**********************************************************************

********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

"Public" and "Private"

by Jamie Burg

********************************************************************** ********************************************************************** **********************************************************************

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 1)  Basic Statistics

 2)  Local Authority

 3)  State Authority

 4)  Federal Intervention

 5)  Current Issues in Education

 6)  School Choice

  7)  School Choice Legislative Activity

  8)  Reinventing Education

   9)  Types of Choice Research

10)  The Private School "Effect"

11)  School Choice and Community

12)  Appendix

In the United States, public and private schools are generally distinguished by the distinct separation of both their governance and their funding. Typically, public schools are governed and financed by public authorities, while private schools are governed and financed by private authorities.

Public education in the United States takes place in more than 83,000 elementary and secondary schools, on which over $170 billion a year is spent. In addition, private schools, preschool education programs, adult education programs, federal Indian schools, and schools on federal installations abroad are components of the U.S. educational system. Almost 88% of the regular day-school students and almost 78% of the students in higher education are enrolled in public institutions.

BASIC STATISTICS

*Enrollment

Although enrollments were low early in the 20th century, by the 1980s almost all 5- to 13-year-olds and more than 90% of the 5- to 17-year-olds were enrolled in school. Between 1971 and 1984, public school enrollment dropped by 7 million students, or almost 15%.

Significant changes in public school enrollments are also resulting from regional differences in population growth. The areas of major growth include southern and western states; the areas of decline or stable growth include urbanized northeastern and central states. In all regions, however, enrollments in large cities are declining more rapidly than the national average. Despite these changes, urban systems remain large and unwieldy. More than one-third of the elementary and secondary students in Arizona are in Phoenix, and the New York City school system, with almost a million students, is larger than that of every state west of the Mississippi except California and Texas. Population shifts from these urban schools are resulting in an increasing proportion of low-income racial and ethnic minority students.

LOCAL AUTHORITY

The United States has about 5,300(30,000) public school districts, a number that is dropping as small districts merge. More than 50% of the districts enroll fewer than 1,000 students. Elementary districts, which may also include junior high or middle schools, and high school districts are often distinct, and neither necessarily conforms to political boundaries.

American public education began in the late 18th century as a local endeavor, with citizens taking the initiative to clear land, build schools, hire teachers, raise funds, and determine who would supervise the operation. This early tradition explains the long-standing American conviction that public schools are primarily the responsibility of the communities they serve. During the late 19th century the emphasis of schools at the post-primary level shifted from a common basic learning for all students to a differentiated curriculum to prepare young people for varied social roles. From about the 1860s on, professionally trained teachers and administrators were common. At this time, schools became increasingly secular. By the 1920s the responsibility for supervision had largely been assumed by professional staff, and the size of school boards was reduced. Compulsory attendance laws became widespread before the 1920s. Now school board powers include hiring and reviewing the performance of the superintendent, setting policy guidelines, and approving administrative actions and recommendations. Some districts have the power to levy taxes within state-imposed limits. In these instances school boards tend to be involved in budget making and district finances. The extent of board involvement varies with the interests of their members. In some large districts local advisory councils, with no formal authority, have on occasion influenced the selection of teachers, principals, and textbooks. Their involvement also depends on the interests of their members.

STATE AUTHORITY

Formal control of American public schools is held by state government. The powers of local school boards are, in all states, derived from state powers by the delegation of state governments. In general, states reserve powers to legislate and enforce policy guidelines, academic standards, and accreditation review procedures. State legislation determines the system of school finance, criteria for licensing school personnel, and the ages of compulsory attendance. State agencies are responsible for curriculum review, quality control, and general supervision of the educational institutions. States cannot bar private education but can exercise indirect control over private institutions through curriculum requirements, accreditation standards, and criteria for the licensing of professional staff.

State influence on education was encouraged by the common-school movement (from about 1830 to 1860), an educational campaign particularly strong in the northern and Midwestern states. Advocates of common schools sought to establish more schools and to organize systems of comparable schools within the states. The effort focused on elementary education, but growing support for public high schools was being generated as well. Horace Mann, perhaps the major leader in the movement, argued that common schools would be the "new enabling institutions" that would produce the quality of citizens needed to guarantee national survival through industrialization and urban growth. They would, it was thought, educate voters for civic responsibility, Americanize recent immigrants, and teach young people to avoid vice and crime. To realize such goals, it was argued, schools must be inclusive, comparable, and accessible. They could not be left to local whim. By 1861 most Union states had active state school offices, and by 1900 about half of the states had them. At first they merely collected data, recommended improvements, and inspected and compared schools. The wider powers already mentioned developed in the 20th century.

