Putting school choice in place

Mr. Glenn writes an open memo to a newly appointed chief state school officer who is committed to introducing and implementing a policy of choice.

A policy of public school choice must be fair, it must be clearly communicated, and it must be based on a substantial measure of autonomy and diversity at the school level. A state or school system seeking to infuse public education with the energies of choice must find a way to balance all of these important considerations.

Here is the advice I would give to a newly appointed chief state school officer who is committed to introducing and implementing a policy of choice. I’ve cast my advice in the familiar form of the interdepartmental memo.

TO: Commissioner Jones

FROM: CG

RE: Public School Choice

Here’s what we need to do during the coming year to keep the promises you made to the governor and the joint legislative committee about promoting school choice.

Creating the context

Your primary task — and the one that will take you the longest — is to create a context of expectations and requirements that permits healthy diversity among public schools. After all, we can tap the true power of choice only if we offer more substantial options than the social class of the student body and the age of the school building.

In some ways there is already too much diversity — in quality and in the real opportunities offered — between schools in rich and poor communities and even from school to school in the same district. Because of these inequities, our top priority has always been to insure an adequate education for every student, in every community. To this end we have devised new statewide requirements for testing and the reporting of results, for curriculum, and for teacher certification. The problem now is to make room for positive diversity at the school level w1thm the broader context of our across-the-board expectations.

We frequently hear concerns expressed about whether the historical role of the common public school will be destroyed if we promote educational diversity as a basis for parental choice. Distinctive schools can provide a common education if we clearly establish the outcomes that we expect. No one should assume that a call for diversity is a signal to schools that they can go back to “doing their own thing” without real accountability for results. School-level autonomy requires that the state and the district insist on well-designed provisions for accountability in each school. As the recent Carnegie report pointed out, “Teachers have to be prepared to accept a greater degree of accountability in return for increased discretion.”¹

Parents have a right to be confident that there are no bad choices among public schools — no choices that will shortchange their children. They need consumer protection. If expanded parental choice is not to become an anxiety-ridden rat race, the state will have to stand as guarantor of the basic quality of every school.

Parents have a right to be confident that there are no bad choices among public schools.

But state-defined standards should confine themselves to results, thus encouraging school-level flexibility in determining the best ways to achieve those results. Then-Gov. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, writing for the National Governors’ Association, described this approach as “horse-trading.”

The kind of horse-trading we’re talking about will change dramatically the way most American schools work. First, the Governors want to help establish clear goals and better report cards, ways to measure what students know and can do. Then, we’re ready to give up a lot of state regulatory control — even to fight for changes in the law to make that happen — if schools and school districts will be accountable for the results. We invite educators to show us where less regulation makes the most sense. These changes will require more rewards for success and consequences for failure for teachers, school leaders, schools, and school districts. It will mean giving parents more choice of the public schools their children attend as one way of assuring [parents of] higher quality without heavy-handed state control.²

Parental choice can coexist with high standards for what students will learn, but not with top-down specification of how they will learn. After all, parents aren’t going to go out of their way to choose a school if it’s exactly like every other school.

The important first step is to define clearly (and broadly) the expected educational outcomes. Our expectations must be broad because parents are looking for a lot more than good reading scores (though of course they’re not willing to settle for less). If we assess and report only proficiency in reading and math, then schools will come under tremendous pressure to concentrate on those skills ex- elusively. But if our assessments put those skills in a context of citizenship, of creativity, of analytic and expressive capabilities, then we will convey the message that there are many dimensions of excellence. Parents in turn will adopt broader educational priorities and will be motivated to look around for a school that matches them. It will then be up to the staff of each school to challenge and enable each student to reach at least the standards for that stage of education.

The way we go about “raising standards” may actually impede progress unless we’re very careful. Far from hindering our efforts to improve schools, our choice initiative can contribute significantly to them. When teachers work in a school that parents have chosen, they don’t have to “teach defensively” to avoid displeasing anyone. Choice creates the space for teachers to shape a school that will please some parents very much. But we have to give school staffs the elbowroom to act with conviction and energy.

