University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives

(USC Thesis Other)

An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

An Examination of Public School Superintendent Response
to Student Mobility and School Choice Initiatives

by

Aileen Kern Harbeck
_____________________________________________________________________

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 2016

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

2
Acknowledgements
This dissertation is dedicated to my wonderful husband, Gene, and my three children,
Richard, John, and Jennifer, without whose love and patience this program and final study could
not have been completed. I would like to thank Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, for his
guidance throughout the doctoral program. His dedication to developing exceptional and
inspirational school leaders brought much more to my study of leadership than can be explained.
Further, I would like to thank Dr. Pedro Garcia and Dr. Maria Ott for their assistance and
encouragement through the dissertation writing process. I would like to thank Dr. Tom
Johnstone, my Superintendent, for his commitment to my work at USC and his support
throughout this process. Finally, I would like to give a special thank you to my colleague,
friend, and coach, Dr. Blake Silvers, whose thoughtful instruction made the completion of this
degree possible.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

3
Abstract

The national conversation around school performance and quality is characteristically
also a conversation about school reform. With enormous implications for society, public school
systems have never been more analyzed and criticized. While school choice is a heavily debated
and complex topic, the movement to provide students with alternative and varied educational
settings continues to grow, impacting public school systems in the areas of student mobility and
retention. The purpose of this study was to examine the Superintendent response to student
mobility and school choice. Specifically, this study explored: (1) what factors Superintendents
perceived as affecting student mobility in the context of increased school choice options; (2)
what strategies or policies Superintendents implemented to address challenges with student
mobility and school choice options; and (3) how Superintendents evaluate student retention
efforts in their districts to determine future steps in the area of student mobility. The
methodology for this study was qualitative with data collected and analyzed via one-on-one
semi-structured interviews with six seated Superintendents from six different counties
throughout California.
Through these interviews this study found that Superintendents generally perceived
student mobility primarily as an outcome of concerns with school or neighborhood safety and
parent interest in their children attending schools in adjacent districts perceived as higher
achieving. Charter schools were not identified as key influencers of student mobility in the six
districts included in this study. Strategies to address mobility highlighted Superintendent interest
in (a) changing employee mindset to a customer service based orientation district wide; (b)
transforming media and parent outreach efforts to communicate district effectiveness and
program offerings for students and parents; and (c) restructuring schools to thematic academies
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

4
with highly sought-after educational platforms, e. g., STEM and immersion programs.
Evaluation of such strategies was found to be limited, largely comprised of widespread use of
surveys with stakeholders.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

5
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 3
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study .................................................................................................. 9
Background of the Problem .............................................................................................. 11
School Choice ....................................................................................................... 12
Student Mobility ................................................................................................... 15
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 17
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 17
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 18
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 18
Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 18
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 19
Delimitations ..................................................................................................................... 19
Definitions and Terms ....................................................................................................... 19
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 2: Literature Review ........................................................................................................ 21
The Educational Marketplace ........................................................................................... 21
Educational Marketplace Influences ................................................................................. 24
Changing Demographics ....................................................................................... 24
Changing Parent Roles .......................................................................................... 26
Changing School Economics ................................................................................ 28
Unexpected Outcomes of School Choice ......................................................................... 30
Competition ........................................................................................................... 30
Student Mobility ................................................................................................... 32
Student Stratification ............................................................................................ 35
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

6
Chapter 3: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 39
Research Design ................................................................................................................ 40
Sample Population ............................................................................................................ 41
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 42
Instrumentation and Protocols .......................................................................................... 43
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 43
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 44
Validity and Generalizability ............................................................................................ 45
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4: Findings ....................................................................................................................... 47
Background ....................................................................................................................... 47
Qualitative Demographic Data ......................................................................................... 49
Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 51
Research Question 2 ......................................................................................................... 60
Research Question 3 ......................................................................................................... 72
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 79
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications ..................................................................................... 81
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 82
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 82
Review of Current Literature ............................................................................................ 83
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 85
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 85
Implications ....................................................................................................................... 90
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 92
Concluding Remarks ......................................................................................................... 92
References ..................................................................................................................................... 94
Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................. 100
Appendix B: Information Sheet .................................................................................................. 102
Appendix C: Interview Recruitment Letter ................................................................................ 104
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

7
List of Figures

Figure 1: School Attributes Search by Education Level ............................................................... 28

Figure 2: Qualitative Analysis Model ........................................................................................... 45

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

8
List of Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Superintendents and Districts ............................................................ 50
Table 2: Greatest Factors Affecting Student Mobility .................................................................. 56
Table 3: Superintendent Outreach ................................................................................................ 69
Table 4: Key Strategies Implemented to Address Student Mobility ............................................ 72

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

9

Chapter 1: Overview of the Study

The national conversation around school performance and quality is characteristically
also a conversation about school reform. Lauded as a means of teaching children to be good
citizens to create a common good, the role of public education has grown exponentially since its
inception in 18th century America (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Public school systems are
now charged with ensuring all students fully achieve what Hochschild and Scovronick (2003)
term as three forms of individual success: a common set of democratic values and practices, a
common core of knowledge, and the ability to work with diverse populations. Still, what
Americans want from public schools continues to be both diverse and controversial. For this
reason, education of youth remains the most important and complex American social policy
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
In 2014 approximately 49 million K-12 students were enrolled in public school systems
(National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES] (2014). With enormous implications for
society, traditional public school systems have never been more analyzed and criticized. As well,
implications of school accountability as measured by standardized test outcomes reach well
beyond the traditional school system attracting scrutiny of government and business interests
alike. Lagging test scores, a growing achievement gap, school safety concerns, criticism of
teacher quality and union protections, and continued high spending for schools have led to a
skepticism by the general public in the ability of school districts to effectively educate all
children (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Supported by government policy, school choice is increasingly seen as a viable anecdote
to the issues surrounding failing schools. Laws supporting school reform initiatives, both at the
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

10
state and federal levels, afford options for students in failing districts and provide a means for
parents to leave their existing neighborhood school to seek alternatives for their student’s
education. School choice as a policy reform has invited a multitude of change agents to include
an influx of charter schools, online venues, vouchers, and more. Such reforms have in turn
forced traditional public school districts to take note of the unexpected outcome of student
mobility within and beyond the neighborhood school boundaries and address existing
educational practices and possibilities for students.
These solutions proposed to restructure schools for the advancement of all have led to
both creative and questionable recommendations. There are several ways that school districts
have been affected by student mobility including charter school enrollment, open enrollment
reforms, and school choice. Introduced as an alternative school option in 1992, charter school
enrollment data from 2014 suggests a robust charter school network supporting student mobility
away from traditional schools and, in some cases, districts. The Open Enrollment Act of 2010
allows for students in low-performing schools to choose a school other than that of residence to
better address their educational needs. Burgeoning technology infrastructure has led to hybrid
options further promoting student movement away from traditional educational settings. These
elements and their relationship to student mobility will be further explored in the Background of
the Problem as a means to help frame this study. Education reformers and advocates have
conducted extensive studies and produced significant research around various models of school
reform. With the entry of school choice options for families allowing students to attend schools
outside of neighborhood boundary lines, traditional public school systems are faced with
challenges not previously imposed. The following study will examine diverse measures
employed by Superintendents in the areas of student mobility and school choice.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

11
Background of the Problem

Since its introduction in 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has identified and
publicized low-achieving schools based on student standardized test outcomes. Further,
statistical data on school and district graduation rates, student discipline, and fiscal solvency are
widely available to the general public further highlighting deficits in school management,
quality, and performance. While total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools
in the United States amounted to $632 billion in 2010–2011, student test scores nationally have
grown only incrementally (NCES, 2014). Based on National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) results, only 25 of the 52 U. S. states/jurisdictions had a higher average score in 2013
than in 2011 in at least one subject and grade. The District of Columbia, Tennessee, and the
Department of Defense schools were the only states/jurisdictions to score higher than in 2011 in
both subjects at both grades 4 and 8 (NAEP, 2014). In California, 2013 graduation rates
increased 2% to 80.2% overall. Still, subgroup graduation rates lagged behind with only 62.7%
of students identified as English Learners earning a high school diploma (California Department
of Education, 2014). Increasingly problematic is the growing achievement gap between white
and African-American students.
Although traditional public schools continue to make gains in student achievement, most
continue to lag behind, specifically in poor urban districts (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Response to the perceived crisis in education has resulted in multiple reform policies from shifts
in State Standards and standardized testing and funding, to a growing number of alternative
educational options for students. In the wake of NCLB as a marker of school failure and the
increase in public dissatisfaction with traditional school districts in aptly addressing the needs of
all students, demands for change have resulted in various government-based interventions.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

12
School Choice

The call for school reform and school choice is not a new premise, starting in the 1950’s
as part of an attempt to separate white from black students in the South. By the 1960’s, the
countercultural left promoted alternative or independent schools for their children to grow
cognitively and spontaneously (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Still, as early as the 1950s with
Sputnik, until recent calls to develop student capacity for deeper understanding of concepts
through the National Common Core State Standards, strategies to improve schools have focused
on “fixing everything” (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003, p. 87).
For many reformers, school choice should, in fact, fix everything from school discipline
issues to sagging student testing outcomes by increasing competition between schools, providing
parents with alternatives to failing neighborhood schools, and breaking the monopoly on
education held by the public school system (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Proponents of the
choice movement call for the elimination of government schools that continue to offer a factory
model of education no longer relevant to the needs of students and the nation at large (Schneider,
Teske, & Marschall, 2002). While school choice is a heavily debated and complex topic, the
movement to provide students with alternative educational settings continues to grow, impacting
traditional public school systems in the areas of student mobility and retention.
Open Enrollment Act. The introduction of California Education Code legislation to
sanction the Open Enrollment Act of 2010 specifies parents’ ability to enroll their student in a
school other than their school of residence should the latter not meet specific standards. This
option is based on the State Superintendent’s annual list of 1,000 low-achieving schools
identified for the Open Enrollment Act. Such schools would have failed to meet the Annual
Yearly Performance (AYP) benchmark growth model enacted by NCLB. The goal of NCLB was
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

13
to lead students to 100% proficiency on state exams by 2014 (California Department of
Education, 2014). Consequences of not meeting annual benchmarks for any significant subgroup
of students could mean the loss of up to $1 million dollars in Title I funding for California,
which directly affects students identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged (EdSource, 2009).
With the Open Enrollment Act, penalties for not meeting AYP goals could mean inclusion on the
list of schools offering open enrollment options to families via inter- and intra-district permits,
thus increasing the possibility of student mobility within and beyond the school district.
Charter schools. The charter school movement has been hailed as a means to improve
the efficiency and performance of traditional public school systems (Ni, 2009). Although charter
schools vary enormously, such institutions purport to offer a viable educational option for
families who do not wish to attend their identified school of residence. Enthusiastic leaders of
charter schools promote customer service and minimal bureaucracy in serving students, limiting
school size and promoting longer school days and school years to increase student learning
(Chubb & Moe, 1991). With 5,700 charter schools open nationally in 2012, the number has
grown to 1,125 in California alone, with 514,275 students statewide enrolled in charter schools.
The regulations for charter schools, too, provide parents with the opportunity to leave their
existing school district without requesting a release via inter-district permit. This pattern of
increased freedom to enroll in a school outside the district boundaries has supported the parent
choice movement and the influx of charter schools as a preference for families. Although many
view the charter school movement as a means toward re-segregation of schools, many also
continue to view charter schools, both for-profit and non-profit, as a method of creating a
competitive and successful system of education in the United States.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

14
K-12 online education. Technology-based online learning has increased rapidly in the
K-12 educational setting over the last 10 years. The total number of students taking online
courses, either part time or full time, has increased so rapidly in high school that is estimated
50% of all high school courses will be online by 2019 (Horn, 2010). Online learning began by
serving those unable to access traditional educational services—in small, rural, and urban
schools unable to provide students with extensive course offerings or remedial courses for
students who must retake courses to graduate. In terms of home-schooled students and those who
have not been able to remain in schools with a conventional school schedule, online education is
an attractive option (Horn, 2010). Hybrid schools, too, offer students a mixed-model approach,
combining online learning with a schedule of meetings, field trips, and experiential activities.
More flexible than the brick and mortar school schedule, hybrid schools match curriculum and
student specific schedules and educational needs with little bureaucratic delay (Horn, 2010).
Traditional schools are now offering blended learning environments using online learning to
allow students to access academic courses on campus in dedicated spaces with teachers or other
adults by their side (Horn, 2010).
Challenges of K-12 online education are testing traditional school districts with mounting
technological demands, changing needs of students utilizing online venues, and numerous
untried teaching processes (Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005). From blended learning options to
online home schools and hybrids, the expansion of online K-12 education is impacting student
mobility in traditional school districts and presents both opportunities to expand curricular
offerings and challenges in recapturing students formerly not enrolled in public schools
(Ronsisvalle & Watkins, 2005).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

15
Vouchers. While 39 different private school choice programs have been instituted across
the country, 21 are voucher-based programs (American Federation of Children, 2014). The
premise of voucher programs is to permit students to attend any public, private or parochial
school in that state at taxpayers’ expense. Proponents welcome a move to vouchers as a means of
increasing racial and class integration for students as non-white children would have access to
schools traditionally populated by wealthier white children (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
While voucher systems represent the broadest choice initiative, the majority of Americans living
outside of urban areas do not yet see this as a preference for their own children. Although several
private school voucher initiatives have been proposed, none have taken root in California. Still,
interest in school choice is strongly supported by those leading private schools in California and
remains an issue with future implications for traditional public school leaders.
Student Mobility

Student mobility, the non-promotional movement of students between educational
agencies, is prevalent in both schools and districts across the United States (Rumberger, 2003).
Such student mobility has implications for school districts as well as classroom teachers and
remains a topic discussed primarily in terms of difficulties with urban schooling where
populations are more transient (Kerbow, 1996). Overcrowding, high suspension and expulsion
rates, poor academic quality and the introduction of school choice options have contributed to
increases in student mobility (Rumberger, 2003). A resulting consequence of school perceived
failure is the movement of students between schools as families seek higher quality education for
their children. Mobility, then, can be defined as the influx or exit of students from one school to
another, which has both social and academic consequences for students, schools, and districts
(Rumberger, 2003).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

16
The impact of student mobility on the classroom teacher is often disruptive, resulting in
negative effects on classroom management and long-term instructional planning (Rumberger,
2003). In fact, 77% of teachers surveyed by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, 1994,
reported that a percentage of their lessons were devoted to review of material for new students.
Further, student achievement declines when children are moved from school to school as a result
of interrupted learning experience (Kerbow, 1996; Rumberger, 2003). Not surprisingly, a
majority of students move within school districts as a result of parent dissatisfaction with the
previous school (Kerbow, 1996).
Opponents of school choice point to student mobility as a means of re-segregating
schools. With the ability to choose schools beyond district borders, high-performing schools will
attract higher-performing students (Rumberger, 2003). Opponents further point to school choice
as providing an unfair advantage to more educated families who may be better able to navigate
the school choice regulations for enrollment. The negative, long-term effects of grouping
students by ability or race in lower-performing schools are identified as an unintended
consequence of student mobility related to school choice (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Still, urban school districts such as Los Angeles Unified enable mobility within the
district seeing parental choice as essential in keeping families enrolled in the school district
(Ledwith, 2010). New campuses, the authorization of charter schools, and the creation of magnet
schools and semi-autonomous pilot schools have all become a part of this district in an effort to
reduce exit mobility to outside districts (Dauter & Fuller, 2011). Student mobility has prompted
traditional school districts, such as LAUSD, to retool existing practices and enact reforms
focused on retaining student enrollment which might otherwise decline as a result of parental
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

17
choice options. Consequently, student mobility has caused traditional school districts to take
steps to reduce student mobility both in schools and district-wide (Ledwith, 2010).
Statement of the Problem

There exists in the United States a disruption in the traditional offerings of public
education in fulfilling the needs of all students and providing for each of three tenets of
education: a common set of democratic values and practices, a common core of knowledge, and
the ability to work with diverse populations (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). For traditional
public school Superintendents, understanding and reacting to the swift and ongoing reforms
supported by both federal and state lawmakers in the area of school choice is no longer optional.
With the influx of charter schools and alternate school options, open enrollment edicts, and
future implications related to private school vouchers, Superintendents are tasked with the
responsibility of forming and implementing district reforms to effectively address the potentially
negative impact of student mobility both within and beyond their districts.
Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this paper is threefold. First, this study will explore the key factors that
led to implementation of choice options within traditional school districts identified as open
enrollment districts. Second, this study will examine Superintendent management of student
mobility affecting school districts. Third, this study will discuss traditional public school district
use of policy regarding school choice and its effects on student exit and non-exit mobility.
Additionally, this study will explore potential models of reform that may be applied to districts
addressing issues of student mobility.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