FEDERAL INTERVENTION

The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly mention education. Until after the Civil War both houses of Congress refused to establish standing committees on education on the grounds that the subject fell within state prerogatives. Nevertheless, new states were required to reserve land for the support of schools, and in the late 1830s surplus federal funds were returned to states to be used for a number of purposes, including education. It was at this time that the common-school movement grew. Education programs for Indian tribes began before 1820. When the Department of Agriculture was established (1862), educational services constituted one of its major assignments. Among the services offered by the Freedmen's Bureau (1865) after the Civil War were educational services. A US Department of Education was approved in 1867 but later was reorganized as a bureau in the Department of the Interior, where it played only a minor role for almost a century.

The major federal educational enactment of the 19th century was the Morrill Act, enacted in 1862. It offered land grants to the states for endowing and maintaining at least one college that would promote scientific, agricultural, industrial, and military studies and agricultural experimentation. A second act (1890) provided continuing federal support for land-grant colleges. These annual appropriations were to be withheld from states practicing segregation unless separate agricultural and mechanical black colleges were provided. The law led to the creation of 17 land-grant institutions for blacks. Among the land-grant colleges are such distinguished institutions as Cornell and Rutgers universities, the Michigan State University, the University of Illinois, and Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University. In the first half of the 20th century, Congress approved aid for vocational education, education-related public works during the Depression, veterans' education, and school districts "impacted" by the children of federal employees.

(see Milestones in Appendix)

************************************************************************

CURRENT ISSUES

Among the issues facing American education are the declining enrollment--which will require the curtailing of programs, the abandonment of facilities, and reductions in the staff--and the question of whether there should be bilingual education and, if so, in what form. Both issues will be intensified by changes in the nation's demography. The school-age population represents a decreasing proportion of the total population. Fewer taxpayers directly concerned as parents with the quality of schools may result in further reductions in educational spending. Absolute and proportional increases in the Spanish-speaking population affect the controversy over bilingual education. Parental choice in education and other major issues will be faced in the years to come.  With this in mind, we turn over the discussion to School Reform--specifically, "School Choice".  School Choice is an "outer-directed" school reform; that is, it advocates us to believe that if we attend to the governance and the form of schooling, the purpose of schooling will somehow magically take care of itself.  In this next section, I will discuss "inner-directed" school reform movement that addresses the real needs of children and is committed to the preservation of democracy, the advancement of social justice, and the creation of schools that are oases of hope and intellectual ferment.  This inner-directed school reform is based on a social covenant that states that every child, regardless of family background, has a right to health, safety, decent shelter, nourishment, and the best education we can offer.  This covenant is based on trust and a commitment to the future.  School Choice does have a role to play in this transformation, but only insofar as it is tied to the knowledge that without purpose and direction, reform is like a rudderless ship in a storm of confliction opinion.

SCHOOL CHOICE

Fifteen years ago school choice was little more than a twinkle in the eyes of a handful of civil libertarians. Concerned by what they say as a monopoly state system of education, they argued that American public schools were robbing citizens of their right to choose their children's education. It was a matter of conscience and constitutionality. The eloquence of their arguments notwithstanding, the ethos of the common school was so deeply embedded in American folklore and consciousness that for most citizens personal liberty and collective effort did not seem to be in conflict. Public schools were supposed to create a common culture; besides, private schools offered an alternative to public system. On balance, the governance of public education seemed to function fairly well; most Americans felt that whatever was wrong with schools could be attributed to inadequate teachers and undemanding curriculum. By the late 1980s, however, school choice had become the hottest educational reform idea on the policy horizon. The debate over school governance continues today. The school choice movement has become a crusade for those who believe that without educational liberty there can be no educational justice or innovation.

In this paper we examine the cultural context from which the school choice movement arose.