Implementing choice

While we are working at the long-term task of creating a climate within which we can seek excellence in diverse ways, there are some very concrete steps we can take to permit and encourage choice — and to insure that it doesn’t benefit some at the expense of others.

1. Develop an effective assignment. Sooner or later — and the sooner the better — any plan to promote choice among public schools will have to deal with the inescapable fact that some schools will attract more students than they can accommodate, while others will end up with fewer than needed to operate an adequate program. A system of undirected school choice — a true “free market” — is almost certain to result in significant inequities between schools, as well as in increased racial segregation.

We are not proposing an unrestricted market for public education in our state, and we need to make that clear from the very start — or the anxieties and resistance will be tremendous. We have already heard rumblings of opposition from teacher unions and threats of court challenges from civil rights groups. We must face their concerns squarely from the start, or our efforts will go nowhere. And we can face them successfully.

In parts of the state where enrollments have dropped significantly, the schools that attract fewer parents will become prime candidates for closing. But we cannot close a school overnight or without protecting the rights of its staff and students. If a school has a weak program but a better location and physical plant than some others in the area, it is conceivable that the staff of another school that has demonstrated its ability to attract students could be assigned to that building. These decisions must be made locally, subject to your review in case equity or other legal issues are involved.

In other areas, school boards do not have the luxury of considering school closings; they need all the space they can get. Thus some students will be assigned to schools that their parents did not choose. The encouragement of parental choice will bring out into the open what has always been a reality: some schools are more desirable than others. Over time this situation can be a powerful incentive to improve the unpopular schools. For the short term, however, school authorities will have to make some tough decisions in response to parents’ demands. This prospect is one of the major reasons for resistance to policies allowing parental choice, and we need to be prepared to deal with it.

The principle of first come, first served may seem fair, but in practice it would lead to chaos.

An effective assignment policy must be a rational and principled way of allocating the space available in the more popular schools and of determining who will have to go to the less popular schools. The process by which assignments are made must be easy for parents to understand, and it must be incorruptible: no parent should feel that the process can be manipulated to the advantage of any individual or group.

A good assignment policy systematically weighs a number of considerations. For example, a child whose older sibling attends a popular school might be given a preference for assignment to the same school. A child who lives within walking distance of a school might be given a similar preference. A child whose presence would make the school more diverse with respect to race or social class might be given a preference as well.

A bad assignment policy is one that favors those parents who have inside knowledge or influence or who are particularly well organized to take advantage of a complicated process. The principle of first come, first served may seem fair, but in practice it would lead to chaos and make it impossible to implement an ethical policy.

“Controlled choice,” the method of student assignment adopted by eight Massachusetts cities including Boston, has avoided many of the pitfalls of the assignment process. Registration starts in January for the following school year, and assignment decisions are made monthly. All applications received during a given month are treated as though they were submitted simultaneously, so there is no advantage for parents to camp out overnight in order to be first in line! The parents of every child who is new to the school system or moving to a new level of schooling are offered counseling and an opportunity to visit the schools. They are then encouraged to specify any number of preferences. The assignment system takes into account where siblings attend school, the proximity of the school to the child’s home, program considerations, and racial integration.

Especially when we first put the system into effect, there will be a certain percentage of children who do not get into any of the schools that their parents have requested. In cities with controlled choice plans in Massachusetts, the number of students in this category has consistently amounted to less than 10% of the total student population, but that still adds up to a lot of unhappy parents. Gradually, we can work to change the schools that have limited appeal so that they will attract more students. But in the short run we need a good way to deal with the disappointment of parents. There must be a process for handling appeals when a child has been denied assignment to a preferred school, and this process should be insulated from political influence. The wise school board and superintendent will exclude themselves from the appeals process altogether!

