
of
those
interviewed
for
this
study,
argue
that
this
free
market
arena
is
a
healthy
competition
and
an
impetus
to
push
all
school
districts
to
improve
the
educational
results
for
their
students.
A
byproduct
of
a
different
sort
is
the
reported
positive
impact
DOC
districts
receive
in
increased
prestige
and
reputation.
Surveyed
superintendents
of
DOC
districts
say
they
possess
this
as
a
result
of
being
perceived
by
the
public
as
a
desirable
school
district.
This
appeal
is
a
farther
draw
for
an
increase
in
future
enrollment.
Implications
for
Practice
Regardless
of
the
advantages
to
be
gained
by
school
districts
when
they
become
a
DOC
district,
if
the
district
is
not
attractive
to
families
they
will
not
take
advantage
of
this
option.
DOC
school
districts
need
to
position
themselves
to
be
seen
by
families
in
a
favorable
light.
The
focus
of
this
study
was
not
on
why
families
choose
DOC
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
81
school
districts,
but
why
school
districts
choose
to
participate
in
the
program.
It
can
be
assumed
however,
that
families
transfer
their
children
to
new
school
districts
to
find
something
that
their
home
district
lacks.
This
may
be
high
academic
achievement,
specialized
programs,
close
traveling
distances
or
lower
class
sizes.
DOC
districts
that
hope
to
trade
on
their
advantages
need
to
advertise
them
in
some
way.
Anecdotal
evidence
suggests
that
most
promote
their
districts
on
their
district
internet
web
sites.
This
method
alone
will
not
reach
many
families
in
neighboring
school
districts.
Community
support
is
important
to
the
initial
adoption
and
sustainability
of
the
DOC
program
in
a
school
district.
Superintendents
and
their
administrative
teams
need
to
develop
a
convincing
narrative
about
the
need
to
adopt
the
DOC
program
and
sell
it
to
the
school
board.
The
school
board
must
be
a
partner
and
ally
that
supports
the
DOC
program
and
promotes
the
program
with
the
community.
The
DOC
school
district
needs
to
routinely
inform
their
community
about
the
reasons
why
their
district
is
allowing
interdistrict
transfer
students
to
enroll.
Administrators
would
be
prudent
to
be
aware
of
when
communities
become
protective
of
the
school
district’s
advantages.
Effective
answers
to
complaints
that
“outsiders”
are
taking
spots
in
hard
to
get
key
classes
such
as
advanced
placement
classes
that
in
their
view,
should
be
reserved
for
district
residents
must
be
ready.
The
community
must
be
reassured
that
transfer
students
will
not
limit
the
educational
opportunities
of
resident
students.
Additionally,
the
program
cannot
threaten
the
local
control
over
local
schools
prized
particularly
by
suburban
communities.
Complaints
and
concerns
could
coalesce
into
organized
community
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
82
opposition
to
the
interdistrict
programs
if
it’s
advantages
are
not
regularly
publicized.
One
California
school
district,
for
example,
publicizes
the
results
of
state
standardized
test
scores
and
shows
that
DOC
students
score
at
the
same
high
percentages
as
resident
students.
Maintaining
important
relations
between
school
districts
and
between
the
community
and
the
schools
are
considerations
to
take
into
account
in
any
DOC
policies
adopted
for
school
districts.
Many
interviewed
superintendents
shared
that
over
time,
tensions
between
school
districts
decreased
as
all
the
parties
involved
became
used
to
the
DOC
process
and
adjusted
accordingly.
Those
opposed
to
change,
in
this
case
more
parental
choice
must
come
to
terms
with
the
idea
that
additional
parental
choice
is
here
to
stay.
Data
were
not
collected
in
this
study
about
how
the
DOC
program
was
used
as
a
way
to
move
disadvantaged
students
out
of
underperforming
schools
and
into
better
schools
within
the
DOC
school
districts.
There
was
little
evidence
from
interviewed
superintendents
that
this
is
occurring
in
DOC
school
districts.
If
the
true
intention
of
the
DOC
program
is
for
the
benefit
of
under-‐performing
students,
then
the
law
needs
to
be
amended
to
give
priority
to
these
students
for
interdistrict
transfers
and
an
incentive
given
to
school
districts,
beyond
increased
ADA
funds,
to
accept
them.
It
is
this
researcher’s
estimation,
based
upon
interviews
from
this
study
and
research
readings
on
the
topic,
that
Middle
Class
families
must
embrace
the
DOC
program
first
before
disadvantaged
families.
Disadvantaged
families
will
copy
what
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
83
they
see
modeled
by
more
successful
economic
groups.
They
will
find
ways
to
participate
in
DOC
if
they
value
the
transforming
power
of
a
quality
education.