18
Research Questions
To achieve this purpose, the following research questions will guide this qualitative study:
1. What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student mobility in the context
of increased school choice options?
2. What are some strategies or policies implemented by Superintendents to address
challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
3. How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts in their districts to
determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
Significance of the Study
The study adds to the growing body of academic literature on the role of the
Superintendent in addressing student mobility and school choice initiatives. Specifically, this
study will describe the development and implementation of student retention reforms instituted
by Superintendents in six traditional urban school districts. This study will provide insight into
actions taken by Superintendents to address the effects resulting from school choice options for
families in the area of student mobility within and beyond their school district. Finally, this study
documents the effectiveness of district reforms enacted in addressing both exit and non-exit
student mobility within the district.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in this study:
1. The school districts selected are representative of other traditional urban districts.
2. All districts experience student mobility both within and beyond their school districts.
3. All Superintendents are committed to maintaining enrollment in their districts.
4. All Superintendents provided accurate responses that are accurate regarding beliefs
about and actions taken with respect to student mobility within their school districts.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

19
Limitations

The limitations of this study are as follows:
1. School districts not identified as open enrollment districts have been excluded from
the sampling
2. Superintendents’ knowledge base as related to school choice and student mobility
Delimitations

The delimitations of this study are as follows:
1. Interviews were limited to six traditional urban school district Superintendents
2. Districts studied have been designated as open enrollment districts by the California
Department of Education
Definitions and Terms

1. Annual Yearly Progress (AYP): A statewide accountability system set by the No
Child Left Behind Act that requires schools and districts to show annual growth in student
achievement.
2. Charter School: A publicly funded independent school established by teachers,
parents, or community groups under the terms of a charter with a local or national authority.
3. Inter-District Permit: Allows parents/guardians to register and enroll their student at
a school other than the designated school that is in their attendance area outside of their district.
4. Intra-District Permit: Allows parents/guardians who wish to register and enroll their
student at a school other than the designated school that is in their attendance area within their
district.
5. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): The accountability system by which states, districts,
and schools measure student achievement for all student subgroups.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

20
6. Online Education: Educational organizations that offer courses through the internet or
web-based methods.
7. School Board: A local governing board or authority responsible for the provision and
maintenance of schools.
8. School District: A local educational agency (LEA) that provides students in defined
geographical areas or boundaries with school services.
9. Title I: Provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools
with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families to help ensure that
all children meet challenging state academic standards.
Organization of the Study

This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of school
choice models and resulting student mobility as an outcome of perceived school failure. Chapter
2 provides a review of literature of research related to student mobility and the structures of
school choice options. Chapter 3 explains the methodology, including sampling, instrumentation,
data collection, data analysis, and limitations. Chapter 4 reports the findings of the study in
relation to the research questions targeting this study. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes with a
summary of the findings, implications, and recommendations for future research.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

21

Chapter 2: Literature Review

This literature review will analyze current research related to the influence of school
choice in relation to traditional school districts. Further, this chapter will provide an overview of
related issues to include changing enrollment patterns, student mobility, and resulting challenges
faced by traditional school districts in a new market economy. While many studies focus on
comparison of school models and student achievement in discussing school reform, this review
will seek to explore research related to factors impacting this changing educational marketplace
as a result of school choice initiatives and the resulting effects on traditional public school
districts. In the following pages, this study will explore the introduction and effect of school
choice on public education. This chapter will also note gaps in current research, as related to the
role of the Superintendent, to enhance academic literature on the topic of evolving traditional
public school district responses in California to the school choice movement.
The Educational Marketplace
What has become known as the traditional public school in America has long offered a
setting that promotes uniformity in its institutions, which have historically offered little variation
in educational pedagogies (Chubb & Moe, 1991). Since the very purpose of schools is to
promote the success of each citizen thereby strengthening the common good of all, the landscape
of America’s educational market has long supported the basic needs of its citizens (Hochschild &
Scovronick, 2003; Permuth & Dalzell, 2013). Formal schooling came into fashion with the early
American Colonists in the 1600s as a means of promoting reading and writing. By the 19
th

century educators worked to modify the educational system mimicking educational systems
beyond the U. S. that placed students in age-based grades and offered a standardized,
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

22
homogenous curriculum (Fiske & Ladd, 2000). Within only a few decades, education was soon
looked to as a means to address larger societal trials. Moving beyond basic reading and writing,
publically funded education in the 20
th
century came under scrutiny as both exclusive and
inequitable as calls for desegregation and equal funding for all schools prompted landmark court
cases and legislation (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Still, it was not until the late 1990s that
school accountability, as measured by student standardized test scores and a growing
achievement gap between students, called schools to task in changing what had previously been
a monopoly on education. Facing evidence of substantial inequality in public schools for children
of color, two key school laws were enacted. The 1964 Civil Rights Act allowed the Federal
government to withhold funding of schools that discriminated against students. That legislation
was followed by the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which provided
funding specifically to schools with a high percentage of poorer children (Hochschild &
Scovronick, 2003; Permuth & Dalzell, 2013). Although parents could not yet choose their
children’s schools, such government intervention called attention to obvious disparities between
schools and within traditional public school districts.
With a relentless series of attempts to rectify school failure via court cases, good faith
attempts at desegregation through bussing programs, and varied funding equations to support
poorer students (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003), what followed over the next two decades was
a clearer picture of school failure and a stronger voice for school reform. If school failure has
increased negative public attention towards schools, school choice has given critics the
opportunity to develop, seek out, and participate in education in ways never before considered.
Just three decades ago, choosing a school for a child was defined solely by a family’s residential
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

23
location (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). School district officials set boundary lines and
families were directed, typically, to the school closest to their residence.
Frustrated by years of school failure and the inability of the educational system to make
changes quickly enough to serve a more diverse population of students, the 21
st
century in
education is being defined by a move away from school district dictates regarding enrollment, to
an increasingly popular move to unrestricted school choice (Fiske & Ladd, 2000, Hochschild &
Scovronick, 2003). The education market once distinguished by its ability to offer a common
education in support of an industrialized society is now seen as an unfair and inefficient
monopoly. In fact, over the past 30 years, state and federal politicians have moved quickly to
ratify reforms to address failing schools and close a growing achievement gap. Such reforms
have led to increased options for school choice, the growth of self-governing schools, and market
competition for students (Fiske & Ladd, 2000).
Today, attendance in most school districts in the United States is still based on the
neighborhood of residence with students placed in a school zoned specifically for their
geographic area with one new caveat; the introduction of choice initiatives instituted in most
states has changed this tradition of assignment. Through choice initiatives enacted by federal
government and state legislation, most families can now opt out of their approved school and
enroll in another, more desirable school of their choosing (Dauter & Fuller, 2011; Schneider,
Teske, & Marschall, 2002). As a reform movement, school choice is made up of three distinct
components to include accountability (testing) to determine a school’s adequacy, school choice
(open enrollment) to allow students to move to more desirable schools, and alternative school
options to include charters, pilot schools, and inter- and intra-district transfers (Dauter & Fuller,
2011; Izraeli & Murphy, 2012) which remain possibilities for students opting out of traditional
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

24
public school enrollment. School choice is an educational reform positioned to provide options to
parents and improve schools, both traditional and alternative, and thus, improve student
achievement (Dauter & Fuller, 2011).
Educational Marketplace Influences

Over the last several decades, school reform has leveraged change within traditional
school districts focused primarily on providing state standards and implementing standardized
testing. The perceived inability of schools to meet state and federal accountability requirements
matched with fast-paced economic and social changes has prompted unprecedented demand for
complete educational transformation. Such demands for improvement have called to task district
Superintendents to retool schools in an effort to better prepare students for an increasingly
competitive and complex global economy. Aside from state and federal reforms enacted upon
districts via standards, funding, and accountability measures, three key influencers have
permanently changed the historically static face of traditional public education and consequently
have altered previously predetermined student enrollment patterns: changing demographics,
changing parent roles, and the changing traditional public school economics in the new culture of
school choice. The impact of such influencers has increased interest in and access to school
choice options, which continue to proliferate in all states.
Changing Demographics

In defining the influencers of educational reforms in relation to school enrollment
patterns, it is key to first consider societal changes that have affected school enrollment
nationally. Since the early 1970s, demographic changes have significantly impacted school
enrollment. Specifically, between 1972–2007 in data provided by the National Center for
Education Statistics (2014) schools saw a drastic decline in white student enrollment decreasing
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

25
from 78% to 56% with the percentage of students identified as minority increasing from 32% to
44%. In his study of demographic shifts in society, Fusarelli (2011) identified changes in student
ethnicity most obvious in urban areas where three-fourths of African Americans and over 50% of
Mexican Americans live. In his analysis of demographic trends in the U. S., Fusarelli (2011)
found that such urbanization has grown a population that increasingly faces poverty, joblessness,
white flight, and the movement of middle class African Americans out of large, urban cities.
During this period of time, too, the U. S. economy struggled as manufacturing and service jobs
were outsourced and unemployment increased, particularly for ethnic groups—and even more
pronounced for those ages 16–19 who faced a 41% unemployment rate in 2011 (Fusarelli, 2011).
With high unemployment resulting in high poverty, the United States now has the highest rate of
children living in poverty, standing at 19%, when compared to other industrialized nations
(Fusarelli, 2011). In what Fusarelli (2011) cites as an uneven distribution of poverty among
ethnic groups, has come an increased polarization producing rich schools and poor schools,
triggering devastating effects on schools and children.
While changing student demographics have altered the racial and socioeconomic make-
up of schools, particularly in urban areas, it has not led to a notable decline in student enrollment
in California primarily due to an increase in the immigrant student population (NCES, 2014). In
fact, from fall 2001 through fall 2011, the number of white students enrolled in pre-kindergarten
through 12th grade in U. S. public schools decreased from 28. 7 million to 25. 6 million, and
their share of public school enrollment decreased from 60% to 52%. In contrast, the number of
Hispanic students enrolled during this period increased from 8.2 million to 11.8 million students,
and their share of public school enrollment increased from 17% to 24% (NCES, 2014).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

26
U. S. public school enrollment increased between 2001 and 2011 from 47.7 million to
49.5 million and is projected to continue increasing to 52.1 million in fall 2023 (NCES, 2014).
For California, the Hispanic student population has increased from 43.1% in 2001 to 53.7% in
2013 with more than 57 languages represented in the state’s public schools (CDE, 2014). In
addition, California’s public schools’ 1,413,549 English learners constitute 22.7% of the total
enrollment with a total of 2,685,793 students speaking a language other than English in their
homes (CDE, 2014). This number represents 43.1% of the state’s public school enrollment.
Traditional public school districts, responding to shifts in student demographics, are now
facing the impact of school choice and its subsequent bearing on student enrollment and mobility
within and beyond their district boundaries. Whereas declining enrollment continues to be an
issue in smaller, rural, traditional school districts, changing demographics and stratification of
student populations due to mobility increasingly challenge larger, urban school districts (Carlson,
Lavery, & Witte, 2011; Miron, Urschel, Mathis, & Tornquist, 2010).
Changing Parent Roles

Viewing schools as suppliers of education has changed little since the inception of public
education. Viewing parents as consumers is new to traditional educational institutions (Fiske &
Ladd, 2000). The focus on behaviors of parents in the realm of education varies greatly and
appears to be influenced by both parent level of income and level of education (Schneider &
Buckley, 2002). Parent influence is key to how the education marketplace is addressing change
in enrollment options and programmatic options offered to students. Demands from parents that
schools not only adequately educate their children, but also prepare them for both college and
career options in a safe, engaging, and compassionate atmosphere are key assumptions facing
both traditional and nontraditional schools (Fiske & Ladd, 2000). Findings note the influence of
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

27
parent preferences affecting both socioeconomic and racial composition of schools in addition to
academic performance (Schneider & Buckley, 2002). As themes of school failure, changing
demographics, and parent calls for change continue to increase, traditional school districts have
been forced to respond.
In reaction to protests from the public regarding failing schools, in 2011 the City of Los
Angeles passed the school choice-based education reform entitled the Parent Trigger Act
allowing parents to petition to convert a school to a charter school, close the school, or replace
school leadership (Butcher, 2013). This same act later passed statewide in California, Texas, and
Mississippi (Butcher, 2013). Passage of this reform further signaled the need for aggressive
movement on the part of the Los Angeles Unified School District already deeply involved in the
choice movement authorizing 235 charter schools enrolling approximately 18. 5% of its students
(National Association of Public Charter Schools, 2015). Such patterns in parent choice behavior
factor greatly in how schools and districts shift in a changing consumer-based education market.
In interviews with 1,600 parents in four school districts, researchers found that parents of
lower socioeconomic status were more interested in the basic values of schools versus more
educated parents who sought solid academic offerings to support student test performance
(Schneider et al., 2002). For Schneider and Buckley (2002), evidencing what parents identify as
primary in choosing their children’s schools was more convoluted. Survey data of 1,000
participants by telephone as well as data gleaned from the DCSchoolSearch website (Figure 1)
identified that location, student population, and high test scores rate more highly than even
facilities (Schneider & Buckley, 2002). Surprisingly, while many parents stated that they value
highly qualified teachers, very few took time to review school profiles divulging such
information (Schneider & Buckley, 2002). Taking into account the level of education of
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

28
respondents, student demographics was cited by the majority of more highly educated parents
(Schneider & Buckley, 2002).

Figure 1. School attributes search by education level (source: DCSchoolSearch.com).

Although schooling is considered primary in supporting and increasing knowledge,
research finds that when families choose a specific school based on the form of education
offered, they tend to rely on their perception of how that institution will meet their child’s
individual needs (Belfield & Levin, 2012). Since a better education leading to a higher education
equates to stronger financial security in the future, findings further indicate that parents most
often look for schools that meet higher standards (Belfield & Levin, 2012).
Changing School Economics

The concept of a market economy is one based on supply and demand. With student
enrollment tied directly to school funding, maintaining or increasing enrollment is essential to
the survival of public school districts. Containing costs by reworking transportation, special
education, and other district costs does not completely resolve school finance issues. Funding
tied to student attendance remains the mainstay of district economies and their ability to remain
solvent. Continuous enrollment, too, has a strong impact on a district’s overall budget. In
California and Texas, school funding both incorporate high incentive count methods to generate
funding via attendance (Ely & Fermanich, 2013).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

29
The direct fiscal impact of charter schools on traditional school districts in terms of
enrollment is documented in research surrounding New York school finance. In a study of two
districts in New York State, Bifulco and Reback (2014) used data on district enrollment from
state school report cards matched against counts of district residents attending charter schools.
Enrollment decreases were noted in both districts identified for this study, especially from 2002–
2008 (Bifulco & Reback, 2014) as charter school enrollment expanded enrolling 17% to 20% of
resident students eligible to attend traditional public schools. What researchers also noted was
the low percentage of limited English proficient students from traditional districts enrolling in
charter schools. This points to difficulties with public school spending containment in the area of
bilingual and English as a Second Language spending (Bifulco & Reback, 2014). High
enrollment of low-income students in charter schools was noted as a means of reducing public
school compensatory education needs thus reducing overall costs (Bifulco & Reback, 2014).
Unreported enrollment in private schools may further skew the overall issue of declining
enrollment in both districts.
School choice in California, where per pupil funding is based on an average daily
attendance (ADA) formula that rewards schools for higher attendance rates, creates an economic
loss for schools, particularly those in small districts with limited alternate funding options. Very
simply, the total ADA is defined as the total days of student attendance divided by the total days
of instruction (CDE, 2014). The national average in 2010 for per pupil spending was $11,824
while the average per pupil expenditure in California for 2010 stood at $8,825 (Edsource, 2013).
Over the past 10 years, approximately 1,125 charter schools opened in California, enrolling
514,275 students. The cost of keeping or losing student enrollment, then, has far-reaching fiscal
impacts on schools and districts alike.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

30
Unexpected Outcomes of School Choice
Competition

Promoted as a reform model, school choice permits entities to create and sustain
conditions that allow parents to select schools that match their values while creating effective
communities of learning for students (Schneider et al., 2002). While school choice in not a
uniform enterprise, it is unilaterally defined by advocates as the single most efficient way of
transforming education and reversing the decline of student achievement as a result of failing
public schools (Dauter & Fuller, 2011; Schneider et al., 2002). All states in the U. S. make at
least some alternatives available to residence-based enrollment (Davis, 2013). According to
Davis (2013) choice options commonly offered by states include homeschooling (100% of
states) and open enrollment (82% of states) followed by charter schools (80% of states). Choice,
then, is an initiative that will continue to influence policy endorsed by both state and local
education agencies.
Shifting schools from government control to private enterprise is also a shift toward
growing options for students and increasing competition for enrollment both within and beyond
district boundaries. (Belfield & Levin, 2012; Dauter & Fuller, 2011). The reorganization of
educational systems, evident in many countries, has led to choice mechanisms meant to provide
equal opportunity for every student while initiating healthy competition between schools to
increase student achievement (Montes & Rubalcaba, 2012). Advocates further characterize
choice as a means of developing schools very different from the outdated factory model
promoted by traditional public schools. Additionally, school choice reformists identify increases
in parent and student satisfaction and growth of strong school communities as key outcomes of
the choice movement (Schneider et al., 2002). Research suggests that choice actually improves
both traditional public school and alternative school productivity via competition for students
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