Disappointed parents need someone sympathetic with whom they can sit down and discuss realistic alternatives. They must have access to good counseling through parent information centers. To the extent humanly possible, the system should provide some alternative to a school where a child has already had a bad experience. And if enough parents raise strong objections to a certain school because the second-grade teacher yells at the children or because bigger children bully smaller ones at recess, then the principal and the superintendent need to do something about it.

Parents deserve to decide for themselves which approaches to education are best for their children.

Finally, while you are contemplating the ins and outs of the assignment and appeals processes, you might do well to think about the wisdom of developing a good relationship with the media. If one or two attractive schools are consistently the focus of attention — and reporters have a way of returning to the schools that have already established positive reputations — then parents whose children are enrolled elsewhere are bound to feel that they are missing out.

This situation creates resentment and can lead to a kind of stampede effect. We should encourage local newspapers, radio stations, and TV stations to consider featuring a different school each week so that parents will gradually realize that there are lots of possibilities to consider.

2. Conduct initial and continuing parent surveys. Each community — or group of communities — that develops a program of parental choice should check directly with parents to find out what they are looking for in schools. Why is this done so infrequently? Too often we assume that “educators know best” and that the fads that sweep through the schools of education will find instant support from parents. Parents will support new approaches to education — indeed, some are eager for them — but they deserve to decide for themselves which ones are in the best interests of their children.

Parent surveys are more effective if they offer the respondents a number of options to choose from rather than simply ask open-ended questions or present a list of items to approve or reject. The object of a survey, after all, is not to find out that parents want more of everything but to learn which school characteristics seem more important to them than others. It is also a good idea not to clutter a survey with items that are essentially nonnegotiable, such as the quality of instruction or student safety.

The most dependable way to test how strongly parents rate a particular approach to high-quality education is to ask them whether they would choose a school that incorporates that approach over the school that is nearest their home.

Parent surveys (and teacher surveys) can provide an idea of the relative demand for various forms of pedagogy and supplemental programs when a choice plan is put into effect. But demand can also be influenced after a plan is in place. A school that develops a convincing approach to education and communicates its vision with enthusiasm can broaden the horizons of parents and persuade them to choose a form of instruction that they had never before considered.

Once parents have made their preferences known, the state, in consultation with the districts, will be responsible for orchestrating the overall supply and demand. Otherwise, every school might end up stressing the educational theme that is selected by the largest number of parents, thus eliminating real diversity and leaving other parents dissatisfied. To the extent that there is something like a market for different types of education, a school of choice can flourish with a relatively small but committed “market share.”

A school of choice does not have to be an alternative school in the sense of offering an unconventional pedagogy. Nor does a school of choice necessarily require extensive additional resources or a glamorous program. Too many magnet schools around the country are selective and even elitist; for this reason, we should support a system that challenges every school in a community or region to become a school of choice.

The full power of choice to strengthen public education can be brought to bear only if it is guided by a combination of incentives and reasonable constraints. The more effective and flexible the incentives, the less necessary the constraints will be. It is important to have a means of continual monitoring and adjustment to accommodate changes in patterns of parental choice over time.

3. Provide for adequate staff involvement at each It is pointless to decide that a particular school can become a school of choice without the wholehearted support of the staff. Massachusetts provides state funds for extensive staff involvement in planning for parental choice. A small team might work after school for several months to develop a week-long paid session for the entire staff (and some parents) during the summer. The following fall, one or two staff members might continue to work extra hours or be released from some classroom duties. The state makes funds available to pull the whole staff together as needed. The total cost over 18 months of development might be as much as $30,000. An investment in involving the staff is important for any school of choice, and it is obviously an investment in school improvement as well.

Any choice policy that ignores the rights and legitimate interests of teachers will not strengthen public education, though it may satisfy a few parents at the expense of many children. Teachers who are treated unfairly or who fear that parental choice threatens their positions are not going to take the lead in making schools more diverse, more flavorful, and more effective.