Future
Research
Because
of
the
small
number
of
school
districts
participating
in
the
DOC
program,
the
pool
of
possible
superintendents
available
to
participate
in
the
survey
was
relatively
small.
Fortunately,
there
was
a
high
(74%)
response
rate
for
this
study.
This
high
response
rate
helps
to
assure
the
validity
of
the
results.
Should
the
DOC
program
become
adopted
by
larger
numbers
of
California
school
districts,
a
new
study
with
a
larger
base
of
possible
survey
participates
can
confirm
the
findings
in
this
study
and
may
lead
to
some
different
results
or
focus
perhaps
based
upon
a
different
set
of
economic
and
political
conditions.
In
this
study,
DOC
superintendents
were
the
targeted
participants
from
which
to
collect
data.
This
is
one
of
the
limitations
of
this
study.
A
future
study
might
broaden
this
participant
group
to
include
school
board
members
and
parents.
This
new
study
may
provide
a
more
complete
picture.
These
groups
may
have
a
different
perspective
to
enrich
the
data
findings.
Parents
for
example,
could
be
polled
about
their
satisfaction
with
the
DOC
program
and
how
engaged
they
are
in
their
out
of
district
school.
Additionally,
many
school
districts
assign
the
implementation
of
the
DOC
program
to
such
personnel
as
the
assistant
superintendent
of
human
resources.
These
individuals
who
do
the
actual
enrolling
and
recruiting
for
the
DOC
program
may
have
a
more
practical
view
of
how
the
DOC
program
really
works.
Because
DOC
districts
have
already
adopted
the
program,
superintendents
and
their
school
boards
must
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that
the
DOC
program
was
a
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
84
valuable
one
for
their
individual
school
districts.
It
would
be
expected
that
they
would
have
a
positive
outlook
regarding
most
aspects
of
DOC.
One
vocal
non-‐DOC
superintendent
who
has
experienced
negative
consequences
from
a
neighboring
DOC
district
was
interviewed
and
provided
a
counter-‐point
on
many
topics
in
this
study.
A
future
study,
however,
that
targets
participants
of
non-‐DOC
school
districts,
especially
ones
that
lose
significant
numbers
of
students
to
DOC
school
districts,
would
be
instructive.
A
study
that,
for
example,
that
looked
at
clusters
of
school
districts
that
have
DOC
neighbors
and
compared
the
impacts
the
DOC
program
is
having
on
home
school
districts
would
serve
to
spotlight
what
the
effects
are
on
these
districts.
This
would
be
a
valuable
source
of
information
on
the
challenges
they
faced
by
these
districts
and
the
impact
the
student
loses
are
having.
Most
interviewed
DOC
superintendents
believed
in
a
sort
of
competitive
marketplace
of
parental
educational
options
for
students.
Not
only
do
they
believe
this
is
a
parental
right,
they
thought
of
this
as
a
way
to
improve
school
districts.
Do
these
neighboring
non-‐DOC
districts
improve
when
faced
with
increased
competition
for
students?
Could
it
be
instead,
that
the
loss
of
ADA
funds
has
a
crippling
effect
on
the
home
district’s
ability
to
initiate
improvements?
A
future
study
on
the
impact
that
the
DOC
program
has
on
neighboring
school
districts
would
be
a
valuable
study
to
answer
this
important
question.
When
interviewed
superintendents
were
asked
about
how
long
interdistict
students
stayed
at
their
non-‐resident
schools
or
school
districts,
none
had
solid
data
to
share.
These
superintendents
just
had
anecdotal
evidence
that
these
students
generally
stayed
until
they
graduated.
A
future
study
that
would
track
these
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
85
students,
could
generate
a
retention
rate.
This
rate
would
be
valuable
in
order
to
see
how
mobile
these
populations
of
DOC
students
are
per
district.
Additionally,
it
would
be
beneficial
to
know
if
these
students
are
gaining
the
advantages
that
they
hoped
to
gain
by
moving
to
a
new
school
district.
This
could
be
a
study
of
the
academic
and/or
behavioral
outcomes.
Conclusions
This
study
adds
to
the
existing
body
of
literature
regarding
the
growing
movement
to
add
educational
options
for
parents
in
placing
their
children
in
schools.
The
research
findings
in
this
study
are
consistent
with
many
of
the
previously
published
findings
in
this
area
of
study.
Overall,
the
differences
are
that
superintendents
in
this
study
took
a
more
realistic,
pragmatic
and
district-‐centered
view
of
the
operation
and
philosophical
foundation
for
the
program
rather
than
a
reformist,
egalitarian
and
social
justice
view
present
in
some
previous
research.