31
exercising choice options, thereby attracting more students and increasing overall effectiveness
of schools (Schneider et al., 2002).
This is reinforced in Fiske and Ladd’s (2000) book, When Schools Compete, which
studies outcomes of New Zealand’s 1989 sweeping educational reform, entitled Tomorrow’s
Schools Plan. This plan, which abolished the national Department of Education, turned legal
responsibility for all aspects of school management over to local elected boards of trustees.
Three ideals quickly emerged from this plan: decentralizing education systems, parent choice,
and competition between schools for students via increased quality of education (Fiske & Ladd,
2000). According to Fiske and Ladd (2000), New Zealand’s reforms resulted in competition
between schools that delivered mixed results in terms of school performance and equitable
enrollment trends. For parents, particularly those without financial means, transportation and
peripheral costs of enrolling students in a more desired school, prohibited any such movement
(Fiske & Ladd, 2000). Further, impacted schools, which filled up quickly, appear to have the
right to choose students. This practice, points out Fiske and Ladd (2000), reverses the basic
concept of parent choice by allowing schools to choose students versus parents choosing schools
for their children. In addition, competition between schools for students advanced a decline in
professional sharing of best instructional practices of principals and teachers between colleagues
and schools. Recruiting tactics, too, proved to promote unethical practices on the part of
administrators pressured to increase or sustain higher enrollments (Fiske & Ladd, 2000).
At face value, the competitive environment developed out of the Tomorrow’s Schools plan
supported increased results by schools when given local control to nimbly react to support parent
or student needs. Still, enrollment patterns reflect a lack of true choice for many families (Fiske &
Ladd, 2000). Five years following implementation of the plan, data reflected a growing
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

32
stratification of New Zealand’s students as sorted by socioeconomic status with data further
identifying an upsurge in white and brown flight from less desirable schools (Fiske & Ladd, 2000).
Research indicates that there is a belief among consumers that in order for schools to
compete there must be variation (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Dauter & Fuller, 2011). The basic issue
with traditional public schools is the uniformity of the education offered to children, which is
perceived as substandard (Chubb & Moe, 1990). Belfield and Levin (2012) assert that schools
that respond to so many diverse needs of students will ultimately divide the market into niches.
Further, using this market approach schools will compete to match parent preferences which may
result in a move away from providing for larger social goals or providing a universal educational
experience for students (Belfield & Levin, 2012). In states that use attendance as a marker for
funding schools, the fiscal impact stemming from enrollment changes can result in drastic
consequences (Jimerson, 2002). Changing enrollment patterns have programmatic ramifications
as well.
Student Mobility

Amidst all the reforms and societal changes influencing education, the issue of student
mobility and its impact on schools remains constant, particularly in discussions surrounding
urban school districts. Using data from the Chicago public elementary schools in which the
movement histories of a cohort of 6
th
grade students was followed over a two-year period,
Kerbow (1996) identified early on that student mobility resulted in school instability. Teacher
surveys further supported this assertion noting that no reforms could be effectively implemented
without stability in the classroom (Kerbow, 1996). Residential and school-related mobility
revealed negative effects on both students and the classrooms such mobility disrupts (Kerbow,
1996). Findings revealed most students moved between schools within their original district.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

33
Instability in Chicago elementary schools, then, was a result of internal shifts (Kerbow, 1996).
Consequences of student mobility have come to stand out as key factors in how districts
forecast personnel and programmatic needs to support students. In a study conducted in the Los
Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) which focused on the effects of diverse school
organizations on student mobility, researchers Dauter and Fuller (2011) studied both individual
and organization-level predictors of mobility. By creating a person-period data set from LAUSD
student records and teacher variables in two separate school years, researchers identified factors
that influence mobility and estimated the likelihood of exit from a school and the likelihood of
enrollment in a charter or newly built school in the district (2011). Such factors included race,
socioeconomic status, school structures in terms of overcrowding and new builds (Dauter &
Fuller, 2011). Contrary to previous research that found mobility detrimental to children both
socially and academically, findings from this study found that diverse school options not only
slowed mobility, but also increased student-school matches and fueled competition to lift quality
of schools (Dauter & Fuller, 2011). Further, the researchers found that African Americans and
white students were more likely to exit schools for charter and magnet options, while Latino
families exited to attend newly constructed schools that were neither charter nor magnet
organizations (Dauter & Fuller, 2011).
Faced with both open enrollment and charter school policies that allowed families to
move between schools, researchers Powers, Topper, and Silver (2012) investigated the effects of
choice on student enrollment in metropolitan Phoenix. This study focused not on attrition, but on
movement of students between both charter and traditional public schools. In this study,
researchers noted two common themes related to student mobility unrelated to normal grade
progression. Expanded public school choice options in Arizona, which include all public schools
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

34
in the state, has created what researchers term a “robust” public education market (Powers et al.,
2012). In identifying patterns of student movement between districts and between districts and
charters, Powers et al. (2012) focused on elementary schools in 27 districts in this market-
oriented educational system. Tracking student enrollment data, Powers et al. (2012) analyzed
district non-exit enrollment data, district exit enrollment data, and racial demographics of both
exit and non-exiting students. While 91% of students remained enrolled within the same school
district, researchers found that those with higher student non-exit mobility incurred higher
educational and administrative costs. In addition, districts with declining enrollments lost
revenue via per pupil funding equations set by the state (Powers et al., 2012). This was
particularly difficult for smaller districts and reflective of declining state and local budgets
(Powers et al., 2012).
Findings from this study match those of a secondary study in the Denver metropolitan
area which concluded that on average the number of incoming students from charter schools was
only marginally lower than the number of outgoing students leaving traditional public schools
for charter schools (Powers et al., 2012). In terms of racial demographics, researchers found that
White and Asian American students moved at a lower rate but more often chose a move to
charter schools. Black, Hispanic, and American Indian students moved at a higher rate but
equally between district and charter schools (Powers et al., 2012). This study could not quantify
the assertion that charter schools were responsible for siphoning students from traditional public
school districts. Relocation to new schools was based primarily on education reasons such as test
scores or school environment or housing or job changes (Powers et al., 2012). Instead, the
researchers concluded that the student mobility pattern in Arizona is more rotational than a
reflection of school competition for students (Powers et al., 2012).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

35
Faced with similar questions, Carlson et al. (2011) conducted a comparative study to
define causes of inter-district open enrollment flows in Minnesota and Colorado. In this study
researchers utilized transfer data from both states of enrollment inflows and outflows of students
across districts and to charter schools. Incorporating both State Department of Education and
district-level open enrollment flow data, findings concluded such information only basic in terms
of students transferring out, but particularly interesting in terms of transaction data noting where
outflow transfer students opted to enroll (Carlson et al., 2011). It is important to note that open
enrollment transfers that did not take place due to distance or transportation were not tracked by
any education entity. Findings mark academic quality as the largest determinant of open
enrollment flows in both states studied (Carlson et al., 2011). Socioeconomic factors, on the
other hand, do not greatly influence open enrollment decisions thus quelling concerns about
segregation as an outcome of open enrollment policies (Carlson et al., 2011). Finally, this study
found unequivocally that students exit high-achieving districts to enroll in even higher achieving
districts. This study defines a mobility trend in which students attending relatively successful
districts still opt for open enrollment to transfer to districts seen as even higher achieving
(Carlson et al., 2011). Finally, results confirm low-performing districts lose a large number of
students while only receiving a small number of new enrollees within the structures of open
enrollment policies (Carlson et al., 2011). Significant losses in revenue based on declining
student enrollment compound the struggle of many underperforming schools to succeed.
Student Stratification

Choice reforms have come under scrutiny by those concerned about negative effects and
failed promises of success. Empirical data suggests that unequal sorting of students by race,
socioeconomic status, and ability will create conditions for stratification (Schneider et al., 2002).
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

36
In a 2000 study of Minnesota schools, researchers compared findings from 1998, which found
that districts had lost high numbers of students due to open enrollment resulting in larger
concentrations of minority students. This was further supported by a follow up study in 2000 that
discovered only 11.8% of students involved in open enrollment identified as part of a minority
group, leaving a 4.2% gap between minorities and non-minorities participating in open
enrollment options (Jimerson, 2002). A resulting lawsuit filed by the NAACP settled in 2001,
specifically identified Minnesota state policies such as open enrollment as resulting in a
segregated school system (Jimerson, 2002). Additionally, researchers posit that families with
more educated and higher earning parents more often access choice pathways to better schools
(Cobb & Glass, 2014). Unregulated choice programs that make families independently
responsible to exercise choice may actually widen segregation in schools resulting in the
systematic flight of more educated, wealthier families to higher achieving schools (Cobb &
Glass, 2009).
Choice as a promoter of segregation is further explored in a 2010 study offered by Miron
et al. which compared overall state enrollment percentages for charter schools. Through an
examination of a national database of charter schools, researchers focused on ethnic/minority
classifications, socioeconomic status, English language levels, and identified disabilities.
Disaggregation of data found that charter schools appear to segregate students in a much stronger
manner than that of the sending schools from which students transferred (Miron et al., 2010).
Further, researchers found that charter schools segregated students by income level separating
high-income from low-income students in comparison to the students’ respective local school
districts (Miron et al., 2010). Lower enrollment percentages were seen, both for students
identified as English Language Learners as well as students requiring special education services.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

37
This may be caused by parent lack of interest based on a perception that only minimal services
are available in a less comprehensive charter school setting (Miron et al., 2010). Student
stratification which further divides society via student enrollment in charter schools is both
evident and quantifiable, but may be an outcome of segregated neighborhoods, white flight, and
other types of choice schools (Miron et al., 2010). This research parallels that of Carlson et al.
(2011) in identifying white flight and increased segregation due to open enrollment policies as
common concerns for school districts in Minnesota, although Colorado did not evidence as
strong a parallel. Student stratification continues to warrant attention as the influences of school
choice impact student mobility.
Summary

An escalating school-choice movement supports offering parents more options for
educating their children. Choice in the area of education takes many forms to include charter
schools, which are generally small schools that are tax-supported but privately run, and open
enrollment options whereby parents can freely enroll their students in preferred schools within
and beyond their residential boundaries. Such changes have called upon Superintendents to
reexamine the way business is done. Faced with increasing student mobility, a competitive
marketplace, and societal demands for increases in student outcomes, implementation of
innovative reforms to maintain district student enrollment is now a point of survival for
traditional public school districts.
While some districts have begun the process of addressing shifting enrollment patterns
due to impeding choice options for families, research surrounding district approaches to this
phenomenon is limited. In California, specifically, two notable districts have taken a preemptive
approach to the choice movement. Encountering a period of declining enrollment and an aging
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

38
local population, the Riverside Unified School District (RUSD) in 2010 declared itself a district
of choice (DOC). According to Senate Bill 680 proffered in 2010 by then Governor
Schwarzenegger, a DOC is not required to admit pupils, but it is required to select pupils through
a random process that is not based on academic or athletic talent. In opting to become a DOC,
RUSD opened its doors to students from outside districts accepting 161 transfer students in the
first year growing to 535 students in 2013–2014 (Kronholz, 2014). The district, in turn,
maintained employee positions and stabilized the district’s financial situation (Kronholz, 2014).
With open enrollment available in some form in all states and approximately 15% of
school-age children choosing a school other than their school of residence through open
enrollment programs (Colvin, 2013), traditional public school Superintendents have had to take
action. Still, the extent to which a Superintendent reacts or acts to school choice initiatives is
woefully under-researched. The processes, decision-making, and ultimate reform outcomes are
unique to each district and dependent on the actions of the Superintendent. Yet, the degree to
which Superintendents view and address implications of school choice is deficient in existing
research. Such research will prove crucial in strategizing for the future of traditional public
schools in serving both a proactive and mobile constituency.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

39

Chapter 3: Methodology

Within the United States, traditional public schools, long standing as the only school
option for families, are now faced with the arrival of school choice options for families. Choice
has grown in the form of charter schools and alternate school options, open enrollment statutes,
and public pressure to sanction private school vouchers. Momentum behind the choice
movement has resulted in varied and unexpected outcomes including student mobility between
schools. Such increase in mobility has caused a number of Superintendents to consider reform
policies directed at addressing the potential impact of school choice initiatives on traditional
school districts.
While many studies have added to the body of research surrounding the role of the
Superintendent and Superintendent effectiveness, minimal quantifiable research has been
conducted in the area of Superintendent behaviors specific to the arrival of school choice
initiatives and the related issue of student mobility. This study seeks to describe approaches
applied by public school Superintendents to address influences of school choice and student
mobility within their districts. As the school choice movement continues to gain momentum
throughout the United States, such research may prove helpful in supporting Superintendents in
creating reform models within their districts that proactively address student mobility in relation
to school choice initiatives.
The previous chapters offered an overview of the study as well as a review of the
literature related to this topic. This chapter provides a description of the study, the purpose of the
study, the methodology, research design, identified participants, data collection protocols, and
data analysis process that will be used in addressing three overarching research questions.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

40
This study employed a qualitative design to draw upon the strengths of rich, first-hand
data (Creswell, 2012). Interviews were chosen as a means of identifying trends in
Superintendents’ perceptions about the impact of choice on their decisions and actions specific to
student mobility. For this reason the study explores: the key factors that led to implementation of
choice options within school districts identified as open enrollment districts, potential models of
reform that may be applied to districts addressing issues of student mobility, traditional public
school use of policy relative to school choice, and its effects on student exit and non-exit
mobility. Additionally, this study examined Superintendents’ management of student mobility
and school choice in school districts identified as urban. The following research questions
framed inquiry for this study:
1. What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student mobility in the
context of increased school choice options?
4. What are some strategies or policies implemented by Superintendents to address
challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
5. How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts in their districts
to determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
Research Design

While Creswell (2009) describes five types of qualitative research strategies, each
offering differing attributes, a grounded research design for analysis of data most aptly supports
this study’s goal of exploring the inclinations and actions of Superintendents in addressing
student mobility within their districts. According to Creswell (2009), the key to grounded theory
is “the constant comparison of data with emerging categories and theoretical sampling of
different groups to maximize the similarities and differences of information” (p. 13). As such, a
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

41
qualitative research design allowed the researcher to utilize in-depth interview transcripts to
garner varied experiences of Superintendents to construct the context, influences, and most
common approaches taken to address the changing educational landscape in traditional school
districts (Cresswell, 2009; Merriam, 2009). A qualitative research design, then, was deemed
most appropriate to complete this study.
The interview protocol was designed with the understanding that research questions
would be best answered by collecting first-hand information from seated Superintendents in
traditional public school districts. Qualitative data collected via one-to-one interviews provided a
basis for defining the steps taken by Superintendents to address student mobility in an era of
increasing school choice options. This approach allowed the researcher to analyze data collected
in terms of context, participant’s approach, specific actions taken, and assessment of such actions
as constructed by each Superintendent’s experiences and leadership (Merriam, 2009). Although
qualitative procedures remain a different approach to scholarly inquiry, such an approach
allowed for a method of data collection that was both flexible and interpretive in nature, yielding
first-hand accounts from multiple perspectives addressing the same challenge (Creswell, 2009).
Sample Population

Purposeful criterion sampling was used in this study to identify six (6) Superintendents
for the purposes of qualitative research. This researcher sought volunteers with whom to
conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews through contacts both locally and through
professional contacts. Such volunteers provided this researcher with a group of willing
participants who were practicing Superintendents in traditional urban school districts, which
have two or more open enrollment schools as identified by the California Department of
Education. This sample size suitably produced ample data to create generalizable results.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

42
Key to this study was each Superintendent’s knowledge of their district’s history with
student mobility and school choice influences. In addition, school choice is most apparent in
urban districts with a record of low academic performance outcomes. For these reasons, the
quantitative data used to determine sampling criteria included: (a) two Superintendents in large
California districts with more than 40,000 students, two Superintendents in mid-sized California
districts with between 10,000 and 39,000 students, and two Superintendents in small California
districts with less than 10,000 students; (b) Superintendents in California districts with schools
included in the open enrollment schools list which provides students enrolled in one of the 1,000
“low-achieving” schools with the ability to attend a more desirable school (CDE, 2015); and (c)
Superintendents who have been in the position for two or more years in their present district.
Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework is a means of illuminating both expected and unexpected results
of research (Maxwell, 2013). For the purposes of this study, with minimal research completed in
this area of analysis, a new framework was developed to suitably consider approaches of
Superintendents to the influences of school choice and student mobility in their districts. This
framework concentrates on actions taken by Superintendents in the face of growing choice
options for families living within district boundaries. The framework looks at Superintendents’
overall perceptions of how their districts have been affected by the influences of choice (RQ 1),
how Superintendents have acted to assuage challenges which emerged due to school choice
initiatives, specifically student mobility (RQ 2), and, based on these actions, how
Superintendents evaluate reforms or policies enacted as a means of lowering student mobility in
their districts (RQ 3). These three characteristics framed this study, providing an examination of
diverse measures employed by Superintendents in the area of student mobility and school choice.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