Clearly, these are fundamental questions, and we should not be surprised that the controversy over school choice has aroused public passions. The national debate not only has a political and educational context but also a deep philosophical and moral subtext. The context is about school improvement, but the subtext is about values, identity, and freedom. Undoubtedly, school choice has become infused with emotion because it is an educational reform that goes directly to the heart of an American dilemma. What is the correct balance between individual and family freedom and the rights of the community? All of us have strong feelings about how to resolve this dilemma. Thus, it is not surprising that school choice has become a kind of reform Rorschach test into which people real their own feelings about the relationship between school and society.

Private vs. Public

What all forms of privatization hold in common is a pulling back from concern for our shared public fate. They reward us for arriving at solutions that ignore, compete with, or even injure our neighbor's child without having to think about such possible consequences. No questions asked. In making our private decisions parents never have to explain themselves or look their neighbor in the eye. It's strictly personal, after all. Who can blame you for doing the best for your own. No harm meant. The cumulative effect of our private "choices", especially on those least able to exercise choice in powerful ways, is thus blurred over until it appears as another "law of nature" - some have better luck than others. The notions of the rearing of the young as a communal task is thus lost, begins even to sound silly and sentimental.

There is no evidence when it comes to private schools that competition has improved their product. What's true is that competition affects which schools get the "best" students and which get the left-overs, and which can thus charge more. You know a "good" school by how many students it can reject. Nor is there evidence that the private schools that went under did less well for their student that the schools that succeeded. In fact innovation remains the exception not the hallmark of all private education.

The School Choice Crusade

The fragility of the public school system has provided a window of opportunity for those reformers who believe that there can be no educational transformation without changing the very structure of American public education. In the 1980's, these reformers were carried into the mainstream of educational policy-making by a rising tide of conservatism that swept up from the Southwest, where free enterprise and anti-government sentiments dominated public discourse. It became fashionable to ridicule "social engineering" and soft-hearted liberals. There was a loss of faith in public institutions, which were often pictured by conservatives as being expensive, self-interested, and incompetent. Some conservative critics argued that liberal social welfare policies actually created more inequality rather than less.

The Scope of School Choice

The phrase "school choice" covers a multitude of student assignment plans that vary significantly in their underlying assumptions and operations procedure. Their common denominator is that they encourage or require students and their families to become actively engaged in choosing schools. Whereas previously most American families simply sent their children to their neighborhood schools, the implementation of choice plans makes it possible for students to attend schools inside or outside their district, and sometimes even outside their city or town. As we will see, these plans have direct effects on student assignment policies and indirect effects on the design of American education.

Although the variety of school choice plans makes summarization difficult, a few major types can be identified. It is important to get a sense of these types early in the discussion because the voices raised in the choice controversy are not known for precision of expression. In this paper the word choice refers to any student assignment policy that permits parents and children to participate in selecting a school. Some choice plans partially restrict the educational choices families can make, while others have virtually no restrictions. The former type of plan is often referred to as "controlled-choice" and the latter as "open-enrollment". Most choice plans fall near the middle of the continuum between the two types. Virtually every state in the Union has either enacted or is considering a choice plan that is uniquely configured by its political environment and educational problems. Below are some basic "choice" definitions:

As we can see from the above definitions, tailoring a choice plan is itself a creative endeavor. Choice can be limited to one district and thus have minimal educational design consequences, or it can be statewide and intersectional and thus completely alter the way schools are organized within a state. Nobody has yet proposed an inter-state choice plan, and as far as I know, nobody has seriously suggested a classroom choice plan. Thus, choice plans tend to fit within he traditional structure of American education. However, if the movement toward privatization of education accelerates, there may be new types of schools that do not fit within the traditional structure of American education. If, for example, the Edison Project  is successful in franchising a thousand private schools, American education will be profoundly transformed. Moreover, if the New American Schools Development Corporation, which President Bush established in his "America 2000" educational plan, is able to create enough "break-the-mold schools" by using the resources of corporations, think tanks, community organizations, and vendors of educational products, then the mode by which educational services are delivered will be transformed. For now, however, most choice plans have been developed and implemented within the traditional parameters established by state constitutions and by traditional conception of a public school district.

THE VARIETIES OF SCHOOL CHOICE

How widespread is school choice in terms of legislation, and what does it look like where it has been implemented? Below we will get a glimpse of the diversity of school choice and to recognize that different choice policies have dramatically different effects on the redesign of American education.