Broader
issues
discussed
by
previous
researchers
such
as
the
issues
of
segregation,
diversity
and
capacity
limits
did
not
appear
as
significant
factors
in
this
study.
This
study
is
specific
to
California
and
the
unique
DOC
interdistrict
transfer
program.
The
research
findings
can
be
used
to
inform
superintendents,
school
administrators
and
local
school
boards
about
many
aspects
of
the
DOC
program.
They
can
determine
the
types
of
districts
using
the
program,
the
advantages
and
disadvantages
they
are
likely
to
find
when
adopting
the
program
and
some
of
the
possible
impacts
it
will
have
on
their
district.
The
information
within
serves
as
a
guide
and
a
resource
for
school
districts
contemplating
moving
to
the
DOC
program
and/or
to
confirm
the
beliefs
and
assumptions
of
those
school
districts
already
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
86
engaged
in
the
DOC
program.
It
is
a
record
of
what
current
DOC
superintendents
understand
and
believe
based
upon
their
own
past
experiences
and
thinking.
The
recipe
for
success
in
ensuring
that
the
DOC
program
fits
a
school
district’s
educational
mission
is
many
fold.
Strong
school
board
support
must
be
secured
by
illustrating
to
them
the
important
advantages
the
school
district
will
gain
by
participating.
Chief
among
these
advantages
are
the
monetary
gains
for
additional
students
that
carries
added
significance
in
times
of
state
budget
shortfalls.
Additionally,
the
district
gains
freer
access
to
interdistrict
students
by
bypassing
potential
barriers
erected
by
neighboring
school
districts
and
County
Boards
of
Education.
The
district
will
be
seen
as
one
that
is
progressive
and
in
the
forefront
of
the
growing
movement
toward
greater
parental
choice.
Special
care
should
be
taken
to
reduce
potential
tensions
between
school
districts
by
strictly
adhering
to
DOC
policy
rules.
The
potential
of
added
prestige
and
reputation
gained
as
a
result
of
being
perceived
by
the
public
as
a
school
district
that
is
attractive
might
lead
additional
increased
district
enrollment
and
help
sustain
the
program.
There
are
many
educational
options
available
to
California
parents
to
choose
the
educational
setting
for
their
child,
but
not
all
of
these
options
are
available
to
everyone.
The
prospect
of
providing
an
educational
choice
to
parents
opens
up
the
possibility
of
considering
choice
options
of
all
kinds.
Providing
a
choice
opens
the
door
to
other
educational
placement
ideas.
Once
parents
are
freed
of
the
traditional
idea
that
their
child
must
attend
their
neighborhood
school,
they
are
awakened
to
the
notion
that
the
educational
setting
for
their
child
can
be
selected
from
a
variety
of
choices
to
fit
the
particular
needs
of
the
student.
Selecting
a
school
can
be
like
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
87
many
of
the
commercial
selections
we
make
every
day
when
we
choose
to
shop
at
certain
markets,
restaurants
and
clothing
stores.
This
study
sought
to
answer
specific
research
questions.
The
major
findings
by
research
question
including
the
data
source
used
are
bulleted
below.
1.
What
kinds
of
districts
participate
in
DOC
and
why?
• K-‐12
school
districts
represent
the
majority
of
DOC
school
districts
(Survey
Results).
• Small
school
districts
with
less
than
5,000
students
represent
68%
of
DOC
school
districts
(Survey
Results).
• A
large
portion,
averaging
27%
of
the
enrollment
of
DOC
small
school
districts
comes
from
interdistrict
students
(Survey
Results).
• Parental
Choice
was
a
main
philosophical
reason
for
adopting
the
DOC
program
(Survey
Results).
• The
average
API
score
of
DOC
school
districts
in
2012
is
833
which
beats
the
state
average
of
788
(California
Department
of
Education
Search
Results).
• Geography
played
a
role
in
why
districts
choose
to
become
a
DOC
school
district
(Interview
Results).
2.
What
do
superintendents
see
as
the
chief
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program?
• Increasing
ADA
and
the
funds
that
they
bring
was
cited
as
an
advantage
by
91%
of
superintendents
(Survey
Results).
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
88
• Pressure
to
find
resources
to
fill
budget
gaps
was
selected
as
factor
in
districts
adopting
the
DOC
program
by
78%
of
superintendents
(Survey
Results).
• Strong
school
board
support
was
viewed
as
an
advantage
enjoyed
by
91%
of
superintendents
(Survey
Results).
• Tensions
between
school
districts
were
a
viewed
as
a
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
by
56%
of
superintendents
(Survey
Results).
This
was
confirmed
by
all
interviewed
superintendents
(Interview
Results).