43
Instrumentation and Protocols

The goal of the researcher was to proffer questions being studied in the dissertation
process to elicit specific qualitative data while also allowing for flexibility in responses
(Merriam, 2009). For these reasons, the principal instrument used in collecting data for this study
was a semi-structured interview approach. Such an approach allowed for an interview protocol
that deepened the researchers’ understanding by providing circumstantial details that clarified or
deviated from trends that emerged.
According to Maxwell, formation of suitable interview questions requires “creativity and
insight, rather than a mechanical conversion of the research questions” (2013, p. 101). In
developing interview questions, the researcher reassessed and amended research questions based
on the data needs. The qualitative interview protocol included 14 open-ended questions built on
the research questions and framework for this study. Sub-questions and probes were also
presented to garner additional material from the sampling as needed. This protocol was
consistently employed with each participant, although additional questions were entertained.
Follow up questions were offered to gain clarity or additional detail related to participants’
responses (Merriam, 2009).
Data Collection
Data collection through qualitative interviews was completed using a timeline that best
supported identified Superintendents’ schedules. Interviews were completed with six (6)
California Superintendents who fit the qualification guidelines. The process of data collection
included entry to the site, data collection, and exit from the site, which all depended on gaining
prior permission from participants (Merriam, 2013). In order to ensure findings were meaningful
and authentic, each interview was conducted in the participant’s natural setting at their district
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

44
office by the researcher using the semi-structured interview protocol developed for this purpose.
With each participant’s consent, the researcher used an electronic device to audio-record each
interview. Key to achieving maximum resulting data from each interview was the need to place
the participants at ease by informing them of how the findings would be used (Bogden & Biklen,
2003). For this reason, each Superintendent was offered the option of receiving a copy of this
study’s findings via the final dissertation.
To address ethical considerations, each participant in this study granted permission, and
protocols were approved by the University of Southern California (USC) Institutional Review
Board (IRB). Prior to initiating any interview, each participant was given a complete description
of the interview process including the use of a recording device, which remained in clear view
throughout each interview. Further, each participant was guaranteed anonymity and was referred
to only as Superintendent A, Superintendent B, and so on to maintain the privacy of each
Superintendent interviewed. Transparency in all steps taken to complete interviews was key to
completing deep and thoughtful interviews with each participant (Creswell, 2009).
Data Analysis

Analysis of data was approached first through the use of technology in that interviews
were initially recorded, then transcribed verbatim, then coded using Dedoose web-based software
to identify patterns through coding and categorizing and to uncover rich underlying meaning in
related qualitative data. The use of technology supplied this researcher with mechanisms to
organize and analyze qualitative data in developing themes and conclusions. After analyzing data
collected via qualitative means, the researcher constructed reports, which included the review of
findings from the literature review (see Figure 2). Both sources of data confirmed or correlated
with each other, and identified differences in findings where they occurred.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

45
Qualitative Analysis Model

Figure 2. Qualitative Analysis Model

Validity and Generalizability

The use of specific procedures to check for accuracy of findings is key to delivering
accurate and thorough results from this study. To ensure accuracy of the qualitative findings, it
was necessary to review themes against responses to align findings appropriately. The use of rich
descriptions was necessary, but could not lead to identification of participants. What Creswell
terms “negative or discrepant information” (2009, p. 192), was encountered via the diversity of
the participants’ backgrounds and present situations. Contradictory evidence resulted in
unexpected, key findings, which may be generalized to what Creswell terms a broader theory for
use in future research studies (2009).
Summary

This chapter provides an overview of the purpose of the study and research questions
utilized as a basis for this qualitative study as well as related supports to include the conceptual
Interview Design
Data
Collection
(Interviews)
Literature Review
Data Analysis
(Coding)
Research Findings

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

46
framework, interview sampling and protocol, and data collection and analysis. Validity and
generalizability issues were also addressed. This study was designed to utilize qualitative data
gathered from seated Superintendents addressing changes in student mobility and influences of
school choice initiatives. Findings from these sources, along with those from a review of
literature combined to provide credible and relevant data related to school choice and its impact
on traditional public school districts.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

47

Chapter 4: Findings

Background

The purpose of this study is to examine Superintendents’ response to issues surrounding
student mobility and school choice. In the process, this study first explored key factors leading to
implementation of choice options within traditional school districts throughout California.
Second, this study examined Superintendents’ management of student mobility affecting school
districts. Third, this study reviewed the dialog around traditional public school district use of
strategies or policies as related to school choice and its effects on student exit and non-exit
mobility (Powers et al., 2012) Moreover, this study explored potential models of change that
may be applied to districts addressing issues of student mobility.
Three research questions guided this study:

1. What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student mobility in the
context of increased school choice options?
2. What are some strategies or policies implemented by Superintendents to address
challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
3. How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts in their districts
to determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
For the purposes of this analysis, Chapter 2 provided an overview of research literature in
relation to two key areas: the changing educational marketplace and unexpected outcomes of
school choice. The literature on educational marketplace influences was examined with
particular emphasis on demographics, parent roles, and school economics. With respect to school
choice, this literature review concentrated on competition between educational agencies and
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

48
student mobility and stratification. Chapter 3 described the research methodology used in the
study, with particular emphasis on the qualitative approach incorporating individual interviews
with Superintendents.
This chapter presents the findings of the study in relation to each of the three research
questions, beginning with an overview of the demographic information obtained in the
qualitative phases. These findings are the outcome of six in-depth interviews conducted over a
period of three months. All participants were established leaders in their districts having served
two or more years in the position. Of the six, three Superintendents were women and three
Superintendents were men, with all having served in the field of education for more than 20
years. Five held doctorate degrees while the one remaining Superintendent recently enrolled in a
doctoral program. In terms of their districts, two Superintendents held positions in large
California public school districts of 45,000 or more students; two guided districts of between
11,000 and 15,000 students; and two directed smaller districts with enrollments of 9,000 or less.
Utilizing professional networks to invite superintendents to participate, a priority was placed on
locating Superintendents representing districts located in differing geographic regions throughout
California. Interview invitations yielded six volunteers from six different counties stemming
from Northern to Southern California regions. Table 2 details the district demographic make-up
and profile of each Superintendent who participated in a qualitative interview.
Each Superintendent was interviewed using a set of 12 prepared questions utilizing the
semi-structured approach method (Merriam, 2009). Appendix A provides a copy of the
qualitative interview protocol. Superintendents’ responses were captured in written notes and
documented using a digital recorder. Digital recordings and notes were transcribed to best
capture and analyze the content and to provide the researcher with the ability to take notes and
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

49
effectively engage in a meaningful dialogue. Two of the interviews, both with leaders of this
study’s largest districts, were conducted by telephone due to limitations with Superintendents’
schedules.
Grouping of the interview protocol to match the three overarching research questions
allowed for more efficient use of time in the classification process. Subcategory codes within
each of these three areas led to a further coding of the data. Interview transcripts were then
manually coded in categories using Dedoose, an online, cross-platform research application, to
organize and code qualitative research data. The use of the three sections based on the three
research questions drove the analysis. Summarized analyses supported by direct quotations
represent the findings. Seven reappearing themes were identified via coding and analysis:
Mobility Perceptions:
(1) mobility triggers; (2) mobility consequences
Student Retention Strategies and Policies:
(3) marketing approaches; (4) rebranding schools, (5) superintendent outreach
Systems of Analysis:
(6) quantitative metrics; (7) qualitative metrics
This chapter presents the findings as reported in order by the three identified research
questions as well as auxiliary findings as related to this study.
Qualitative Demographic Data

The demographic data for each of the Superintendents selected for this study are
represented in Table 1. The Superintendent profile consists of leaders who are seated
Superintendents in the districts identified for this study and includes information on enrollment,
length of tenure in present positions, and district demographics.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

50

Table 1

Characteristics of Superintendents and Districts
Superintendent Tenure Enrollment
Declining
Enrollment

District Profile
Academic
Performance
Index (API)
2013
A 4 years 11,300 Yes
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 38% Latino
• 7% African American
• 30% White
• 6% Asian
865
B 3 years 58,400 Yes
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 29% Latino
• 10% African American
• 13% White
• 35% Asian
806
C 5 years 8,800 Yes
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 71% Latino
• 21% African American
• 2% White
• 2% Asian
799
D 2 years 46,200 Yes
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 54% Latino
• 0.5% African American
• 9% White
• 33% Asian
820
E 3 years 17,000 No
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 92% Latino
• 1% African American
• 3% White
• 0.4% Asian
727
F 8 years 6,124 Yes
Student Body Ethnicity:
• 40% Latino
• 6% African American
• 35% White
• 9% Asian

858
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

51
Research Question 1: What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student
mobility in the context of increased school choice options?
Mobility Triggers
This issue of mobility differed significantly in each of the six districts included in this
study. All six superintendents interviewed for this study stated that charter schools were not an
issue for their district in relation to mobility. Private or parochial schools, as well as more
desirable public schools in adjacent districts, tended to attract families at a far greater percentage
than did charter schools, which are minimally represented in each of the six districts.
Competition from surrounding districts, perceived as higher achieving and safer, posed a larger
concern with exiting patterns of student mobility for four of the six districts included in this
study. With a mix of both declining and, for one Superintendent, increasing enrollment factors,
Superintendent responses focused generally on three key trigger areas for student mobility:
perceptions of school safety, perceptions of school academic value, and flight.
School Safety. The majority of the interviewees appeared reticent to identify their
districts as unsafe, and none viewed their schools as unsafe. However, Superintendents C, E, and
F noted that student mobility is a pressing and ongoing issue specifically linked to “perceived”
concerns of safety by resident families. With increasing poverty and growing rates of criminal
activity in their communities, safety was recognized as the key determinant factoring into student
exit mobility to adjacent districts and local private schools. Superintendents C and F viewed
mobility as an outcome of external safety factors versus internal, school safety factors. For
Superintendent C, police activity unrelated to school safety is a deterrent to families considering
local schools for their children:
You still have concerns surrounding the perception of safety….every time we have a
shooting in the area—this is a high-crime area. Recently we’ve undergone a women
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

52
killed in front of a police officer. We’ve had several shootings in the area. Every time that
happens we see an egress of families. It’s in the news so we do have families leave us.

For Superintendent F, similar issues involving community safety promote movement of families
to an adjacent school district:
If you were just to look at crime statistics and sexual predator statistics, that’s a
significant portion of the perception that people are anxious about. Even if they have to
drive their kid away from where they live to a place that they view as safer, then I think
that’s part of it [mobility].

All Superintendents viewed kindergarten and the leap from elementary to middle school
as two key points at which increased percentages of students transfer out of the district. All six
superintendents viewed this issue as an outcome of parent uncertainty about the school’s ability
to protect their children during a key transitional time in their lives with Superintendent C noting,
“Our families have this vision that when they go to 7th grade there are some safety issues they
don’t want their kids facing. Quite frankly, they want their kids to go to [adjacent] district. They
see that as a haven where they can escape any safety issues.”
School Educational Value. Educational value, or the capacity of a school to effectively
meet the individual needs of students, surfaced as a reoccurring motive for families to invoke
choice options and move schools. Superintendent E viewed positive or negative perceptions of
public schools as based on a school’s ability to address students’ needs in an all-inclusive manner,
both academically and socially. For Superintendent B, 30% of the district’s students elect out-of-
district schools for alternative school options noting, “I would say that one of the biggest things
we deal with is the negative impact on schools that are perceived as the less desirable schools.”
Superintendent E discussed the perception of educational value as it related to tuition-based and
religious schools. He described these schools as better positioned to create protective and
personalized school programs that, theoretically, better support the needs of students:
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

53
I believe parents are seeking a way to shelter their children from the ills of society in the
best way possible. They want a safe school, they want a nurturing school, they want a
place where they can be happy and fully develop into the person that they are. That’s why
sometimes people choose a private school or a religious denominational school because
they feel that there’s a holistic approach to teaching.

For Superintendent B open enrollment has allowed for mobility within the district, yet the
challenges of meeting all family demands for tailored education offerings remains a cause for
mobility to alternative educational settings, “We hear that all the time that people are leaving the
district for private or charter schools because they did not get into the school with the programs
that they wanted.” Further, Superintendent A viewed problems surrounding mobility as a
misconception regarding the inability of her district’s schools to meet parent demands for higher
academic value:
I think the main reason is student achievement. When we have parents who want to come
into our district, they really want to be here—it is a really great district. [A feeling that]
within the district that this school is not as high performing as another school and I want
my child to have every opportunity, so I would say those are the primary reasons for
families moving schools or leaving the district—academics.

In Superintendent C’s district, misinformation provided by alternative schools regarding school
offerings and academic value has influenced parent interest in moving schools, thereby
increasing district exit mobility to the detriment of children:
I think parents are sometimes enamored by what the possibilities are out there and they
will jump at them. And the only one that suffers is the kids when they make this choice
and find out it is not what it sold itself to be and they come back. Every time you move
your child, they lose six months. The research shows, they lose six months. So I try to
talk them into moving them at the end of the school year. I really do think that people
prey on parents wanting the best things for their kids, so they will say what they want—
what parents want to hear and parents will buy into it. So, they go for it.

Flight. In response to RQ 1 regarding antecedents to student mobility, all
Superintendents interviewed expressed concerns that district enrollments are serving divided
student populations due to both economic and white flight. Flight is a term coined to define shifts
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

54
in ethnicity patterns in large urban areas. It is also defined by a shift in populations based on
socioeconomic status. Specifically, flight represents a significant departure of populations from
places, such as urban neighborhoods or schools, progressively occupied by minorities. Some
Superintendents referenced lines of poverty and framed this in terms of equity, while other
Superintendents framed this in terms of parents’ choice based on a perception of unequal funding
by districts in support of minority students. Although Superintendents were reserved in terming
this issue “flight,” all six referenced increasing pressure by families in higher economic brackets
to expand funding for specific programs that support students with greater levels of agency,
versus students with lower levels of support and academic proficiency. Unmet, these demands
have resulted in exit mobility by families of means, both to private or more affluent public
school districts. As per Superintendent A, “I do think there is a bit of a white flight mentality—
more of our white families who are fleeing a more diverse community.” Similarly, for
Superintendent C, flight is seen as an issue for wealthier districts where parents tend to be more
educated and more interested in researching school choices:
I find that in our community we don’t have as much mobility as you do in more affluent
communities. For the most part in high poverty areas people look to their neighborhood as
their school of choice. And I am not quite sure what the reason for this is. It might be the
knowledge level of parents that they do have choices. We send letters out to parents from
our program improvement schools. You would think that if you sent a letter out to over
1,000 families that you would get more than three families, but that is about all we get.

Conversely, Superintendents B and D—both from large districts experiencing increases
in housing prices—cite economic struggle as pivotal in the flight or movement of families to
other school districts or communities. Per Superintendent B, “The cost of living in our city is a
huge driver in terms of students leaving our district. So we are seeing migration of students,
students of color.” For Superintendent D, economics outweigh other, racially motivated
influences for families in poverty when choosing schools:
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

55
Most of our families move because of finances. About 72% of our students are on free
and reduced lunch. We have a small working class/middle class area, very small. We’re
only nine percent Caucasian and we only have about less than 20% of students who are
not on free or reduced lunch. When we see a lot of movement, it’s because the parents
need to find a cheaper place to live or they move in with someone else, they have
multiple families who live in one small apartment, maybe four or five families. A lot of
the movement is economic.

For Superintendent F, flight was a first priority upon accepting the position of Superintendent:

When I became superintendent here our biggest challenge basically had to do with—I’m
going to say—economic flight. Almost every single one of their schools [the adjacent
district’s] are more affluent than ours, which produces, generally speaking, better test
scores which makes this eastern portion of our district very, very desirable for these
families to leave us.