Choice Legislation

There is little doubt that the idea of choice has become increasingly popular. In 1988 Minnesota, which has been traditionally been in the forefront of the alternative-schools movement, initiated a ground-breaking statewide choice programs. Of course, Minnesota is unusual because it is relatively homogeneous demographically, and if its record in presidential elections is any indication, it may be the most politically liberal state in the Union. In 1989, however, Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, and Ohio also adopted choice plans; by 1991 ten states had approved some form of choice legislation. As of late 1992, some kind of choice legislation had been introduced in thirty-seven states. The most common forms of legislation are voucher proposals and interdistrict open-enrollment proposals. Choice is extremely popular in the Midwest. Republican governors tend to favor choice a bit more than their Democratic Counterparts. The reason is not hard to see: Democratic governors ten to depend on teachers’ unions for electoral support, and teachers’ unions have almost universally opposed choice. In general, Democrats still support public institutions and remain loyal to the core consensus, while Republicans are more apt to favor market solutions for social problems.

There is very little school choice in the South, which is ironic because the South originated the concept of freedom of choice in education. In the 1960s choice was a way of maintaining segregated schools; in the 1990s it can be a mechanism for truly integrating schools. The northeastern United States has not been a hotbed of school choice legislation, although many local plans are quite successful. Most recently, a choice initiative was defeated in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Choice has not had a great impact in the West either, although there are strong movements in Colorado and Utah. In states that are thinly populated and where town are separated by great distances, there are obvious practical limitations to how much choice parents and students can exercise. The West Coast, on the other hand, has been very active in the choice movements; in Oregon and California, in particular, voucher proposals have aroused a great deal of public controversy. There are no choice plans in Hawaii or Alaska.

Clearly, choice as a legislative movement does not lend itself to easy summary, and the success of choice legislation depends a great deal on the demographic and political characteristics of the particular state in which it is introduced. It is not surprising, for instance, that school choice is primarily a mid-western movement, since that region is quite homogeneous in terms of race and students crossing district lines there are not likely to change significantly the racial composition of schools. Yet it would be a mistake to argue that school choice is essentially a regional phenomenon. Advocates have long been active throughout the country.

SCHOOL-CHOICE LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY

Across the Nation

A   B  C   F  G  H   I   K   L   M   N   O   P   R   S   T    U   V   W 

 

Alabama  

Alabama has a voluntary intradistrict controlled-choice program that was adopted into law by the state legislature in 1991. Districts and schools may choose whether to establish or participate in choice programs; their policies for transferring and accepting students must comply with the guidelines for promoting and maintaining racial and ethnic balance. The current plan, which is intrasectional, includes no provision for tax credits or vouchers. During the 1991 legislative session, a bill was introduced and defeated that would have established a system of statewide public and private choice for Alabama parents and students. The proposed plan also would have set up a state aid system whereby education funds would follow the student to the school of his or her choice.

Alaska

In the early 90' there  were no existing choice programs in Alaska. Governor Walter Hickel’s (I) choice task force report was released in March 1992. The report was commissioned to investigate choice and other school reform issues supporting the establishment of a charter schools program, but it does not call for any reform programs that would include mandatory choice at this time.  During the 1995 legislative session, Governor Tony Knowles signed into law a restrictive charter school bill

Arizona

Arizona, like many states, has traditionally had an informal system of interdistrict school choice; there are currently no legislated or mandated programs in effect. A task force on education organized by Governor Fyfe Symington ( R ) has been actively in educational reform and supports choice as an integral part of its plans for improving Arizona’s schools. The task force’s recommendations on choice were introduced as legislation during the 1991 session; the cohesive choice plan included mandatory interdistrict open enrollment, charter schools, vouchers, and intersectional choice. This legislation did not pass. However, support for the measure remains strong.  Arizona: Senator Paterson introduced a new choice bill including private schools. Previously the Senator had introduced only public-school open-enrollment legislation. Also, the choice provisions of Governor Symington’s education task force proposals were introduced as HB 2548.  In 1994, Arizona passed the Arizona School Improvement Act, which provided for the creation of charter schools as alternatives to traditional public schools.  As of the fall of 1995, 51 charter schools serving over 6,000 students were operating in Arizona.  During the 1995 session, the state legislature considered House Bill 2177, which would have established a two-year statewide voucher pilot program for the fiscal years 1996-1997 and 1997-1998.