• Superintendents
perceived
that
barriers
placed
by
neighboring
school
districts
and
county
school
boards
existed
for
them
to
overcome
(Interview
Results).
3.
What
has
been
the
most
important
perceived
impact
of
the
DOC
program
on
the
district?
• Superintendents
agreed
by
95%
that
their
school
district
enjoyed
an
increase
in
prestige
and
reputation
as
a
result
of
being
a
DOC
school
district
(Survey
Results).
The
DOC
program
holds
great
promise
of
providing
parents
with
greater
freedom
to
place
their
children
in
the
school
that
best
meets
their
individual
needs.
To
provide
this
opportunity
to
parents,
school
districts
need
to
be
informed
about
the
factors
involved
in
adopting
this
program
and
the
types
of
districts
likely
to
use
it.
This
study
explored
the
many
aspects
involved
in
initiating
and
running
a
DOC
program
so
that
others
can
make
informed
decisions.
The
findings
shed
new
light
on
the
motivations
and
strategies
employed
by
California
superintendents
and
their
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
89
school
boards
in
their
efforts
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
effectively
for
their
own
individual
and
unique
school
districts.
The
research
on
the
reported
or
perceived
impacts,
advantages
and
disadvantages
presented
here
all
provide
important
information
to
those
who
seek
ways
to
improve
the
educational
outcomes
for
students.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
90
References
Abernathy,
S.
F.
(2005).
School
choice
and
the
future
of
American
democracy.
Ann
Arbor,
MI:
University
of
Michigan
Press.
Andre-‐Bechley,
L.
(2007).
Finding
space
and
managing
distance:
Public
school
choice
in
an
urban
California
district.
Urban
Studies
44,7.
pp.
1355-‐1376.
Armor,
D.
J.
and
Pesier
B.
M.
(1997),
Competition
in
education:
A
case
study
of
interdistrict
choice.
Pioneer
Institute
for
Public
Policy
Research
12.
pp1-‐5.
Betts,
J.
R.
and
Loveless,
T.
(2005)
Getting
choice
right:
Ensuring
equity
and
efficiency
in
education
policy.
Washington
DC:
Brookings
Institute
Press.
California
Department
of
Education,
Testing
and
Accountability.
(2012).
Available
from
California
Department
of
Education
Web
site,
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ca/ar
Carlson,
D.,
Lavery,
L.
and
Witte,
J.
(2011).
The
determinants
of
interdistrict
open
enrollment
flows:
Evidence
from
two
states.
Education
Evaluation
and
Policy
Analysis,
33,
1.
pp.
76-‐94.
Chaplin,
D.,
(2002).
Estimating
the
impact
of
economic
integration
of
schools
on
racial
integration.
In
Rusk,
D.
(Ed.),
Divided
we
fail:
Coming
together
through
public
school
choice.
(pp.
87-‐113.)
Chubb
J.
E.
and
Moe,
T.
M.
(1990).
Politics,
markets,
and
America’s
schools.
Washington
DC:
Brookings
Institution.
Colvin,
R.
L.
(2004).
Public
school
choice:
An
overview.
In
Hess,
F.
M.
and
Finn,
C.
E.
(Eds.),
Leaving
no
child
behind.
(pp.
11-‐36).
Cullen,
J.
B.,
Jacob,
B.
A.,
and
Levitt,
S.
D.
(2005).
The
impact
of
school
choice
on
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
91
student
outcomes:
An
analysis
of
the
Chicago
public
schools.
Journal
of
Public
Economics,
89,
729-‐760.
Currey,
C.
J.,
McPherson,
J.
and
Shorr
D.
N.
(1991).
District
superintendent’s
views
of
interdistrict
school
choice.
Equity
and
Excellence
in
Education,
25,
2-‐4.
pp.
200-‐
204.
Darling-‐Hammond,
L.
and
Bellanca,
J.
(2010).
New
policies
for
21
st
century
demands.
In
Bellanca,
J.
and
Brandt,
R.
(Eds.),
Rethinking
how
students
learn
(pp.33-‐49).
Bloomington,
IN:
Solution
Tree
Press.
Feinberg,
W.
and
Lubienski,
C.
(2008).
School
choice
policies
and
outcomes.
Albany,
NY:
University
of
New
York
Press.
Finnigan,
K.
S.
and
Steward,
T.
J.
(2009).
Interdistrict
choice
as
a
policy
solution:
Examining
Rochester’s
urban-‐suburban
interdistrict
transfer
program
(USITP)
National
Center
on
School
Choice,
Vanderbilt
University.
Green.
J.
P.
(2005).
Education
myths.
Lanham,
MY:
Rowman
&
Littlefield
Publishers,
Inc.
Gutmann,
A.