In summary, each of the six Superintendents interviewed identified student mobility as a
pressing issue for their districts. School choice, while optioned in two of the six districts studied,
remains a concern for each Superintendent as a phenomena related to mobility even if not yet
realized. Commonalities between four leaders concentrated on the importance of building a
reputation of academic value in their district in developing student educational needs.
Additionally, three superintendents cited public perception of community safety as a barrier to
retaining students in their schools and district. Lastly, all six superintendents underlined flight
based on economic or racial issues as influential in promoting student mobility to other districts.
Thus, it appears Superintendents perceive student mobility as a result, in part, of influences
beyond their control such as flight and community criminal activity. Consistent among four of
the Superintendents—the lack of public confidence in the academic value of school—was seen
as a misnomer and based on lack of information about school achievement and offerings by the
local community. Strategies utilized by Superintendents to deal with these issues will be
addressed with findings from Research Question 2 of this study.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

56
Table 2

Greatest Factors Affecting Student Mobility

Superintendent Order of Perceived Importance District Size

A
• Perceptions of School Academic Value
• Flight

Medium
B
• Perceptions of School Academic Value
• Flight

Large
C
• School Safety
• Perceptions of School Academic Value
• Flight

Small
D
• Perceptions of School Academic Value
• Flight

Large
E
• School Safety
• Flight

Medium

F
• Staff Morale
• Flight
• School Safety

Small

Mobility Consequences
Two divergent themes emerged when Superintendents discussed the consequences of
student mobility in their districts, both exit and non-exit. For the five Superintendents facing
declining enrollment in their districts, maintaining or increasing enrollment through the use of
inter-district permits created the consequence of negative community perceptions about non-
residents enrolling in community schools. Additionally, all six Superintendents cited concerns
about stratification of student populations in schools as a result of exit and non-exit mobility and
expressed apprehensions that both types of mobility are serving to divide student populations.
Some superintendents framed this in terms of equity, while other superintendents framed this in
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

57
terms of parents making choices to send their students to safer or seemingly more economically
privileged settings.
Inter-District Permits. With the exception of Superintendent B, all Superintendents
identified the use of inter-district permits to enroll students from neighboring school districts as a
consequence of exit mobility by families. In the case of Superintendent A in a district facing
declining enrollment, the use of inter-district permits, which allow students to transfer out of one
district to enroll in a different district, works to maintain enrollment. With 10% to 12% of their
district’s students enrolled with inter-district permits, the path to balancing a district budget is
directly tied to enrollment as noted by Superintendent A:
You must keep up with declining enrollment because your ADA drives what you can do
and are able to do for the kids in your district. In education we are always looking at this
moving target called a public school budget. And so you then add to it this real
inconsistency in terms of predicting your enrollment and what you are going to be able to
do, and how you are going to serve these students.

Although no Superintendent interviewed discussed in detail how financially reliant their
district is on inter-district permit enrollment or elaborated on how such families are recruited,
Superintendents F did identify his district’s practice of enlisting approximately 10% of its
students from outside districts stating, “We do take permits in as well—I’m going to say for a
multitude of reasons.”
In relation to resident response to inter-district permits, several Superintendents reported
that local families see inter-district permits as intrusive as schools fill to capacity forcing some
families to alternate school sites. Superintendent E, dealing with an uptick in student enrollment
noted local parent response to moving schools: “ ‘I pay taxes. I moved into this safe
neighborhood for this reason.’ You hear it all, but you just don’t have space.” While such
practice supports budgeting and resource allocation, Superintendent A noted community
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

58
pushback and a misguided view of nonresidents lessening community schools by absorbing
resources via poor academic performance and behavior issues:
So the issue has been around students who don’t take their work as seriously, who are not
dedicated, who are troubled, who are draining the system. Our research does not bear that
out. We have done GPA studies, CST performance, and really—for our permit
students—they are on par with our homegrown students and actually better on
attendance.

Student Stratification. When discussing the most concerning consequence of mobility,
responses from Superintendents A, B, and D turned to ongoing struggles with stratification of
student populations. As noted by Superintendent D, “The intent of the public school system is to
create diverse schools. Because of the mobility it creates a system of haves and have-nots.” For
Superintendent A, white flight continues to further segregate schools in her district, “I do think
there is a white flight mentality—more of our white families who are fleeing a more diverse
community.” Comparative responses from Superintendents illustrate a common theme of
emerging segregation in schools not only by race, but also by socioeconomic status. As is
evidenced by responses from Superintendent B in a district that supports an open enrollment
policy, both exit and non-exit mobility has created a divide between populations of students of
agency:
It [mobility] creates a narrative in the community about this because we have a public
school choice system. What are the schools that you should be applying to? What are the
schools you should not be applying to? And that creates inequitable choices, in my mind.
It is my experience that a choice system is truly a choice system when people have the
means and wherewithal to make a conscious choice. So we have some families that do
make a conscious choice and those are the families we see moving, and we have the
families that just don’t have any options than going to the school they are assigned to.

Further, Superintendent B viewed stratification as the responsibility of the district, which needs
to make access to schools and programs an option for all families:
A parent that has the wherewithal either with time or finances to get their student across
town has much more agency than a parent that works two jobs and has to leave at 5am
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

59
and kids have to take public transportation. It makes much more sense for those students
to get to the school down the street than travel across town even though they really want
that program across town. That is where the system has to be nimble enough and I think
robust enough to be able to provide that opportunity for that parent and that student in a
low income household as well as the parent that is in the more middle upper class or
middle class who has the resources, the time, and the wherewithal to actually take
advantage of the choice.

Similarly, Superintendent A saw the issue of stratification as a result of mobility as less
important than the pressing need to dedicate additional resources to building student support
programs in her district:
I have actually spent less time on how to keep our affluent parents in and more about how
do we support our underserved students and children who need us more because of our
parents who have access to agency. And so this is the first time we have rolled out a
district program district wide. It has met with some resistance. I probably have lost
parents who feel that I have robbed Peter to pay Paul. And they don’t feel good about that
because we really did have a private school system in a public school setting. And we
have really changed that over the past four years, which I feel will be better for
everybody. But it has been a real difficult challenge.

Increasing programs for students of color has also posed a challenge for Superintendent B with
the result of increased stratification in schools:
We are investing a significant amount of our budget to very targeted tier-three
interventions and aspirational strategies with our students, particularly our students of
color. And one thing we are very proud of is that we are unapologetic for doing that. We
are starting to get some pushback from the community on that from some of the more
privileged communities, that we are paying too much attention to the students of color.

For three of the six Superintendents interviewed, student stratification continues to be impacted
by student mobility as parents opt out of schools viewed as less desirable or where funding is
viewed as skewed in support of lower-income, lower-achieving students of color.
In brief, the use of inter-district permits, which allow students from outside district
boundaries to enroll in district schools, was identified as an emergent theme in relation to RQ 1,
which sought to understand the consequences of student mobility in school districts. In this case,
inter-district permits are used to maintain or increase enrollment in schools which would
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

60
otherwise be experiencing debilitating enrollment drops. The use of permits to address
enrollment has increased community concern about outside influences intruding upon
neighborhood schools. Furthermore, student stratification was identified as a common concern
among Superintendents interviewed as a consequence of student mobility. In this area,
movement of students both within and beyond the districts caused a separation of students by
color and socioeconomic status. Thus, the consequences of student mobility have triggered two
related, yet distinct issues surrounding student enrollment in the six districts identified for this
study.
Research Question 2: What are some strategies or policies implemented by
Superintendents to address challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
To understand how Superintendents approach issues associated with student mobility,
interviewees were asked to describe district actions with respect to student retention. Among
other questions, they were asked what their districts were doing differently as a result of student
mobility or school choice influences and what policies or marketing structures had been created
to address mobility. Emergent themes included marketing strategies employed by districts, the
rebranding of district schools to attract families, and Superintendent involvement in eliciting the
support of external stakeholders.
Marketing Approaches
A common thread among responses was the introduction of innovative and varied
marketing approaches to promote the district to all community stakeholders and perspective
students and their families. Shared methods included the assignment of dedicated personnel or the
involvement of outside consultants to assist with developing and facilitating marketing strategies.
A second shared response was the incorporation of public relations campaigns and customer
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

61
service models at the district and school site level in relation to students, families, and the
community at large. A third approach identified focused on the use of media both conventional,
through broadcast or print media, and more contemporary, in the form of social media.
Commissioning Expertise. In addressing both the triggers and consequences of student
mobility, enlisting the support of outside experts or existing staff to plan and guide district
marketing practices was commonly identified as an essential component to making significant
changes in each district. Creating new and strengthening existing pathways for sharing
information about the district to families was characterized as key to promoting retention and
new enrollment. For five of the six Superintendents, looking beyond their present staffs for
expertise has resulted in contracts with consultants to audit existing practices and assist with
development of strategic marketing processes. In the case of Superintendent A, providing a
constant stream of information to stakeholders required support beyond her office with the hiring
of a district public relations director:
Part of our concept was originally around not losing students as well as promoting the
program. For us it is more the need to know. We are really in a generation of information.
People think nothing of walking into my office to ask the questions and get information.
Knowing that there is this incessant need to know. We have six different publications in
just our little area, so just trying to keep people up to speed. Not just the marketing
campaign but that flow of information is one of the main reasons we brought her [the
public relations director] onboard. It is an insatiable community I would say.

In the case of Superintendent B, the responsibility of marketing schools, originally assigned to
school principals, was moved to a newly created district position to design marketing plans for
each school to implement:
Yes, in the past it has definitely been on the school and we found that that was not
successful. So this particular year, in the budget for this year, we are actually adding three
full-time marketing positions. [We are] targeting their work plan around the school
community, especially the non-popular school choices. They are going to work with the
school community around developing their marketing plan and marketing their schools.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

62
Utilizing outside consultants, Superintendents C, D, and E completed audits to identify
weaknesses in their schools that may deter student enrollment thus increasing district mobility.
Specifically, Superintendent C identified the use of a consultant to provide a list of needed
improvements on all campuses in her district:
I hired [name withheld], a PR consultant, to come in and walk every one of our campuses
and tell us how we could make our schools more welcoming to the community and
families. So he walked every school and gave us a list of recommendations for every
school and what we could do. We implemented everything on those lists.

Changes in front office aesthetics and revamped staff welcome practices for to a more family-
friendly and less industrial presence, changing school signage, and increasing attention to parent
attendance at school events were commonly identified as newer practices as a result of consultant
recommendations. As further noted by Superintendent C:
For example, we have these huge ugly fences around our schools. But they are for safety.
He said you have these huge ugly fences and you need them. They are not going to come
down. But you need signs on them stating, “[District Name] Board of Trustees ensuring
the safety of every student.” So we now have those signs on every fence in the district.

For Superintendent E, a previous attempt to train an inside staffer in the area of marketing
proved futile when the employee took a position in another district, prompting his decision to
outsource this responsibility, “I’m in the process right now of seeking out a contract with a
private public information firm that may guide me in doing some of this work. I’m still exploring
that, literally. Over the next four weeks, that’s one of my tasks to do.”
In the case of Superintendent C, the addition of two teachers on special assignment
(TOSA) positions dedicated to fostering parent-school relations has shown promise in stabilizing
enrollment:
We have hired parent outreach TOSAs. Their sole job is to welcome families in the
district. One is bilingual and one is African American—my two groups that need to have
the message given to them and it will be heard. Our bilingual TOSA does a lot of
translation at our parent meetings and holds lots of after-hours meetings with the
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

63
community, does needs assessments with them to find out what they would like to see
offered and it has had great success.

Similarly, Superintendent F utilized teachers in this same TOSA capacity to increase school
outreach, using a slightly different approach. For Superintendent F, a focus on distributive
leadership prompted the inclusion of several teachers at each site to focus on various aspects of
the school including marketing stratagems:
You have a teacher lead in the Common Core. You have a teacher lead in academic
intervention. You have a teacher lead in technology and you have a teacher lead in PR.
That PR person is responsible for the webpage and is responsible for the Facebook page.
Some of that is really just getting rolled out this year.

Superintendent F went further, noting his recent awareness of the need to enlist expertise from
outside the district to expand outreach to families utilizing social media:
We put them [promotional videos] on Facebook and different things, and our website. I
think at this point I am just realizing that we need to hire somebody to do social media
and video production.

Customer Service Mindset. For each Superintendent interviewed, the development of
strategic communication processes that build positive relationships between their districts and
their publics was seen as part of the Superintendents’ responsibilities. Still, a new, intentional
approach to creating or strengthening a customer service mindset at both site and district levels
persisted in interviews with all six Superintendents. According to four of the interviewees,
district employee understanding of parents, primarily, and students as customers is a relatively
new idea in the customary public school setting. Superintendent D noted this shift in her own
district in terms of how exiting families were previously treated:
We also have just had a lot more conversations about it [mobility]. Part of it, too, was
another philosophy change. One of the old philosophies was, “If they’re going to leave,
bye, see you. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out,” kind of thing on transfers.
We’ve really changed on that and are asking people, “Hey, if you want to transfer out,
that’s great, but go to this school event or meet with the principal.” We are doing things
in that respect, as well.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

64
Three respondents suggested that shifting school front office practices to welcome
parents and adjusting gateway practices to ease families’ matriculation of their students into a
school are both key to student retention in their districts. Adding a seating area to school front
offices for visitors, opening parent welcome centers to assist with enrollment paperwork,
assigning staff to parent outreach program development, and shifting the way in which staffs
speak about their schools publically emerged as key changes in the area of staff practices as a
means of curtailing student mobility. Superintendent C shared her view of the disconnect that
exists between what schools provide to students and parent perceptions of school effectiveness:
One of my top priorities when I became superintendent was to stop the bleeding of
people leaving. So I did a lot of work with creating parent centers at every one of our
schools. I thought if parents would come on campus and see our schools and see they are
great places, they would be more inclined to keep their kids there.

Superintendent C went further by including customer service via outreach to families as a
component of principal evaluations:
I had every one of them [principals] open a parent welcome center so they had to have a
room dedicated to that need. A place where parents could come in and fill out job
applications if they wanted to. They had to have resources there for parents so parents felt
welcomed when they came to the school. This was quite frankly a big headache for the
principals. I get that but the reality is, this is our clientele. I think my principals know that
part of their evaluation is their interaction with parents. Are you building relationships
with community partners? With parents? Is your school welcoming to families?

For Superintendent A, mobility highlights the necessity to remove barriers and provide consistent
and streamlined enrollment processes for parents as a means of building relationships with families:
I will say that one of the things we are really working on is consistency with our
enrollment practices. So for example we have not had consistent enrollment and permit
processes across the district. As we have more families become more mobile, we need to
make these processes easily accessible and consistent from school to school. That is an
example—when you have mobility issues, you become aware of this type of need.

Parent advocacy, too, remained one of the foremost means of strategically building a customer
service oriented mindset between district staff and families in all six districts. In the case of
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

65
Superintendent B, placing parents in charge of key committees manifested a stronger
understanding of the district schools and a sense of relevance for families in the district:
The third mechanism, I think, is to really engage the community around understanding
and looking at a variety of schools. So we have several organizations. We have a parent
advisory council to the Board of Education. They have a whole infrastructure and we
support them as a staff. We give them information so that they are able to engage parents
from multiple communities. We also have a community-based organization called parents
of public schools (PPS). They do workshops almost year-round with parents educating
the city around how the enrollment process works, what are appeals processes, setting up
tours, etc.

Per Superintendent E, creating a positive reputation in the community was viewed as a key
to promoting a sense of community and increasing staff awareness of families as customers. After
years of negative speak and issues with mistrust in his district, Superintendent E sought to model
and foster a shift in how district employees viewed their own district schools stating a philosophy
of, “Be proud of your house, be proud of your family.” This led to an increased understanding of
the importance of how the district is viewed as a positive place for their children:
Hey, you don’t need to be cynical and badmouth us because that’s part of the problem,
too. They [principals] need to jump on any of those conversations when their teachers are
having them. We need to shift the paradigm, and it starts with us. I’m very sensitive to
anything dealing with our reputation. They’ve, I think, in turn done that with their staffs.

For Superintendent D, simply getting the good news out about school practices and successes
and appealing to families as customers is a new line of thinking in her district and a practice not
typically seen as a means of retaining students and maintaining enrollment:
When we shared with them [principals] the communication audit that we did, the focus,
again, was on external and internal communications. The external communication and
internal communication was, “How are we sharing the great things we’re doing?” We’re
used to being humble. Being humble is good. You’re not being conceited if you tell the
data. We have a higher graduation rate than the county and the state. That’s important for
parents to know.

With Superintendent F, shifts in how district staff perceived their workplace and verbalized their
job satisfaction in the community were primary to attracting families to the schools:
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

66
At the same time I kind of caught the barbecue talk, if you are having a barbecue with
your family and they say, “Hey, what do you think about the school?” and their
experience is good and they’re happy and the teachers are happy, that talk tends to be
good. It’s kind of like, “Hey, it’s a really good place. We’re doing some very exciting
things, good things for kids,” so it’s positive.

Media Paths. Traditional interactions with the press and use of media to reach parents
and community members was found to be a more common and comfortable area of outreach for
each of the six Superintendents when discussing approaches to addressing student mobility.
Press releases, post cards mailed to prospective families, district-authored school newspapers
delivered at no charge to residents, flyers, and district webpages represented most districts’ use
of media to market and promote their districts’ schools to families.
In the opinion of Superintendent D, the press was previously underutilized in her district
for this purpose: One of the things, she [the previous Superintendent] would tell us was, “If
newspapers call, don’t respond.” I’m like, “Really? What if it’s good? Don’t we want them to
know?” It was a different way of thinking, because we were so busy doing the work. For
Superintendent E, news media is just one avenue of sending out positive information about schools:
I got in the habit of sending out press releases to the local paper. First of all, I always
meet with the writer and the education editor, just to maintain a good rapport. In addition
to that, we write press releases to them probably once a week or once every two weeks at
the least.