In some parts of the country teacher unions have expressed fears that programs of choice will undermine their hard-won rights. But there is no necessary conflict between a system of school assignment resting on choice and the full implementation of any teacher contract. Teacher contracts ordinarily contain provisions governing the processes that affect the conditions of teachers’ employment: promotions, transfers, reductions in force, and so on. For example, if a district’s enrollment declines, there will be some impact on the staffing requirements of the school. This impact is mitigated, in most cases, through a union contract. Teachers “bumped” from a school whose enrollment is declining will often be given preference over teachers with less seniority for positions at another school. Population shifts attributable to choice are not inherently different from population shifts attributable to changing birthrates, housing patterns, or economic conditions.

Perhaps the most sensitive issue arises when a school of choice has a theme that is sufficiently distinctive to require a uniquely qualified staff. Teachers who have a seniority right to work in that particular school may not have the necessary qualifications. To get around this problem, staff job descriptions need to specify in some detail the skills and experience required. A third-grade teacher, for example, may have additional responsibilities that make that teacher not interchangeable with other third-grade teachers. Generally speaking, the key to dealing with this issue is to insure that the requirements are objective and that the process of staff selection is open.

The protection of teachers’ rights and interests is just one of many reasons why our school choice efforts should be governed by comprehensive and flexible policies. Simply opening the door to individual transfers from school to school can benefit the few at the expense of the many — including teachers. To maximize the benefits for everyone, teachers must be involved from the start in developing a comprehensive program for strengthening every school through diversity and choice. Experience shows that teacher unions are far more flexible about what contracts require if they are included in the initial process of identifying the goals of any new program and resolving any contract issues raised.

Any choice policy that ignores the rights and interests of teacher will not strengthen public education.

In Massachusetts, not a single dispute over the provisions of teacher contracts has ever arisen in connection with a program under which some 80,000 students attend public schools selected by their parents. We need to keep talking with the teacher unions so that they give us early warning of any concerns they may have. And we need to keep stressing that the enhanced parental satisfaction that comes from exercising choice can help to stabilize — if not reverse — the decline in public school enrollments.

4. Make a commitment to parent One of the most important investments we can make is in effective outreach to parents — both those who are already sending their children to a given school (since they need to understand any changes that are taking place as a result of increased autonomy) and those who might consider doing so.

The point of an outreach program is not “public relations.” We are not trying to convince the community that everything is wonderful in the school. Our purpose is to give an accurate view of what the school is seeking to do — and of what it is not seeking to do. Let me stress that point: one of our greatest challenges will be to convince schoolpeople that it is okay not to meet some expectations and not to please everybody.

Parents need to be informed about more than just the school’s overall goals and how the school team proposes to achieve them. Unfortunately, few school presentations go into detail about what actually happens in a school, what is expected of students and their parents, how problems will be dealt with, and what opportunities there will be for going beyond the common curriculum.

Massachusetts provides more than $2 million a year in state funds for parent information and counseling centers in the cities that are implementing largescale choice plans as a means of school improvement and integration. This is a sound investment.

5. Manage the impact of the program on individual The student body of any school in our mobile society varies from year to year — and often from day to day. A policy encouraging parental choice may intensify this instability, but it could also have the opposite effect. For example, well before the close of the academic year, a school system may specify the number of seats that will be available in a particular school in the following year and then recruit and place students only up to that limit. This method allows for a high degree of predictability in planning.

This approach is used in urban/suburban transfer programs in Massachusetts and other states. With careful planning, this system can help maintain an optimal pupil/teacher ratio in every classroom. The district may also seek to limit the impact on “sending schools” by targeting recruitment efforts and weighting applicants in ways that permit adjustments to the enrollment of each school in the district as the demographics of neighborhoods change.

On occasion, a district might decide to allocate an extra staff position to a school in anticipation of recruiting enough students to require additional staff. The position may even be filled during the preparatory year before voluntary enrollments begin. The additional expense is amply justified by the need to prepare a smoothly functioning instructional team. By contrast, at least one city that I know of encouraged certain schools to promote desegregation by recruiting additional students but then provided no additional staff to maintain the original class size — one of the reasons parents had been attracted to those schools in the first place. This shortsightedness undermined school-level initiative: the more successful the recruitment, the more the school was penalized.