(2003)
School
Choice:
The
Moral
Debate.
In
Wolf,
A.
(Ed.),
Assessing
Arguments
for
School
Choice:
Pluralism,
Parental
Rights,
or
Educational
Results?
(pp.
126-‐148.)
Jimerson,
L.
(2002).
Interdistrict
open
enrollment;
The
benign
choice?
The
Clearing
House
76,1
pp.
16-‐19.
Heise,
M.
and
Ryan,
J.
E.
(2002).
The
political
economy
of
school
choice.
Cornell
Law
Faculty
Publications,
paper
194.
Holme,
J.
J.
and
Richards,
M.
P.
(2009).
School
choice
and
stratification
in
a
regional
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
92
context:
Examining
the
role
of
inter-‐district
choice.
Peabody
Journal
of
Education,
84
pp
150-‐171.
Kahlenberg,
R.
D.
(2006).
Helping
children
move
from
bad
schools
to
good
ones.
The
Century
Foundation.
pp.
1-‐13.
Koedel,
C.,
Betts,
J.
R.,
Rice,
L.
A.,
Zau,
A.
C.
(2009).
The
integrating
and
segregating
effects
of
school
choice.
Peabody
Journal
of
Education
84,
2.
pp.
1-‐12.
Levinson,
M.
and
Levinson,
S.
(2003).
Getting
Religion:
Religion,
Diversity,
and
Community
in
Public
and
Private
Schools.
In
Wolf,
A.
(Ed.),
School
Choice:
The
Moral
Debate
(pp.
104-‐125).
Princeton,
NJ:
Princeton
University
Press.
Lubienski,
C.,
(2008).
The
Politics
of
Parental
Choice:
Theory
and
Evidence
on
Quality
Information.
In
Feinberg,
W.
and
Lubienski
(Eds.),
School
Choice
Policy
and
Outcomes
(pp.
99-‐120).
Albany,
NY:
State
University
of
New
York
Press.
Merrifield,
J.
(2001).
The
school
choice
wars.
Lanham,
MD:
Scarecrow
Press
Inc.
Ni,
Y.
and
Arsen,
D.
(2011)
School
choice
participation
rates:
Which
districts
are
pressured?
Education
Policy
Analysis
Archives,
19,
29.
pp.
1-‐26.
Retrieved
1/28/2012
from
http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/777
Parental
Choice
Legislation
Earns
Unanimous
Support
on
Senate
Floor
(2009)
Retrieved
from
http://cssrc.us/web/29/news.aspx?id=5902
Patton,
M.
Q.
(2002).
Qualitative
research
and
evaluation
methods
3
rd
Ed.
Thousand
Oaks,
CA:
Sage
Publications.
Powers,
J.
M.
and
Cookson,
P.
W.
(1999).
The
politics
of
school
choice
research:
Fact,
fiction,
and
statistics.
Educational
Policy
13,
1,
pp.
104-‐122.
Prin,
E.
(2007).
Interdistrict
transfers,
Latino/White
school
segregation,
and
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
93
institutional
racism
in
a
small
California
town.
Journal
of
Latinos
and
Education,
6,4,
pp.
285-‐308.
Qualtric
(2009).
Computer
Survey
Tool
(Version
12,018)
[Computer
software].
Provo,
UT:
Qualtric
Labs,
Inc.
Reback
R.
(2008).
Demand
(and
supply)
in
an
interdistrict
public
school
choice
program.
Economics
of
Education
Review,
27,
402-‐416.
Robelen,
E.
W.
(2008).
Mapping
analysis
finds
interdistrict-‐choice
options
to
be
limited.
Education
Week,
28,
1.
p8.
Smart
choice
for
California
Schools.
(2009,
June
09).
The
Los
Angeles
Times,
p.
A14.
Smith,
K.
B.
and
Meier
K.
J.
(1995).
The
Case
Against
School
Choice:
Politics,
Markets
and
Fools.
Armonk,
NY:
M.E.
Sharp
Inc.
Tang,
A.
Y.
(2011)
Privileges
and
immunities,
public
education,
and
the
case
for
public
school
choice.
George
Washington
Law
Review,
79,1
pp.
1103-‐1153.
Teske,
P.
and
Schneider,
M.
(2001).
What
research
can
tell
policymakers
about
school
choice.
Journal
of
Policy
Analysis
and
Management,
20,4.
pp.609-‐631.
Van
Dunk,
E
and
Dickman,
A.
(2002).
School
choice
accountability:
An
examination
of
informed
consumers
in
different
choice
programs.
Urban
Affairs
Review
37,
6
pp.