After closing and then reopening a middle school in his district, Superintendent B opted to invite
enrollment via the use of marketing tactics—both traditional printed marketing materials and
personal interaction:
We actually went out into the community, we developed marketing materials, door
hangers, walked the neighborhood; we held information meetings, we developed a
website, we did a full-blown marketing plan for [new school] because not only is it a new
school, but we had to change the perception of the old school. I’ve got to tell you it was a
rousing success. We are going to open with 200 6
th
grade students and then add another
class each year.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

67
Still, in a district serving a high-poverty clientele, the use of free school newspapers provided via
the schools allows Superintendent C to communicate her messages about school
accomplishments to families:
I started the [district name withheld] school newspaper, which is delivered to all of our
residents’ driveways and is available in our school offices. That is one of the best things
we did. I write the cover letter and it helps me remain recognizable in the community and
allows me to sing the praises of the district right there in Spanish and English.

In his ongoing effort to further spread positive information about the district,
Superintendent E cited an aggressive use of social media in his district to increase connectivity
between families and schools via webpages and the introduction of Twitter feeds and an
exclusive district app to disseminate district updates, “I’ve encouraged my principals to have
Twitter and Facebook accounts. I know we’re promoting digital citizenship as opposed to any
closed-door system. I’m way at the other end. I’m like, ‘Open up everything.’ ” For this
Superintendent, investing in the use of social media via district webpages, district telephone
apps, and promotional videos is now vital to the district’s ability to remain current:
In a few months, we’ll probably roll out our district-wide app that’s going to be available
both on an Apple and Android [devices] because I want us to have an app for our district.
I’m working on getting that push notification feature, similar to a text message, where we
can send out messages to parents.

Superintendent E went further on the topic of using social media to increase communication with
families as a form of marketing, adding that this technique is key to his district moving forward
and remaining relevant:
We have a saying that you can’t have Jetson’s dreams with Flintstone’s ways. You’ve got
to constantly be pushing forward. Sometimes people say, “You’ve got to wait and you’ve
got to figure out all the details,” but I feel, in my position, I can’t get caught up in the
weeds. I’ve got to keep plugging away. It could be exhausting, but I feel in order to keep
my organization moving, I have to do that.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

68
Similarly, considering changes in the communication behaviors of district families,
Superintendent F disbanded his use of local news media in lieu of social media contending, “Our
parents don’t get the newspaper any longer. Our community does. The 70-year-old still gets the
newspaper, but there is no chance that a 25-year-old is getting the newspaper that’s got a five-
year-old coming into kindergarten. They’ve all got phones. They’ve all got Facebook.”
Superintendent Outreach
Seen as an indispensable approach in stemming student mobility in district schools,
Superintendents interviewed identified personal outreach and commitment as key to building a
strong district reputation in their communities to promote retention. For Superintendent E,
outreach is a mandatory part of his role as district leader, “I really built up the brand of our
district. I think marketing your district is also very important, whether it’s at the Chamber of
Commerce, the Rotary, every single place.” Superintendent C conjectured that the demands
placed on district leaders to personally promote the district to individuals and community groups
is crucial, “I just think it is really important. I have found that I have made a lot of important
connections. Because of the relationships I have made with the police department, a very
sensitive issue with an employee was not made public.”
If the allocation of personal time in communicating with internal (teachers, parents,
students, employees) and external (community members, politicians, press) stakeholders varied
substantially among Superintendents, their approaches did not. For some Superintendents,
substantially more time attending community events, Rotary meetings, and Chamber of
Commerce meetings was invested as compared to other Superintendents depending on personal
preference. Still, larger district Superintendents noted less time spent with external stakeholders
due to increased personnel assigned to assist with community events. When asked, each
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

69
Superintendent estimated time dedicated to external stakeholders with responses ranging from
20% in the largest district to 50% for the smallest district (see Table 3).
Table 3

Superintendent Outreach

Superintendent
Time Spent with External
Stakeholders (cyclical)
Examples of Outreach
A 30-40%
Parent/Teacher Association
Meetings, Open-Door Policy, Local
Connections
B 30-35% Community-Based Organizations
C 50%
Open-Door Policy, Rotary Club,
School Events
D 20-30%
News Media Outreach, Local
Connections
E 15%
Chamber of Commerce, Rotary,
School Events, Community-Based
Organizations
F 10%
City Council Presentations, School
Presentations, News Media

School Rebranding
Rebranding, a marketing strategy utilized to promote a new identity in the minds of
students and parents by changing the program focus of a school, has emerged as a preferred
model to both maintain and increase enrollment in districts. Such strategies included closing and
reopening schools, realigning curriculum to form academies focused on the arts or sciences, and
introducing much sought after programs in formerly under-achieving schools. This practice was
also identified as a means of limiting student stratification in districts.
During the interview process, all six Superintendents identified changes in school
programs as a means of stemming exit student mobility to schools outside of their districts. As
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

70
the leader of a large school district, Superintendent B identified his strategy to attract families
back to district schools by retooling and restricting specific school offerings. For this
Superintendent, language immersion programs, an attractive alternative to affluent families, were
purposefully placed in less desirable schools to draw families from outside of those
neighborhoods to those schools:
We have some other mechanisms that we can control, so language immersion and dual
language programs are very, very popular, so being thoughtful about where we place
those programs not only in service to the community but also in service in trying to
diversify and bring families that would perhaps not give a second look to a school to kind
of consider these schools, we’ve been very thoughtful about where we put those
programs. Where that wasn’t the case before, we are trying to undo some of those
previous decisions that were perhaps not as strategic.

Similarly, Superintendent C chose to rebrand both elementary and middle schools in her district,
turning each into a curriculum-focused academy:
Many of our elementary schools, to complement our middle school academies, are doing
this as well, for example [name withheld] prep academy or fine arts academy—which is
art focused leading to our middle school fine arts academy—they are doing things that
parents often go out of the district for and are now just staying here to get those choices.

For Superintendent E, offering innovative opportunities in the primary grades has had a positive
effect on student retention and growth in his district, “We’re offering experiences where
kindergartners are starting to code. We start coding in kindergarten. We’re being very innovative
and stuff like that.” Purposefully, Superintendent B worked closely with the community to not
only rebrand a failing school, but to reinvent the school by first closing the facility and then
reopening as a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) academy for students
in grades 9-12:
The reason we know this is going to be a successful strategy this year is that we reopened a
new middle school this year called [name withheld]. We closed this school four years ago
and raised it and are building a brand new STEM middle school. Part of what we did as a
district was in terms of enrollment because there were no students coming to this school.
But, we are going to open the new school with 200 students and a wait list of 165 students.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

71
In the past three years Superintendent F opted to offer financial incentives directly to schools
within his district to rebrand, which resulted in 50% of district schools turning into thematic
academies:
We’ve expanded on that idea of choice, that idea that we live in an environment where
we have potential threats like charter schools. We have a great, new, dual-immersion
academy. We call it a language academy. We have dual-immersion Spanish and that’s in
its third year, and starting its fourth year. We have the technology academy. One of our
middle schools is a STEM academy. We have a school that’s a science academy. We
have a performing arts academy.

When considering the findings from interviews for RQ 2, key strategies to address
student mobility and school choice emerged (see Table 4). First, the most important stratagems
implemented by Superintendents fall under the general premise of marketing. Such practices
include obtaining expertise to help plan and guide districts in the area of marketing, the
incorporation of customer service processes to communicate with constituents and prospective
parents, and the use of various types of media to communicate effectively with all
stakeholders—both internal and external. Second, Superintendent involvement as a means of
promoting district successes surfaced as a common tendency albeit with varying amounts as
balanced between other district demands. Third, the rebranding of schools stood as the most
distinctive tool embraced by all six Superintendents to create systems that both attracted
enrollment and deterred stratification of students—both common problems with student
mobility. Thus, Superintendents view strategies that communicate the district’s successes,
coupled with implementation of sought-after programs in positive, welcoming climates as most
impactful in curtailing student mobility both within and beyond district boundaries.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

72
Table 4

Key Strategies Implemented to Address Student Mobility

In Order of Highest Recurrence in Interviews

Superintendent A
1) Customer Service
2) Superintendent Outreach
3) Commissioning Specialists
4) Media

Superintendent B
1) Rebranding Schools
2) Commissioning Specialists
3) Customer Service
4) Media

Superintendent C
1) Customer Service
2) Superintendent Outreach
3) Rebranding Schools
4) Commissioning Specialists

Superintendent D
1) Commissioning Specialists
2) Media
3) Superintendent Outreach
4) Customer Service

Superintendent E
1) Customer Service
2) Superintendent Outreach
3) Rebranding Schools
4) Commissioning Specialists

Superintendent F
1) Customer Service
2) Rebranding Schools
3) Media
4) Commissioning Specialists

Research Question 3: How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention
efforts in their districts to determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
To substantiate the effectiveness of strategies enacted in districts addressing student
mobility and school choice issues, Superintendents were asked how previously described
strategies were monitored and evaluated for success and advancement in the area of student
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

73
mobility. Among other questions, they were asked about goals and next steps for their districts
in addressing student mobility and the influences of school choice. The researcher found
consistently that data collection by school districts to monitor the effectiveness of student
retention strategies is neither specifically defined nor developed as a sustainable practice.
Probing questions regarding the use of surveys or review of enrollment statistics did garner
some responses. While Superintendents A, D, E, and F utilized surveys to both assess strategies
and plan for future approaches to issues related to enrollment trends, Superintendents B and C
did not mention the use of surveys for this purpose. Responses from Superintendents B, C, F,
and E offered additional, varied subjective metrics used to assess outcomes of strategies to
address mobility. Responses regarding assessment were limited and not entirely developed, as
this appeared to be an area not yet fully established by districts.
Systems of Analysis
Quantitative Metrics. Gathering quantitative data through surveys was identified as
the single most recognizable means of assessing outcomes of programs designed to address
student mobility. Four of the six Superintendents interviewed deferred to the use of surveys as
a means of creating avenues for consumer response. Parent, student, and staff surveys were
each mentioned, although only Superintendent F mentioned use of this data as a source of
quantifiable data, “We have it [staff survey] quantified numerically so we can report it back
to the School Board.” Superintendent A introduced the use of exit surveys with personnel and
high school seniors in her district to determine what is working to retain individuals in
district schools:
We are trying to get the information out there, using narratives—and this year, from our
first big survey, a parent satisfaction survey—and so, our goal is to get that out to
everyone about what is working and what is not working and how do you feel received.
And so we are adding a staff exit survey and senior exit survey.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

74

For Superintendent D, introducing the use of surveys provided more subjective, perception-based
statements about parent and employee satisfaction with the district versus specific statements
regarding strategies utilized by the district to retain families and employees, “We just had a
survey the other day. Our first ever-annual survey of all employees, staff, and so forth. It gave us,
‘I am proud to be an employee of [district name withheld]’— 97.5% of our employees said that.
I was very happy about that.” For Superintendent E the process is just beginning:
I’m doing more work on laying the groundwork for redoing a survey. I’m trying to lay
the groundwork, like, “Hey, we’re doing this. Don’t worry. This information is going to
be for us so we could get better,” I could poll some of the community groups that we
work with as well, but, other than the parent survey, I don’t have a set metric.

Overall, the use of surveys was seen by Superintendents interviewed as a viable metric for
measuring the value of strategies used in the retention of students and employees in school districts.
A second quantifiable metric, student enrollment, was viewed as a marked way of
measuring success of marketing strategies to retain students. Although all six Superintendents
noted its importance as a means of planning for their districts’ future goals, none offered it as a
first course when determining future marketing strategies in the area of student retention.
Superintendents A and E noted that enrollment increases or decreases in kindergarten and sixth
grade stood as precursors to future enrollment trends. Knowing these two gateway grades,
Superintendent A stated, “We are monitoring those things [enrollment statistics] closely in terms
of mobility or ins and outs. We use the next few months looking at who is coming in or out, and
over time we are really going to be thinking about where students come in and where they are
going out.”
In summation, the use of surveys stands as the primary quantitative tool utilized by
Superintendents interviewed to monitor strategies in place to address student mobility. Including
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

75
employees and students in the survey process, versus strictly parents, points up Superintendents’
interest in seeing the issue from many points of view. In addition, while enrollment numbers
point to trends in forecasting future enrollment for the districts, using this quantifiable metric
was not highlighted by Superintendents interviewed for this study as a means of assessing
marketing strategies.
Qualitative Metrics. Inquiry regarding assessment of strategies implemented in relation
to student mobility garnered responses from three Superintendents that portrayed subjective or
observational assessment of marketing strategy outcomes positioned to deter student mobility.
Primarily, Superintendents interviewed focused on morale of staff and general input to the
Superintendent by stakeholders in informal settings to identify issues and solutions in the area of
student mobility.
For Superintendent E, the use of focus groups allowed for concentrated feedback on
district performance and an ability to address negative responses:
We’re working with [name withheld] University’s Center for Equity. The focus group
methodology that they suggested was mixed focus groups, just to have a lively dialog
from different vantage points. We’re working through that. We have a meeting in a
couple of weeks to see what the next steps are. I think that’s where we’re at. We’ve
minimized the number of general complaints and things like that. I think that’s definitely
an area that we need to get better at.

Both Superintendents A and C saw their external and internal stakeholder outreach efforts as a
key approach to obtaining community input as indicators regarding satisfaction with the district.
As noted by Superintendent C:
I also have my thumb on the pulse. When a parent is unhappy with something, I do listen to
those things. I do meet with parents. I don’t think I’ve ever had a parent who wanted to
meet with me not meet with me. The same with teachers. I have an open door policy.

For Superintendent F, taking the students’ point of view surfaced as foremost to his identifying
indicators for improvement, “I think the other part associated with that [student retention efforts]
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

76
is the school climate with the kids being assessed and asked questions about school. I think all of
those kind of come in to give you this package of how we’re doing and what we need to work
on next.”
In summary, the use of metrics to evaluate the use of marketing strategies in the public
school districts included in this study, both quantitative and qualitative, is predominantly in the
evolutionary stage. While the use of surveys is generally used in districts to mark satisfaction,
development of such surveys and formal disaggregation of data collected was not offered as a
means of assessment efforts to retain students in these six districts. Superintendent D provided
actual quotes from surveys, but only Superintendent F generally remarked on a system for
disaggregating the data once collected. Each response to questions about evaluating marketing
practices offered general information from each Superintendent’s own approaches to determining
areas in need of improvement, rather than actual data on the results of marketing stratagems used
to stem student mobility. This is not to suggest that such work does not take place in the other
five districts. Rather, that it was not acknowledged during this interview process. For
Superintendent B, the success of efforts to recruit students to the district to stabilize enrollment is
subjective, yet still apparent, “I think in terms of our efforts in recruiting students, we are just
treading water.”
Auxiliary Findings: Other Perceptions Related to Student Mobility and School Choice
Superintendents participating in this study consistently reinforced the importance of
school staff morale, positive union relationships, and a positive presence by staff both in the
schools and in the larger, outside community as key to promoting student retention within their
school districts. Further, all Superintendents identified themselves as strategic to leading this
type of positive effect, further noting the need to identify what works in schools and create a
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

77
narrative around those strengths to share with both internal and external stakeholders.
Five of the six Superintendents interviewed overwhelming redirected RQ 1 responses
related to issues with student mobility to information specific to significant improvements taking
place in their districts and the ongoing need to communicate what their schools offer to families
and students. When discussing declining enrollment data, no Superintendent could identify how
major or minor an issue student mobility is in their district, and only one, Superintendent E (who
is experiencing enrollment growth) spoke specifically to enrollment data. Declining enrollment
was commonly attributed to low birth rates, socioeconomic shifts in the state, or aging
populations dominating the district neighborhoods.
Although Superintendents easily shared their perspectives on school choice with regard
to both private and charter schools, each Superintendent dismissed these competitive forces as
major contributors to enrollment decline. Reference to encroachment of private schools did
surface during interviews with Superintendents A and B, but not as a dominant factor leading to
student mobility out of their districts. In these discussions, each Superintendent maintained that
choice is an influence and that the status quo for school districts is no longer an option.
As stated by Superintendent F when reflecting on school choice influences:

What works today will work for a while, but that’s going to become long in the tooth and
then we’re going to have to modify and move with those times and see those trends
coming before they pass us by. There’s a sense where you can look at what we’re doing
and say, “This is great. I’ve got these in place. We are never changing them. These are
sacred.” The market changes. Interest changes. Challenges in the world change. We’ve
got to be modifying and moving with it. There’s no equilibrium anymore. It’s just a very
interesting place for us professionally.