Parents must have a right to select out of as well as into a truly distinctive public school of choice.

6. Set up a transportation I know you’ve been waiting for me to get to the big question, What about transportation costs? And transportation can be a real problem unless we handle it intelligently from the start.

The cost of transportation that is associated with school choice involves two big issues: Who should pay for it? And how can the cost be kept reasonable? School systems in our state already provide free transportation to students who live more than two miles from the school to which they are assigned (or to students for whom walking to school would be hazardous). The state helps defray these expenses.

Parents who take advantage of permissive transfer policies — which already exist informally in many communities — are ordinarily responsible for the associated transportation costs. But free transportation is provided to children who are assigned to a particular school because it offers some service that is not available at their “regular” school, such as a program for deaf children or for children who have limited proficiency in English.

But who pays the transportation costs for programs that set out to encourage diversity and parental choice? A case can be made for either alternative — parents or the state and school system — but the case for public funding is stronger. Ifwe institute the policy of choice without providing free transportation, it will only exacerbate existing socioeconomic differences by giving an advantage to the children of parents who can afford to get them to school at their own expense. The trend of public policy in education has been toward systematically removing such barriers to participation.

We must also realize that schools that are encouraged to become more diverse may become less suitable for certain students. Instead of aiming at a lowest common denominator, such a school seeks to offer a program that is highly responsive to the needs of some students, which inevitably means that it will be less appropriate for others. Parents must have a right to select out of as well as into a truly distinctive public school of choice. And this right will be abridged to some degree unless free transportation is provided.

We can hold down the cost of transportation in several ways. For example, recruitment for a particular school can be concentrated in its own neighborhood and in one other (preferably of a contrasting racial or economic character) so that students will come by the busload. It may also turn out that a system of choice, particularly one that crosses town lines, will wind up simply redirecting or even eliminating some of the transportation that was already necessary under the conventional system.

Summary

Clearly, we should not enter carelessly into a program that promotes parental choice. Many school systems have simply drifted into allowing choice when parents press for it in specific instances. But there are public as well as private costs associated with the exercise of choice, and we should promote choice only under conditions that guarantee that those costs will be outweighed by public and private benefits.

A checklist

Here, in summary, are the steps that we need to take to make parental choice work:

1. We should be very explicit about the outcomes for which every school will be
2. We should examine our requirements, regulations, and operating procedures to make sure that they do not get in the way of establishing legitimate diversity at the school
3. Local or regional school authorities should develop fair and simple procedures for assigning students and for handling appeals by disappointed Parental choice should be respected as far as is consistent with other important considerations. We should provide advice and assistance and review the districts’ procedures to make certain that they will promote equity and prevent segregation.
4. Local or regional school authorities should make an effort to find out what parents are interested in beyond the basic requirements, whether it be a particular style of teaching and learning, supplemental programs, improved school climate, an approach to the development of character, or other elements of
5. Each school should be challenged to develop a distinctive approach to excellence and should be encouraged to provide substantial time for teacher
6. We should provide resources for — but also insist on — effective outreach to parents, to guarantee that every parent has the information and counseling necessary to make sound
7. We should help school systems to manage the impact of parental choices on individual schools, stressing efficient use of available resources and respect for the provisions of teacher
8. We should encourage advance planning for transportation and promote patterns of recruitment and assignment that use transportation

As you can see, this list is a tall order to fill, but at every point it relates closely to — and can help advance — other efforts that we are making to improve education statewide: school-level planning, empowerment of teachers, involvement of parents, efficient use of facilities and transportation, and promotion of racial integration.

¹ Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the 21st Century (New York: Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy, 1986), p. 63.

² Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on Education (Washington, D.C.: National Governors’ Association, 1986), p. 4.