844-‐856.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
94
Appendix
A:
Survey
Instrument
Survey
Questions
(Quantitative)
The
following
instrument
is
designed
to
measure
how
your
district
is
implementing
the
Interdistrict
Open
Enrollment,
District
of
Choice
(DOC)
Program.
Please
circle
the
rating
that
most
closely
matches
with
your
district’s
current
practices.
(1=Strongly
Agree;
2=Agree;
3=Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree;
4=Disagree;
5=Strongly
Disagree)
1.
ADVANTAGES
The
advantage
of
the
DOC
program
to
our
district
has
been:
1.
The
ADA
from
interdistrict
students
has
a
positive
effect
on
district
finances.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
The
ability
to
fill
classrooms
to
at
or
near
capacity
so
that
programs
are
fully
subscribed
and
supported.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Our
district
has
the
resources
to
bring
struggling
learners
up
to
grade
level
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
Interdistrict
students
have
raised
our
standardized
test
scores.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Interdistrict
parents
see
our
district
in
a
positive
light
and
requests
for
student
admittance
adds
to
our
prestige
and
reputation.
1
2
3
4
5
II.
IMPACT
In
our
District
the
DOC
program
is
used:
1.
As
a
way
to
accommodate
students
from
outside
our
district
that
are
taking
advantage
of
NCLB
policies
to
switch
from
an
underperforming
school.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
To
add
diversity
and
integration
to
our
schools.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Interdistrict
students
have
added
new
perspectives
to
ways
of
thinking
and
performing.
1
2
3
4
5
III.
DISADVANTAGES
ln
our
District
a
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
has
been:
1.
Retention
rate,
students
don’t
stay
long
enough
to
reap
the
benefits.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Community
opposition
to
“outsiders”
using
the
district
bounty
and/or
taking
spots
that
should
be
reserved
for
residents.
1
2
3
4
5
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
95
3.
The
lack
of
district
funded
transportation
limits
the
number
of
interdistrict
students
available
to
enroll.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
The
lack
of
capacity
limits
the
number
of
students
available
to
enroll.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Too
many
DOC
students
are
changing
or
threatening
to
change
the
demographics
of
the
school
district.
1
2
3
4
5
6.
Causes
tensions
between
school
districts
as
we
compete
for
students.
1
2
3
4
5
IV.
CHOOSING
TO
PARTICIPATE
4.
What
factors
played
a
role
in
your
district’s
decision
to
accept
interdistrict
transfer
students?
1.
Strong
initial
school
board
support.
1
2
3
4
5
2.
Altruistic
motivation,
it’s
the
right
thing
to
do.
1
2
3
4
5
3.
Pressure
to
find
financial
resources
to
fill
budget
gaps.
1
2
3
4
5
4.
Declining
enrollment.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
Agreement
with
the
idea
that
parents
should
be
able
to
choose
their
children’s
school
regardless
of
where
they
live.
1
2
3
4
5
Open-‐Ended
Questions
V.
PERCENTAGE
OF
INTERDISTRICT
STUDENTS
5.
What
percentage
of
your
district
student
body
are
interdistrict
students
this
year
(2011-‐2012)?
6.
What
percentage
of
your
district
student
body
were
interdistrict
students
last
year
(2010-‐2011)?
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
96
Multiple
Choice
Questions
VI.
Demographic
Information
7.
Approximately
how
many
students
are
enrolled
in
your
district?
o Less
than
1,000
o 1,000
to
5,000
o 5,000
to
10,000
o 10,000
to
15,000
o 15,000
to
20,000
o over
20,000
8.
What
type
of
school
district
do
you
work
for?
o K-‐12
o K-‐8
Single
School
o K-‐8
Multiple
School
o High
Schools
Only
o Other
VII.
Interview
9.
Would
you
be
willing
to
be
interviewed
about
this
topic
at
a
time
and
date
of
your
choosing?
The
interview
would
last
about
45
minutes.
Your
identity
would
remain
confidential
and
summary
of
this
study
would
be
made
available
to
you.
Please
indicate
yes
or
not
and
provide
your
last
name
and
school
district.
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
97
Appendix
B:
Interview
Instrument
Interview
Questions
(qualitative)
1.
What
are
the
factors
that
lead
you
or
your
district
leadership
to
decide
to
participate
in
the
District
of
Choice
program?
2.
What
have
been
the
chief
advantages
of
your
district’s
participation?
2a.
What
has
been
the
effect
on
the
district
financially?
2b.
What
effect
has
it
had
on
programs?
3.
How
has
the
district
promoted
the
program
to
families
outside
the
district?
3a.
What
form
has
this
promotion
taken
and
how
does
it
reach
disadvantaged
families?
3b.
Tell
me
about
your
district’s
efforts
to
welcome
interdistrict
students
and
their
families.