Arkansas

Arkansas has a system of statewide voluntary, interdistrict open enrollment. Choice is viewed as a one strategy of many that can be used to increase the effectiveness of education and schools. It was adopted as part of a 1989 school reform initiative that was passed by the state legislature. During the 1990-91 school year, close to one-third of all districts participated in choice. Providing parents with ample information about schools and the choice program in general is an important part of Arkansas’ choice plan; so is the state’s commitment to funding transportation of students between districts.  On April 10, 1995, Arkansas's then-governor, Jim Guy Tucker, signed Act 1126 into law. The act establishes a weak form of charter schools for the state of Arkansas. There are no provisions for vouchers or tax credits in the program.

California

California's current school choice program is informal and voluntary. It is supported by existing provisions in the state education code that allow students to attend school in districts other than their own. Districts can create intra- or interdistrict choice programs at their own discretion and without any supervision or control by the state board. Because of this, choice in California is not formally tracked or even labeled as "choice". Only one district, the Richmond Unified School District, has a formally labeled and publicized plan. During the 1991 state legislative session, a wide variety of bills were drafted and introduced to establish choice as an educational policy. All but one of these plans, ranging from basic intradistrict to statewide open enrollment to intersectional (private and public choice), were defeated. Discussion of the one remaining bill, which would streamline and extend interdistrict choice to a statewide scale.  Charter School legislation was approved by the Senate on June 4, 1992. Under the terms of SB 1448, California could have up to one hundred charter schools (no more than ten per district). EXCEL (Excellence through Choice in Education League) filed a voucher proposal late in 1991 that would institute a full-scale voucher system for all school children of California.  California: The EXCEL (Excellence Through Choice in Education League) coalition continues to gather signatures to place the choice initiative on the November ballot.  Governor Rowland, a Republican, issued Executive Order No. 8 on October 24, 1995, authorizing the appointment of the Governor's Commission on School Choice.

Colorado

Choice in Colorado is being developed within the context of a pilot program that is designed to implement school choice throughout the state on a limited, experimental level. The program, which is funded for five school years, provides for the creation of three intrasectional, interdistrict choice programs per year, one each in Denver, Eastern Slope, and Western Slope areas. Colorado also offers a post-secondary options program involving high schools and colleges around the state.

Connecticut

Connecticut has no formal school choice plans, and no current legislation would support such a system. On March 13, 1992, the Education Committee of the Connecticut Assembly held a hearing on AB 323, which contains the Charter Schools Task Force findings regarding charter schools. The task force recommended the establishment of six charter schools in the state on a pilot basis, which began in 1994.  The Task Force issued its report on February 21, and recommended the establishments of six charter schools in the state on a pilot basis, beginning in 1994.

Delaware

Delaware (check)does not have any school choice programs, and no pending legislation seeks to establish choice plans. However, individual school districts may apply directly to the federal government for funds to implement locally developed choice programs.  

District of Columbia

There are no school choice programs in the District, and no plans are currently being considered.

Florida

Currently, there are no mandated choice programs in Florida. Informal choice does exist in many districts throughout the state, in many different, locally developed forms. All of these plans are intrasectional and do not involve vouchers or tax credits. Additionally, Florida has an established system of magnet schools, alternative schools, and post-secondary options to serve the needs of its students. During the 1991 legislative session, a number of bills that addressed the choice issue were introduced. None passed. One of these bills supported public-private choice and the use of vouchers to increase the educational options available to low-income students. Although some support for these kinds of programs remains, no new legislation has been introduced.  Florida: A pilot plan for at-risk children was narrowly defeated on March 13 by the Florida House. The proposal was offered as an amendment to a technical bill by Reps. Tom Feeney and Carlos Valdes and lost by only three votes. This was the first recorded vote in the Florida legislature on voucher-type plan.

Georgia

In 1992, in  Georgia , the Georgia Public Policy Foundation established a private voucher program for lowincome students in Atlanta.  On March 14, 1995, Amendment 19, backed by Governor Miller, passed the Georgia legislature. This amendment simplified the restrictions on forming and grenewing a charter school

Hawaii

Hawaii, consisting of a single school district, does not have a school choice system. Legislation was introduced during the 1991 session that would enable students to transfer between any schools in-state, but the proposal had not been passed. In 1994, Hawaii passed a charter school bill.