Similarly, Superintendent E offered his perspective, focusing on improvement as a preferred
outcome of school choice:
Whenever I talk to parents, they talk to me about charters; the charters haven’t penetrated
the [name of county] market like they have the [name of county] market, thankfully for
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

78
us. What I do believe is this era has created the need and the push to be innovative in
your own program. I think the Common Core, in conjunction with the charter movement,
has really forced districts to think differently and be innovative. Why can’t we do
innovation like a charter can? Why not?

For Superintendent D, school choice is not a concern; the concern is providing students with
effective programs within her district, “My biggest issue as the superintendent is what direct
services are our kids getting and are we giving them the opportunity to have lifelong success
when they leave us? Then, I think if we do that well, then school choice isn’t as much of a
problem.”
When discussing choice, concerns from Superintendents also emerged unrelated to
competition. Parent ability to access choice and questionable practices of charter schools,
specifically, resounded from four of the six Superintendents interviewed. For Superintendent B,
equity and choice have not wholly merged in his district:
I would say it all boils down to agency of parents. So, parents know about systems, what
parents know about the choices. But on the system side, how we facilitate parents to
actually make a choice that we can support. This is probably the most important part of
school choice for me right now.

For Superintendent C, competition for students versus overall school improvement has negated
the potential positive outcomes of school choice:
The competition around charter schools and schools of choice was really meant to make
us all better and that was the main argument for the charter schools initially. And it hasn’t
panned out completely, so I would like there to be better dialogue about making all of us
better instead of competing for some really scarce resources. That is an ongoing
challenge. The moving target of getting a budget has been so difficult.

Overall, Superintendents’ perceptions of student mobility and school choice identify a
predilection of these district leaders to emphasize accomplishments in school achievement and
school climate, and effective district practices in addressing the needs of families to increase
student enrollment and stem student mobility.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

79
Summary

After examining responses of six Superintendents as related to student mobility, this
study concluded there were more similarities than differences between leaders in how they not
only perceive triggers and consequences of student mobility, but how they counter issues
surrounding mobility in their specific districts. The results from this study indicated that
Superintendents commonly face challenges in the area of student mobility as the influences of
choice, primarily from the availability of inter-district permits and private school alternatives,
have refocused district priorities to the retention and recruitment of students to stabilize
enrollment. As indicated in the results, developing strategies to attract and keep families in
district schools is taking place in all districts while evaluation of the effectiveness of these
strategies has not been fully established. Throughout these interviews, Superintendents noted that
they are new at promoting their own districts to attract enrollment. Further, three Superintendents
view site administrators as pivotal in creating marketable schools. Superintendents in the
research identified three predominant structures as strategies in addressing the issue of student
mobility:
1. Promoting within the district: Changing employee mindset to a customer service
based orientation district-wide.
2. Promoting beyond the district: Transforming media and parent outreach efforts to
communicate district effectiveness and program offerings for students and parents.
3. Retooling schools: Restructuring schools to thematic academies with highly sought-
after educational platforms, e. g., STEM and immersion programs.
This chapter reported the findings from six Superintendents interviewed from public
schools in six different counties throughout California. In Chapter 5, there will be a discussion of
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

80
the research, further conclusions, and implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for
future research will be reported.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

81

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
The nation’s educational system continues to experience extensive changes as the
introduction of new school alternatives for families continues to increase. With approximately 49
million K-12 students enrolled in public school systems (NCES, 2014), public school systems
have never been more examined or critiqued. Inadequate test scores, a persistent achievement
gap, school safety concerns, and criticism of teacher capacity and union interventions have led to
some doubt as to the capability of school districts to successfully educate future citizens
(Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003).
Since the introduction of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, student
standardized test scores have increasingly emerged as an indicator of school success. Public
attention fixated on lagging test scores has resulted in increased dissatisfaction with school districts
appropriately addressing the needs of students and has led to demands for change resulting in
various government-based interventions, most recognizably in the introduction of school choice
(Cobb & Glass, 2009; Colvin, 2013). Seen as a viable anecdote to issues surrounding failing
schools, school choice is gaining momentum throughout the United States as families increasingly
opt out of neighborhood schools defined by residential boundaries for more desirable schools
either within or beyond their own school districts (NCES, 2014; Schneider & Buckley).
School choice as a reform initiative has introduced a variety of new actors to the
educational stage including charter schools, online and hybrid school venues, school vouchers,
and more. Reforms in the area of choice have forced public school districts to confront resulting
enrollment fluctuations as an outcome of student mobility within and beyond the neighborhood
school boundaries. Such reforms, allowing for school choice, have further prompted a focus by
Superintendents on existing practices and educational options for students and families within
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

82
their district schools. It has further called attention to strategies employed by Superintendents to
both retain and invite families to their district schools in an effort to stem declining enrollment as
a result of school choice. With the introduction of school choice options for families, public
school Superintendents are faced with challenges not previously realized.
Statement of the Problem

In the United States today, traditional offerings of public education are no longer the only
means to fulfilling the needs of all students and providing for each of the three tenets of
education: a common set of democratic values and practices, a common core of knowledge, and
the ability to work with diverse populations (Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003). Today’s public
school Superintendents must now understand and react to reforms enacted by both federal and
state lawmakers to promote school choice options. The increasing availability of charter schools
and alternate school options has placed Superintendents in the role of both instructional leader
and district recruiter. Further, Superintendents are now faced with new accountabilities and must
consider innovative reforms to existing practices in addressing the potentially damaging impact
of student mobility in their school districts (Cobb & Glass, 2009; Jimerson, 2002).
Limited research exists in the area of Superintendents’ response to student mobility or the
influences of school choice. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the responses of
Superintendents to student mobility factors in their school districts as a result of school choice
options for families.
Research Questions

The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student mobility in the context
of increased school choice options?
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

83
2. What are some strategies or policies implemented by Superintendents to address
challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
3. How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts in their districts to
determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
Review of Current Literature

Public education in America has traditionally offered uniformity in its institutions, which
have generally offered little variation to students educationally (Chubb & Moe, 1990). Since its
origins in the 1600s as a means of promoting reading and writing, the role of public education
has developed into an anecdote for many pressing social issues (Fiske & Ladd, 2000). An
unending call for school intervention on behalf of low-achieving students has drawn increased
attention to public school accountability. Intensified calls for educational reform, the
introduction of school choice initiatives, and growing evidence of an expanding achievement gap
between students, have forced public school districts to face a new phenomenon: competing for
students (Fiske & Ladd, 2000; Hochschild & Scovronick, 2003; Permuth & Dalzell, 2013).
School choice as a new occurrence in the educational marketplace has impacted student
mobility beyond the probable student attrition school districts characteristically experience
(Bifulco & Reback, 2014; Powers et al., 2012). Charter schools, district open enrollment
designations, online educational venues, and private school alternatives have all emerged as
leading influences in the area of student mobility (Dauter & Fuller, 2011; Fiske & Ladd, 2000;
Powers et al., 2012). While declining enrollment remains a persistent issue in rural school
districts, changing demographics and stratification of student populations due to mobility
increasingly impact larger, primarily urban school districts (Carlson et al., 2011, Miron et al.,
2010). Negative fiscal impact of student mobility as well as parental involvement in calling on
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

84
schools to better meet the needs of their children, have further prompted school districts to reflect
on existing practices and institute reform actions to curtail student mobility (Belfield & Levin,
2012; Bifulco & Reback, 2014; Jimerson, 2002).
While school choice has been touted as the remedy for failing school systems, the
unexpected outcomes of competition, student mobility, and student stratification have emerged
as concerns for school districts previously supported by district boundaries to guarantee
enrollment Fiske & Ladd, 2000; Powers et al., 2012). School choice also represents a shift
toward growing options for students and increasing competition for enrollment both within and
beyond district boundaries. (Belfield & Levin, 2012; Dauter & Fuller, 2011). The restructuring
of educational systems, represented now in many countries, has led to a variety of school choice
options meant to provide equal opportunity for students while initiating healthy competition
between schools to improve student learning outcomes (Montes & Rubalcaba, 2012).
Effects of student mobility remain primary to how districts forecast personnel and
programmatic needs to support students. Mobility trends can be found in both relatively
successful and underperforming districts where families opt to transfer to districts seen as higher
achieving (Carlson et al., 2011; Powers et al., 2012). Finally, researchers found that low-
performing districts lose a higher percentage of students while only receiving a small percentage
of new enrollees within the structures of open enrollment policies, significantly affecting
districts’ revenue based on declining student enrollment (Carlson et al., 2011).
Researchers found, when studying charter school enrollment patterns, student
stratification as both evident and quantifiable in charter schools, noting this as a possible
outcome of segregated neighborhoods, white flight, and other types of choice schools (Miron et
al., 2010; Powers et al., 2012). Data suggests that charter schools, as a model of choice,
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

85
increasingly segregate students in comparison to the sending schools from which students
transferred (Miron et al., 2010). Researchers further identify that school choice options such as
charter schools more often segregate students by income level than do the students’ respective
local school districts (Cobb & Glass, 2014; Miron et al., 2010). Student stratification continues to
necessitate consideration as an outcome of school choice and student mobility.
It is important to note that school choice is available in some variation in all states with
approximately 15% of school-age children enrolled in a school other than their school of
residence (Colvin, 2013). Still, research surrounding public school Superintendent response to
school choice initiatives is deficient in existing research. As such, research will prove crucial in
planning for the future of public school districts in serving a newly mobile constituency.
Methodology
Data collection through qualitative interviews was completed with six (6) California
Superintendents who fit the qualification guidelines. The process of data collection included
interviews conducted both in person and via telephone using the semi-structured interview
protocol developed for this purpose, which contained 12 questions. All of the data was
interpreted using the process of coding and analysis. Transparency in all steps taken to complete
interviews was key to completing deep and thoughtful interviews with each participant
(Creswell, 2009).
Summary of Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section will interpret the qualitative data and connect findings to the review of literature.
Research Question 1: What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student
mobility in the context of increased school choice options?
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

86
With regard to student mobility, interviewees’ responses regarding issues surrounding
declining enrollment or mobility of students within the district appeared stilted. All of the
superintendents interviewed recognized the presence of educational options for students within
and beyond their particular districts. Still, each offered reasons other than choice as the source of
student movement and decreasing enrollment. Declining enrollment due to birth rate, movement
due to high crime in the surrounding area, flight to higher-achieving and more affluent schools,
and lower income levels of families stood as the most common responses when discussing
student mobility. All Superintendents identified private or parochial schools as more
significantly represented when determining motives for student mobility than the presence of
charter schools, which are minimally represented in each of the six districts. Mobility to
surrounding districts, seen as both safer and higher achieving, represented a greater promoter of
students’ exiting patterns to schools of choice for four of the six respective districts.
Consequences of student mobility were more easily offered by each of the
Superintendents interviewed. Two differing consequences surfaced when discussing student
mobility: the necessary introduction of offering inter-district permits to families from adjacent
districts to maintain or increase enrollment, and concerns regarding student stratification in
schools as a result of mobility. With four of five Superintendents interviewed facing declining
enrollment in their districts, the practice of accepting inter-district permits for students from
other districts has uncovered negative community perceptions about nonresidents enrolling in
district schools. Concerns raised included depletion of resources for resident students, lower
school test scores, and an increase in behavior issues, none of which were substantiated in the
districts. Furthermore, all six Superintendents interviewed shared apprehensions about
stratification of student populations by race and economic status as a result of mobility, which
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

87
often results in dividing student populations and escalating concerns about equity in schools as
students of agency move to safer or more affluent settings. The consequences of student
mobility, according to Superintendents interviewed for this study, have triggered two distinct
issues regarding student mobility: the use of inter-district permits and the undesirable outcome of
student stratification in schools.
Research Question 2: What are some strategies or policies implemented by
Superintendents to address challenges with student mobility and school choice options?
Qualitative data gathered from semi-structured, in-depth interviews with six California
Superintendents garnered rich descriptions of newly implemented approaches utilized to address
student mobility in each distinct school district. Superintendents willingly offered detailed
explanations regarding initiatives used to maintain or increase student enrollment to include
marketing strategies employed by districts and schools, the rebranding of district schools to
attract prospective families, and Superintendent involvement to draw support of external
stakeholders.
Specific to promotional approaches, Superintendents identified transforming media and
parent outreach efforts to more broadly communicate district effectiveness and program
offerings. Common methods included the addition or reassignment of personnel, or the
contracting of external marketing consultants to assist with developing and facilitating marketing
plans for this purpose in the district. This involved carving out an increased budget to expand the
use of teachers on special assignment (TOSAs) in support of families transitioning to or between
schools, addressing publication and social media interface needs, and creating family friendly
schools via bilingual support and parent outreach programs. A focus on the use of media, both
conventional (print and broadcast) and social media, appeared as a primary and emerging focus
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

88
for two of the six Superintendents interviewed. This emphasis on media also promoted the use of
TOSAs or newly developed positions within the district office in coordinating these media
sources. The commissioning of outside consultants to perform a district assessment in the area of
family support and positive perception of schools was noted as resulting in observable shifts at
the school site level by all six Superintendents interviewed. In this way, utilizing outside
marketing consultants to complete school site audits inspired changes in two districts to the front
office aesthetics and in staff practices to promote a more family-friendly, less industrial
presence. Results of such audits also prompted changes in school appearance, the
implementation of parent centers on school sites, and increased attention to parent attendance at
school events.
Several Superintendents echoed a district-wide shift to a customer service mindset, both
at school sites and at the district level as a marketing stratagem. Shared responses included the
incorporation of public relations campaigns and customer service models to connect with
students, families, and the community at large. Three respondents recognized shifting school
front office practices to include front offices with appropriate seating for visitors, onsite parent
welcome centers at schools, and the assignment of staff to coordinate parent outreach programs.
Two Superintendents, specifically, concentrated efforts on shifting staff views and language
about their district’s schools, moving away from negative speak to positive voice. These
Superintendents viewed this shift as significant both in the workplace and in the larger
community when employees spoke about the district in public as a means of promoting the
district with families and curtailing student mobility. Both noted that this shift began with their
own modeling of such behaviors. An intentional, strategic approach to creating or strengthening
a customer service mindset district-wide persisted in interviews with all six Superintendents.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

89
School rebranding, a strategy to promote a new identity of an existing school by changing
a school’s programmatic offerings, emerged as a means of deterring student mobility and
alleviating declining enrollment in districts due to parental dissatisfaction with district schools
with four of the six Superintendents interviewed for this study. Strategies in this area included
closing and reopening less desirable or failing schools, realigning curriculum to form academies
focused on the arts or sciences, and introducing sought-after programs in formerly
underachieving schools to include popular immersion programs. Redesigning schools as
thematic academies (e. g., STEM, arts, business) was also noted as an effective tactic.
Rebranding schools as an approach to stemming the mobility of students was also identified as a
means of preventing student stratification in districts.
Finally, in response to RQ 2, Superintendents interviewed acknowledged outreach and
commitment to personally promoting their districts with internal and external stakeholders as key
to fostering both community support of schools and retention of students. Approaches included
time spent attending community events, Rotary meetings, and Chamber of Commerce meetings.
The amount of personal time devoted to developing relationships with internal (teachers, parents,
students, employees) and external (community members, politicians, press) stakeholders varied
between Superintendents. This study found a 35% difference in the amount of time
Superintendents spent with external stakeholders as a means of promoting their districts with the
larger community.
Research Question 3: How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts
in their districts to determine future steps in the area of student mobility?
In this study, Superintendents reported no clear pattern of response regarding data
collection to monitor the effectiveness of student retention. In fact, it appears efforts in the area
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

90
of data collection are not yet clearly defined or established as a sustainable practice. The use of
surveys as a means of creating avenues for consumer response from parents, students, and staff
was mentioned as a source of quantifiable data. Superintendents conceded that such surveys
provided more subjective, perception-based statements versus specific data regarding practices
utilized by the district to retain families. The use of surveys remains, for the majority of
Superintendents interviewed, a viable metric for assessing strategies in use to promote retention
and stem mobility of students. While enrollment trend data allows Superintendents to forecast
future enrollment for their districts and are easily available, using this data was not highlighted as
a means of assessing marketing strategies by any of the Superintendents in this study.
Although response to questions about evaluating marketing practices garnered a broad
spectrum of responses from Superintendents specific to their own approaches to assessing district
practices, information on the use of measurable data to assess marketing stratagems used to stem
student mobility was limited. Observational assessment of marketing approaches implemented to
deter student mobility was distinguished by Superintendents interviewed as a means of
determining effectiveness of such efforts. A focus on morale of staff and general input to the
Superintendent by both internal and external stakeholders in informal settings appeared a
preferred means of measuring efforts to address student mobility. The use of focus groups, too,
allowed for one Superintendent to receive concentrated feedback on district performance and
community satisfaction with the district.
Implications

The findings of this study contribute to the limited body of scholarly literature specific to
Superintendent response to student mobility and school choice. The results of this study are of
importance to those presently studying public school reform in an era defined by emerging
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