4.
What
has
been
the
most
important
impact
the
DOC
program
has
had
on
the
district?
4a.
Negative?
4b.
Has
there
been
any
community
opposition?
4c.
How
are
retention
rates
for
interdistrict
students?
4d.
How
has
interdistrict
students
effected
your
district’s
diversity?
4e.
Is
there
competition
between
districts
for
students?
Is
this
good
or
bad?
5.
What
have
you
done
to
insure
that
the
DOC
program
is
sustainable?
6.
What
have
you
done
to
make
the
DOC
program
work
successfully
for
your
district?
7.
Is
there
any
reasons
why
the
DOC
program
can’t
be
expanded
in
your
district?
8.
How
much
does
altruistic
beliefs
play
into
participating
in
the
DOC
program
play?
8a.
Do
you
believe
in
the
mission
of
educating
disadvantaged
students
using
the
DOC
program?
Is
this
the
best
way
to
do
it?
9.
How
do
you
ensure
that
your
school
district
community
is
supportive
of
the
DOC
program?
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
98
Appendix
C:
Letter
to
Participants
Dear
Superintendent,
You
have
been
invited
to
participate
in
a
graduate
research
study
conducted
by
Jon
Duim,
principal
at
Red
Oak
Elementary
in
the
Oak
Park
Unified
School
District.
I
am
a
doctoral
student
from
the
Rossier
School
of
Education’s
Ed.D
Program
at
the
University
of
Southern
California
and
this
study
is
part
of
my
dissertation.
This
study
is
focused
on
exploring
the
superintendent’s
role
in
administering
your
district’s
interdistrict
transfer
enrollment,
called
the
District
of
Choice
program.
I’m
trying
to
find
out
how
the
program
is
utilized,
what
benefits
accrue
to
school
districts
and
what
factors
make
the
program
successful.
The
survey
is
anticipated
to
take
no
more
than
15-‐20
minutes
to
complete.
The
second
piece
for
a
smaller
group
will
be
individual
interviews
that
are
anticipated
to
last
approximately
45
minutes
and
may
be
audio-‐taped.
Participation
in
this
study
is
voluntary.
Your
identity
as
a
participant
will
remain
anonymous
at
all
times
during
and
after
the
study.
In
you
have
any
questions
or
concerns
regarding
participation
in
this
study,
please
contact
Jon
Duim
or
Dr.
Pedro
Garcia
at
the
University
of
Southern
California.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time
and
assistance.
Jon
Duim,
Principal
Investigator
University
of
Southern
California
Ed.D
Student
duim@usc.edu
Dr.
Pedro
Garcia,
Faculty
Supervisor
Professor,
USC
Rossier
School
of
Education
pegarcia@usc.edu
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
99
Appendix
D:
Advantages
Survey
Questions
About
DOC
Advantages
The
Advantages
of
the
DOC
Program
Left-‐hand
Column
–
Survey
Question:
The
advantages
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
Our
district
has
the
resources
to
bring
struggling
learners
up
to
grade
level
in
a
relatively
short
period
of
time.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
52%
Middle
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
The
advantages
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
Interdistict
students
have
raised
our
standardized
test
scores.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
34%
Right-‐hand
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
The
advantages
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
The
ability
to
fill
classrooms
to
at
or
near
capacity
so
that
programs
are
fully
subscribed
and
supported.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
69%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
100
Appendix
E:
Disadvantages
Survey
Questions
About
DOC
Disadvantages
The
Disadvantages
of
the
DOC
Program
Left-‐hand
Column
–
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
a
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
Retention
rate,
students
don’t
stay
long
enough
to
reap
the
benefits
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
4%
Middle
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
a
disadvantage
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
Community
opposition
to
“outsiders”
using
the
district
bounty
and/or
taking
spots
that
should
be
reserved
for
residents.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
22%
Right-‐hand
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
a
disadvantages
of
the
DOC
program
on
our
district
has
been?
Possible
Response:
Too
many
DOC
students
are
changing
or
threatening
to
change
the
demographics
of
the
school
district.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
9%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
101
Appendix
F:
District
Use
Survey
Question
About
How
the
DOC
Program
is
Used
The
Uses
of
the
DOC
Program
Left-‐hand
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
the
DOC
program
is
used?
Possible
Response:
To
add
diversity
and
integration
to
our
schools.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
22%
Middle
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
the
DOC
program
is
used?
Possible
Response:
As
a
way
to
accommodate
students
from
outside
our
district
that
are
taking
advantage
of
NCLB
policies
to
switch
from
an
underperforming
school.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
48%
Right-‐hand
Column
-‐
Survey
Question:
In
our
district
the
DOC
program
is
used?