Idaho

In 1990 Idaho enacted a plan for voluntary statewide open enrollment. The plan, which began during the 1991-92 school year, is intrasectional and therefore does not involve any use of vouchers. Education aid dollars follow the student to the school of his or her choice; the receiving district is reimbursed through state-issued tuition certificates. The Idaho choice program does not provide funding for transporting students between districts, nor does it include any formal system of informing parents about potential choices or schools. As of this time, no further choice legislation is pending. The Charter School Act of 1995, House Bill No. 163, sponsored by Representative Fred Tillman (R-Boise), passed unanimously through the House Education Committee but died when it failed to gather a majority vote in the Senate Education Committee. The Charter School Act of 1995, House Bill No. 163, sponsored by Representative Fred Tillman (R-Boise), passed unanimously through the House Education Committee but died when it failed to gather a majority vote in the Senate Education Committee.

Illinois

No formalized system of choice is currently in place in Illinois, although informal choice is a component of many districts in the state. In 1991 the state Board of Education commissioned a task force to investigate policy option and to explore potential interest in choice. There was little support for vouchers or for including nonpublic schools in the range of choices available to parents. During the 1990 term, a bill that would have created a voucher system failed to pass, and the 1991 session say a variety of choice bills introduced and defeated. No further legislation is pending.

Indiana

A bill sponsored by senators Morris Mills and Lewis Mahern was introduced in 1992. It would "provide scholarships for all children in the state to use at any school of their choice, reduce regulation of scholarship-redeeming schools and give teachers and schools more autonomy, provide for statewide testing, and add new measures to help preschool children". As of mid-1993, the bill had not been brought to the Senate floor.  Indiana

Iowa

In 1989 Iowa adopted legislation that established a trial program of statewide interdistrict open enrollment. This choice policy was later made mandatory, beginning in the 1990-91 school year. Also part of the state choice program is a system of postsecondary options for high-school students. Iowa provides assistance for the interdistrict transportation of students through vouchers. It also issues tax credits for parents of students who attend nonpublic schools. Local districts are responsible for providing information about schools and choices to parents; there is no statewide information program. No further legislation concerning choice is pending.

Kansas

There are no formal choice programs in Kansas at this time. During the 1991 legislative session, one bill was introduced that supported the establishment of intersectional choice for students in the Wichita school district; no action on this proposal has yet been taken. A statewide voucher bill entitled "G.I. Bill for Children" was proposed in 1992 by Senator Eric Yost. No further action regarding this bill had been taken. The state of Kentucky does not have a voucher program; nor does it have any form of charter schools.

Kentucky

Kentucky has no formal choice programs. However, in the landmark 1990 legal decision that declared Kentucky’s school finance system unconstitutional and many of its schools unsatisfactory, the state Supreme Court called for a top-to-bottom reform of the state’s schools and school funding. Included in the reform package was a provision for students to attend a private school at state expense if it was determined that their public school would provide an unfair or inadequate education.  On March 4 a group of Kentucky parents filed suit seeking tuition vouchers to enable them to choose religious schools for their children. The parents are alledging that their free exercise of religion is burdened by he requirement that they pay tax monies to support compulsory public schools which teach values that are not in keeping with their religion.

Louisiana

No formal choice or open-enrollment programs currently exist in Louisiana. Legislation introduced during the 1991 session would have gradually phased in a system of intersectional, voucher-based choice, but the bill was defeated. The state Board of Education does not support a choice movement, and no additional bills are pending. However, there was one charter school bill passed by the Louisiana legislature in 1995.

Maine

Maine does not have any formal choice programs, although students living in isolated communities are allowed to attend schools in districts other than their own. An open-enrollment bill backed by Gov. John McKernan ( R ) was introduced during the 1991 legislative session, but it never passed out of the Education Committee of the lower house.  Maine representative Al Barth (R-Bethel) introduced , An Act to Establish Charter Schools. This bill allowed any existing or approved public school, public body, private person, or private organization to apply to the school board or district school committee for a charter in 1995

Maryland

No choice programs currently exist in Maryland. A bill introduced in the legislature in 1991 would have supported choice for low-income students in the Baltimore area, but it failed to pass. The state Board of Education does not endorse the idea of choice or any move to legally establish such a system; however, a number of bills pending in the legislature support the implementation of choice.  Maryland

Massachusetts

A law passed in 1991 permits voluntary intrasectional choice; each district may determine how and if it will participate in choice. A district may join an interdistrict program, create its own intradistrict open-enrollment system, or choose not to formally engage in choice at all. Every Massachusetts student has the right and opportunity to attend the school of his or her choice, although acceptance by a school or district depends on promoting and maintaining a racial balance. State aid dollars follow students to the school they attend, although there is no state subsidy for transporting students between districts. Prominent choice plans exist in such districts as Cambridge and Boston. No further legislation concerning choice is pending.