91
school choice initiatives, and those presently working either in or in conjunction with public
school districts experiencing student mobility.
Although findings reveal that while Superintendents interviewed tentatively identified
competitive pressures in the form of school choice options for families as in some way
responsible for loss of enrollment, all reported making changes within their districts in response
to the effects of student mobility. While some Superintendents did not directly link the
occurrence of student mobility with the existence of alternative educational venues (e. g., private
schools, more affluent districts of choice, etc.) those interviewed did view choice as having a
negative impact on the larger educational community in terms of race, ability, and
socioeconomic demographic stratification. Such concerns point up the growing wariness of
public school Superintendents regarding choice initiatives initially asserted as a means of
improving failing schools, now causing re-segregation of students. Such views may serve to
deter future cooperation between public school districts with school choice authors in creating
more collaborative, less competitive relationships, which could ultimately result in overall
stronger and more varied offerings for students and families.
Additionally, this study circuitously highlights the need for schools of education to
provide educational leadership programs that include the study of practices common in the
business community that require leaders to understand and competently address competing
forces in the marketplace. Inclusion of such will prepare future leaders to be proactive rather than
reactive to changes in the educational landscape.
Finally, this study offers guidance to continuing and future public school leaders in
developing advocacy campaigns, which address the growing demands of parents, students, and
the greater public. Specific examples of Superintendent response to student mobility via
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

92
expanded modes of communication, inclusion of expertise, changes in mindset, and rebranding
of schools all speak to shifts in public school districts’ new view of parent and student as
consumer.
Recommendations for Future Research

This study sought to examine Superintendent response to student mobility and school
choice. Findings from this study revealed additional areas that warrant further examination. The
following are recommendations for future research:
• Further research the availability and viability of expertise to guide school boards and
Superintendents in succeeding in a competitive educational marketplace.
• Further research successful educational marketing models to include public school
districts, charter schools, and private schools, which effectively retain and recruit students.
• Further research the impact of school choice on public school districts.
• Provide additional investigation regarding patterns of student mobility and stratification
as a result of school choice.
• Investigate preparation or in-service platforms that include instruction for
Superintendents on the development of systems to promote school districts in a
competitive educational marketplace.
• Expand this study to include an increased number of public school district
Superintendents, charter school leaders, and private school leaders to draw comparisons
and similarities on best practices in the area of student retention and recruitment.
Concluding Remarks

This study has demonstrated that Superintendents are indeed responding to issues
surrounding student mobility and school choice in their districts. Throughout this study, while
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

93
Superintendents’ perceptions of causes and effects of mobility differed, all were taking steps
toward communicating district benefits and utilizing some type of marketing structures to
increase enrollment and retain existing students. Some of the key lessons learned from the six
Superintendents interviewed are that district leaders recognize school choice as a reality for all
public school districts—not strictly districts deemed as failing—and its impact on student
mobility. In this way, Superintendents will aptly address competing educational forces early in
order to enlist appropriate expertise in devising marketing plans that include strategies to fully
address the needs of families as consumers. In addition, Superintendents will develop support
systems within their districts to manage communications and said marketing strategies to support
site administrators in the development and facilitation of marketing plans which require a
specific level of expertise, experience, and dedicated focus. With the changing educational
marketplace, it is urgent that there be a stronger focus on planning for the advancement of public
school districts if they are to thrive in this new economy. For this reason, it is recommended that
Superintendents stay abreast of changing legal issues surrounding school choice and its impact
on enrollment, funding, and public opinion, and that they dedicate resources to increasing
collaboration versus competition with competing educational forces to support families of all
types and students at all levels.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

94
References

American Federation of Children. (2014). Retrieved November 21, 2014 from
http://www.federationforchildren.org/ed-choice-101/facts/
Belfield, C., & Levin, H. (2012). Market reforms in education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, and D.
N. Plank (Eds.), The AERA Handbook on Educational Policy Research (pp. 513-527).
Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.
Bifulco, R., & Reback, R. (2014). Fiscal impacts of charter schools: Lessons from New York.
Education, 9(1), 86-107.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to
theory and methods. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bradshaw, B., & Ajuwon, P. (2009). An empirical study on factors influencing parents’ school
choice. Religion & Education, 36(3), 39-53. doi:10.1080/15507394.2009.10012456
Butcher, J. (2013). School choice marches forward. Education Next, 13(1). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1238139814?accountid=14749
California Department of Education Statewide Enrollment – DataQuest (n.d.). Retrieved
December 31, 2014 from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=2000-
01&cChoice=EnrollEth1&p=2
California Department of Education. (2014). STAR 2012 test results. Retrieved November 21,
2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/ne/yr14/yr14rel42.
California Department of Education. (2014). Adequate Yearly Progress Report Information
Guide. Retrieved November 19, 2014 from
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/documents/aypinfoguide14.pdf
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

95

California Department of Education. (2015). Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved December 31,
2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved December 31,
2014 from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb/cefelfacts.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved December 31,
2014 from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/EnrollEthState.asp?Level=State&TheYear=2000-
01&cChoice=EnrollEth1&p=2
Carlson, D., Lavery, L., & Witte, J. F. (2011). The determinants of inter-district open enrollment
flows: Evidence from two states. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 76-
94. doi:10.3102/0162373710388643
Chubb, J., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets and American schools. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Cobb, C. D., & Glass, G. V. (2009). School choice in a post-desegregation world. Peabody
Journal of Education, 84(2), 262-278.
Colvin, R. L. (2013). New “chief” will stay the course: Choosing Chris Minnich to lead the
Council of Chief State School Officers means the organization likely will stay focused on
helping states adopt and adapt to the Common Core. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(5), 66.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

96
Dauter, L., & Fuller, B. (2011). How diverse schools affect student mobility: Charter, magnet,
and newly built institutions in Los Angeles. Policy Analysis for California Education.
Retrieved November 17, 2014 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED523550
Davis, J. (2013). School Choice in the States: A Policy Landscape. Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved from
http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/School_Choice_in_the_States_A_Policy_L
andscape.html
Digest of Education Statistics (2013), tables 203.20, 203.25, and 203.30; tables ESE 70 through
ESE 89 at National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/AnnualReports/historicaltables.asp
EdSource. (2009). Algebra policy in California: Great expectations and serious challenges.
Mountain View, CA.
EdSource. (2013). California drops to 49th in school spending in annual Ed Week report. By
John Fensterwald. EdSource Report, January 14, 2013.
Ely, T. L., & Fermanich, M. L. (2013). Learning to count: School finance formula count methods
and attendance-related student outcomes. Journal of Education Finance, 38(4), 343-369.
Fiske, E. B., Ladd, & H. F., (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution.
Fusarelli, L. D. (2011). School reform in a vacuum: Demographic change, social policy, and the
future of children. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 215-235.
Hochschild, J. L., & Scovronick, N. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. Oxford
University Press.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

97
Horn, M. B. (2010). K-12 online education is increasingly hybrid learning. Distance Learning, 7(2),
18-20. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/853890164?accountid=14749
Izraeli, O., & Murphy, K. (2012). An analysis of Michigan charter schools: Enrollment,
revenues, and expenditures. Journal of Education Finance, 37(3), 234-266.
Jimerson, L. (2002). Interdistrict open enrollment: The benign choice? The Clearing House,
76(1), 16-19.
Kerbow, D. (1996). Patterns of urban student mobility and local school reform. Journal of
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(2), 147-169.
Kronholz, J. (2014). California’s: Districts of choice. Education Next, 14(3), 39.
Ledwith, V. (2010). The influence of open enrollment on scholastic achievement among public
school students in Los Angeles. American Journal of Education, 116(2), 243-262.
doi:10.1086/649493
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Mathis, W. J., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without diversity:
Education management organizations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification
of the American school system. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/schools-without-diversity
Montes, O., & Rubalcaba, L. School choice, equity and efficiency: International evidence from
PISA-2012. Retrieved from http://repec.economicsofeducation.com/2014valencia/09-
31.pdf
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

98
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS). (2015). Retrieved April 30, 2015 from
http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/page/overview/year/2014
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2014). The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved
November 20, 2014, from http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/state-
gains
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2013). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “State Nonfiscal
Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,” 2000–01 through 2011–12, and
National Elementary and Secondary Enrollment Model, 2000–2012. See Digest of
Education Statistics 2013, tables 203.20, 203.25, and 203.30.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2013). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey (PSS), 2011–
12. See Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 205.30.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2013). U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Public
Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey,” 1999–2000 through 2011–12. See
Digest of Education Statistics 2013, table 216.30.
National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2014). Retrieved November 20, 2014, from
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cga.asp
National Center for Educational Statistics (2014). Retrieved November 20, 2014, from
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66
Ni, Y. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools:
Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571-584.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

99
Permuth, S., & Dalzell, N. (2013). Driven by history: Mathematics education reform.
International Journal of Educational Reform, 22(3), 235.
Powers, J.M., Topper, A.M., & Silver, M. (2012). Public school choice and student mobility in
Metropolitan Phoenix. Journal of School Choice, 6(2), 209-234.
Ronsisvalle, T., & Watkins, R. (2005). STUDENT SUCCESS IN ONLINE K-12 EDUCATION.
Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6(2), 117-124,184. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/231079782?accountid=14749
Rumberger, R. W. (2003). The causes and consequences of student mobility. Journal of Negro
Education, 6-21.
Schneider, J. (1991). Politics, markets, and America’s schools, by John E. Chubb and Terry M.
Moe. (1990). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 2(2), 190-194.
Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the
internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133-144.
doi:10.3102/01623737024002133
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2002). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the
quality of American schools. Princeton University Press.

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

100
Appendix A: Interview Protocol

RQ 1: What factors do Superintendents perceive as affecting student mobility in the context of
increased school choice options?

1. How significant an issue is student mobility, or the moving of students between schools
or out of the district, for your district? (Probes: Do you find students moving outside the
district or to schools within the district? What do you feel is the most significant
reason(s) students move within the district (if applicable)? Or, outside the district (if
applicable)? In your opinion, to what extent has choice affected student mobility in your
schools both within and beyond the district boundaries? Why?)

2. How does student mobility affect schools in your district? (Probes: From a global
perspective, how does student mobility affect the district? What areas are most impacted
by student mobility? Student enrollment, finance, programs, classroom changes, staffing
changes, school climate?)

3. Describe reasons families choose to transfer or move their students from one school to
another. (Probes: What do you feel is the most significant reason(s) students move
within the district (if applicable or, outside the district (if applicable)?

4. How are schools in your district impacted by emerging school choice options for
families? (Probes: Are there options for students? Are families choosing other options?
How does this impact your district – what is the primary reason these families are
choosing other options?)

RQ 2: What are some strategies or policies implemented by Superintendents to address
challenges with student mobility and school choice options?

1. What is your district doing differently now as a result of student mobility as a result of
school choice influences? (Probe: What is your school board’s stance on student
mobility? How do you inform school board members about this issue?)

2. What are schools doing differently as a result of student mobility? (Probe: How do you
support school sites with this process?)

3. What are some policies you have initiated or revised in your district to address student
mobility? (Probes: Have older policies been revised? Have new initiatives been
created? At the district level have you designed any marketing schemes to address
mobility?

4. What prompted these changes or new policies? (Probes: How does your district respond
to inter/intra-district permit requests? Has this been an evolving process?)

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

101
5. Are there other stakeholders involved in any of the initiatives aimed at addressing school
mobility? (Probes: How do you involve stakeholders?)

RQ 3: How do Superintendents evaluate the success of retention efforts in their districts to
determine future steps in the area of student mobility?

1. Have your goals been met in the area of student retention efforts? (Probes: How do you
know? Why not? What can be done next?)

2. How do you assess efforts to limit student mobility in your district? (Probe: What steps
have you taken?)

3. What do you see as next steps for your district in addressing student mobility?

4. What do you see as next steps for your district in addressing school choice influences?

5. What do you view as the most significant topics facing school districts concerning the
growing number of school choice options for families?

SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

102
Appendix B: Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

An Examination of Public School Superintendent Response
to Student Mobility and School Choice

You are invited to participate in a research study. Research studies include only people who
voluntarily choose to take part. This document explains information about this study. You should
ask questions about anything that is unclear to you.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study is to explore potential models of reform that may be applied to districts
addressing issues of student mobility. This study will discuss public school district use of policy
regarding school choice and its effects on student exit and non-exit mobility. Additionally, this
study will examine Superintendent management of student mobility and school choice
affecting urban school districts.

PARTICIPANT INVOLVEMENT
If you agree to this study you will be asked to participate in a one-to-one interview anticipated to
take no more than 45 minutes to 1 hour to complete depending on responses to interview
questions. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. To maintain the essence of your
words for the research, the interview will be recorded using an audiotape. At any time you
may request to see or hear the information collected.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Your identity as a participant and the name of your school district will remain confidential
at all times during and after the study. The interview will be tape-recorded and the interviewer
will take notes. This is done for data analysis. Transcription of the tape will be kept confidential
in a password-protected computer. The audiotapes will be destroyed once they have been
transcribed. All individual identification will be removed from the hard copy of the transcript.
Participant identity and confidentiality will be concealed using coding procedures. The data will
be stored on a password-protected computer in the researcher’s office for three years after the
study has been completed and then destroyed. The members of the research team and the
University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the
data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect the rights and welfare of
research subjects.
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

103
INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator Aileen Harbeck via email at harbeck@usc.edu or phone at (310) 567-3995
or Faculty Advisor Dr. Rudy Castruita at rcastrui@cox.net.

IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the researcher, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the researcher, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO
□ I agree to be audiotaped during the interview
□ I do not want to be audiotaped during the interview

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
SUPERINTENDENT RESPONSE TO STUDENT MOBILITY

104
Appendix C: Interview Recruitment Letter

Dear Dr. _______________________

My name is Aileen Harbeck and I am a principal in the Wiseburn Unified School District. I am
presently a doctoral candidate in the Rossier School of Education at University of Southern
California and am conducting a research study as part of my dissertation. My Superintendent, Dr.
________________, suggested I contact you as a possible candidate for this study.

As part of this research, I will be interviewing six (6) California Superintendents who presently
administer districts that have two or more open enrollment schools to gather data regarding
response to student mobility and school choice. I am reaching out to you in hopes of gaining
your insight into this topic through a personal interview.

The interview is anticipated to take no more than 45 minutes to complete depending on
responses to interview questions. Participation in this study is completely voluntary. Your
identity as a participant and the name of your school district will remain confidential at all times
during and after the study.

If you have questions and are available to participate, please reply directly to this email or
contact me at 310-567-3995. I am happy to work around your schedule to complete this
interview.

Thank you,

Aileen Harbeck
Doctoral Candidate - Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The national conversation around school performance and quality is characteristically also a conversation about school reform. With enormous implications for society, public school systems have never been more analyzed and criticized. While school choice is a heavily debated and complex topic, the movement to provide students with alternative and varied educational settings continues to grow, impacting public school systems in the areas of student mobility and retention. The purpose of this study was to examine the Superintendent response to student mobility and school choice. Specifically, this study explored: (1) what factors Superintendents perceived as affecting student mobility in the context of increased school choice options

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An examination of traditional versus non-traditional superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve student achievement

PDF

An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners

PDF

School board and superintendent relationships and how they promote student achievement in California’s urban districts

PDF

An examination of autonomy and leadership in Los Angeles Unified School District pilot schools

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in the Inland Empire

PDF

Examining Hispanic students’ access to AP courses in high schools in Los Angeles County

PDF

The role of the superintendent in ensuring school board focus on student achievement

PDF

Pivotal positions, critical experiences, and preparation programs in the career paths of superintendents

PDF

Effective strategies superintendents utilize in building political coalitions to increase student achievement

PDF

The teacher evaluation: key components that positively impact teacher effectiveness and student achievement

PDF

Superintendent's leverage: a case study of strategies utilized by an urban school district superintendent to improve student achievement

PDF

The benefits of mentorship to new high school assistant principals and principals

PDF

Promoting student achievement: a case study of change actions employed by an urban school superintendent

PDF

Initiatives implemented by urban high school principals that increase and sustain achievement in algebra for African American students

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in suburban school districts: a case study

PDF

Use of Kotter’s change model by elementary school principals in the successful implementation of inclusive education programs for students with disabilities in K-6 elementary schools in Southern ...

PDF

The sustainability of superintendent-led reforms to improve student achievement

PDF

Strategies utilized by superintendents and mathematics district personnel that impact minority student outcomes in algebra

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Kern Harbeck, Aileen (author)

Core Title An examination of public school superintendent response to student mobility and school choice initiatives

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 02/04/2016

Defense Date 11/10/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,school choice,student mobility,superintendent

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Garcia, Pedro E. (committee member), Ott, Maria (committee member)

Creator Email apharbeck@aol.com,harbeck@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-205995

Unique identifier UC11279116

Identifier etd-KernHarbec-4083.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-205995 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-KernHarbec-4083.pdf

Dmrecord 205995

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Kern Harbeck, Aileen

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