Possible
Response:
Interdistrict
students
have
added
new
perspectives
to
ways
of
thinking
and
performing.
Strongly
Agree
and
Agree
=
30%
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Nether
Agree
nor
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
THE
DISTRICT
OF
CHOICE
PROGRAM
102
Appendix
G:
Enrollment
Survey
Questions
About
DOC
Enrollment
Percentages
A
Comparison
of
DOC
School
District
Enrollment
Over
Two
School
Years
__________________________________________________________________________________________
School
District
Percent
of
2010-‐2011
Percent
of
2011-‐2012
Comparison
__________________________________________________________________________________________
1
90%
90%
Same
2
20%
20%
Same
3
7%
7%
Same
4
2%
5%
Up
3
5
5%
5%
Same
6
5%
5%
Same
7
10%
10%
Same
8
49%
50%
Up
1
9
12%
12%
Same
10
25%
25%
Same
11
28%
35%
Up
7
12
18%
20%
Up
2
13
2.5%
2.8%
Up
.3
14
7%
7%
Same
15
5%
5%
Same
16
5%
5%
Same
17
63%
57%
Down
6
18
6%
6%
Same
19
50%
75%
Up
25
20
26%
26%
Same
21
10%
10%
Same
22
7.7%
7.6%
Down
.1
23
1%
1%
Same
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
15
school
district’s
DOC
enrollments
were
the
same.
6
school
district’s
DOC
enrollment
increased.
2
school
district’s
DOC
enrollment
decreased.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The schooling option that is the most widespread nation-wide is interdistrict open enrollment. In California this is called District of Choice (DOC). DOC programs have been recognized as a tool for school improvement. The program is intended to broaden the choices available and thus promote equity of opportunity by allowing students who lack the means the freedom to transfer to a better performing public school. Only a fraction of California school districts participate in the DOC initiative. Laying aside the potential advantages accrued to students, why do some districts choose to assume the additional enrollment procedures inherent in an optional state program? ❧ Districts that participate in the DOC program are predominately K-12 school districts with enrollments under 5,000. These small school districts relied on the ADA from their DOC students for an average of a quarter of their enrollment revenue. Superintendents that provided the survey and interview data for this study, were motivated to participate in the DOC program for the prestige, monetary factors and because they believed in a parents’ right to choice their child’s school. This study found that strong school board support was gained by promoting the important advantages the school district could gain by participating. The DOC district gains freer access to interdistrict students by bypassing potential barriers. The study uncovered tensions between school districts as they compete for students. The potential of added prestige and reputation gained as a result of being perceived by the public as a school district that is attractive to family was also a factor in participating.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools
PDF
A case study: using the lessons of the Holocaust to promote student learning in higher education
PDF
The critical aspects of oversight that suburban superintendents, as instructional leaders, must employ to improve instruction
PDF
An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools
PDF
Superintendents' viewpoint of the role stakeholders can play in improving student achievement
PDF
An examiniation of staff perceptions of a data driven decision making process used in a high performing title one urban elementary school
PDF
Atole con el dedo: learning from low-income parents' lived experiences with educational choice policies
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
Effective strategies urban superintendents utilize that improve the academic achievement for African American males
PDF
An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools
PDF
Strategies employed by successful superintendents and boards of education resulting in increased student achievement
PDF
Should it say or should it go: how successful superintendents build, shift, and transform district culture in an age of increasing accountability
PDF
Leadership traits and practices supporting position longevity for urban school superintendents: a case study
PDF
An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives
PDF
Effective strategies that urban superintendents use that improve the academic achievement for African-American males
PDF
An examination of the leadership practices of Catholic elementary school principals
PDF
Leadership strategies employed by K-12 urban superintendents to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra
PDF
The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement
PDF
Latinas in the superintendency: the challenges experienced before and after obtaining the superintendency and strategies used for success
Asset Metadata
Creator
Duim, Jon A.
(author)
Core Title
What factors play a role in making the District of choice program fit a school district's educational mission?
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education
Publication Date
01/24/2013
Defense Date
10/30/2012
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
District of choice,interdistrict transfer,OAI-PMH Harvest,out of district,parental choice,school choice,school choice options,school of residence
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
García, Pedro Enrique (
committee chair
), Castruita, Rudy Max (
committee member
), Marsh, Julie A. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
jduim@oakparkusd.org,jduimx4@verizon.net
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-129468
Unique identifier
UC11290517
Identifier
usctheses-c3-129468 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-DuimJonA-1406.pdf
Dmrecord
129468
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Duim, Jon A.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
District of choice
interdistrict transfer
out of district
parental choice
school choice
school choice options
school of residence