Michigan

Two choice bills were passed by the Michigan legislature in 1991. The first set the stage for districts to develop a system of voluntary intradistrict open enrollment. The second allocated funds to start interdistrict pilot programs. Both went into effect in September 1992, and both choice plans are supported by the state Board of Education. No additional legislation concerning choice is pending.  

Minnesota

Minnesota has a long history of promoting choice in its education system; in 1983 the state adopted a pilot program for developing the choice programs that exist, by law, today. In 1988 the legislature established a system of intrasectional, statewide, intra- and interdistrict open enrollment; the program became mandatory in 1990-91. Minnesota subsidizes the transportation of students between districts and supports a network that gives parents information about school choice options for their children. Tax credits are available to the parents of children who attend non-public schools. Minnesota was the first state to set up a system of post-secondary options and second-chance programs, which today are fully integrated into the spectrum of choices available to students and parents. In 1991 the Minnesota legislature passed the Charter Schools Act, which established a context for teachers to create and run innovative schools apart from traditional bureaucratic and administrative structures. It is hoped that these new public schools will increase the range of choices for public school parents and students. No further choice legislation is pending.

Mississippi

There are no formal choice programs in Mississippi. Legislation that would have established a choice plan was defeated in 1989; no further legislative action has been taken.

Missouri

Missouri does not have a legislated or state-supported choice plan in effect. Kansas City and St. Louis, however, have magnet school systems that involve the transfer of students between urban and suburban districts. These programs were developed as a strategy to promote desegregation goals in these urban areas; they are not duplicated elsewhere in the state. Legislation to establish mandatory statewide choice was defeated in 1989 and 1990. In 1991 a ballot initiative calling for mandatory statewide choice was defeated by popular vote. No further legislation is pending.

Montana

There are no choice programs in Montana; legislation that sought to develop such a program was defeated in 1990 and no further bills have been introduced. There was one charter school bill introduced in the 1995 legislative session.  There was no school choice legislation introduced during the 1995 session.

Nebraska

Nebraska passed a plan for voluntary statewide, intrasectional open enrollment in 1989, and the legislature adopted additional measures in 1990 and 1991. The 1991 "emergency" school reform act provided for the immediate implementation of choice on a statewide level. Districts in Nebraska may participate in both intra- and interdistrict programs; a student may attend any school in the state and must, within guidelines, be accepted. The state Board of Education provides funding for the interdistrict transport of low-income students. Nebraska’s open enrollment will gradually expand to include all districts.  By the 1993-94 school year, choice was made to be mandatory for all districts in the state.

Nevada

Nevada does not have a system of choice. A bill that sought to establish choice was defeated in 1989.  On March 16, 1995, Assembly Bill No. 340, an act authorizing certain private schools to obtain payments from county school districts for educating certain pupils, was introduced.

New Hampshire

There are no formally sanctioned choice programs in New Hampshire, although many local districts have developed and participate in informal choice arrangements. Legislation that would have imposed a statewide system of open enrollment was defeated in 1990 and again in 1991. New Hampshire also has a tax credit program for the parents of children who attend non-public schools. There is no bills that would establish a system of statewide choice currently in the state legislature. In his campaign for State Senate, Jim Rubens (R-5) campaigned heavily on reforming education in New Hampshire by allowing districts to have control of their education choices.

New Jersey

New Jersey does not have a formally supported system of choice. Informal intradistrict choice programs do exist in some New Jersey districts, generally involving the use of magnet schools. Existing state law permits interdistrict choice, based on the discretion of the potential receiving district; state aid may or may not follow the student, depending on individual circumstances. In 1992, Assembly Democratic leader, Joseph Doria introduced a school choice bill that includes a statewide interdistrict open-enrollment program and a voucher-type program that includes non-public schools.  

New Mexico

There are no legislated choice programs in New Mexico; legislation that would have created a statewide system was defeated in 1989. Only the urban Santa Fe district has an open-enrollment progra.  New Mexico's charter school law is one of the most restrictive in the country.

New York

New York has no formally established choice or open-enrollment programs, although many districts throughout the state successfully allow parents and students to make informal intrasectional school choice. New York City, for example, has an extensive network of magnet schools. These schools, some with strict admissions requirements, offer specialized vocational and academic programs, to which any student in the city may apply. The city is also the home of District 4, located in a low-income neighborhood on Manhattan’s East Side. The district’s innovative use of public school choice, within a larger context of school restructuring and reform, is an effective strategy to combat the educational hazards of inner-city schools. In 1991 the New York state Board of Regents defeated a proposal that sought to create an intersectional voucher system for low-income students who live in neighborhoods with "substandard" schools. The plan would have allowed parents to redeem their vouchers at a public or private school other than the one regularly assigned. Choice is not an active political issue in New York, and the state Board of Education does not support legislative approaches to developing choice programs. The state legislature held hearings on the choice issue in 1989, but no bills were introduced as a result since that time, no further legislation has been considered.

North Carolina

Currently, no choice programs exist in North Carolina. In 1989 and again in 1991 the state legislature held preliminary hearings about the choice issue, but neither round of discussions prompted the introduction of a bill. Additionally, bills that would have supported public school choice died in committee in both 1990 and 1991. No further legislation had been introduced.

North Dakota

North Dakota  districts may allow inter-district and intra-district transfers of students at the discretion, respectively, of both districts or of schools within the same school district.

Ohio

In 1989 the Ohio legislature enacted a statewide, intrasectional open-enrollment law. The plan, which was refined in 1991, established a system of voluntary intra- and interdistrict choice. Over the next few years, intradistrict choice will be expanded and will be mandatory; interdistrict choice will continue to be voluntary. So far, district participation in both forms of choice has been extremely limited. The state subsidizes the transportation costs of students who choose to transfer between districts, and state aid dollars follow the student to the district in which he or she attends school. Ohio also has a postsecondary options program in place. No further legislation on the subject of choice has been introduced. Ohio was at the forefront of the debate on school choice in 1995.

Oklahoma

Oklahoma does not have any formal choice program. There has, however, been some recent legislative activity. Choice legislation was introduced, but killed, in 1989 and 1990; new choice proposals were discussed during the 1991 session, but they never left he Education Committee. An educational reform act, passed in May 1991, created a six-member "deregulation committee" to study the feasibility of loosening the existing education laws governing the interdistrict transfer of students. The idea of a flexible transfer rule was cited as a crucial component of school reform, although there were no direct references to choice.  House Bill 1703, establishing a Charter School Task Force, was enacted during the first legislative session of 1995.

Oregon

In 1991 the Oregon legislature passed a plan that established a voluntary system of inter-and intrasectional public school open enrollment. Although the system is theoretically statewide and universal, in practice its use is fairly limited. Both of the bill’s provisions require a student to meet specific guidelines before he or she may transfer between schools or districts. The first provision allows students who are performing below grade-level in their assigned school to attend another school of their choice, provided it will accept them; the second provision sets up an extensive program of vocational and academic post-secondary options for all students who have completed tenth grade and received a basic skills certificate. In the November 1990 general election voters defeated a ballot initiative that would have provided a $2,500 voucher/tax credit to parents who sent their children to private schools or supported a home-schooling program.  In 1995 Oregon came close to joining the ranks of other reform-minded states by adopting its first charter school law.

Pennsylvania

No formal programs of choice exist in Pennsylvania, although there is significant popular support for the development of a legally sanctioned choice system. A 1990 bill that would have funded $900 scholarship grants, available to all parents and redeemable at public or private schools, was passed by the state Senate but defeated by the House. No new legislation has been formally introduced, although the grant proposal and other choice measures may be reintroduced in the near future.  

Rhode Island

Rhode Island does not have a formally established choice system.  In 1989 the state Board of Education created a commission to study including choice in a school reform plan; the report, issued in the fall of 1989, outlined plans for an informal pilot program that would support district proposals to create intradistrict controlled-choice programs. However, only two districts submitted plans and neither was implemented. The board does not back a legal approach to developing choice. Interestingly, and April 1991 survey found that informal choice structures actually did exist in districts across the state. On June 30, 1995, Governor Lincoln Almond signed into law 95-H-6373, an Act to Establish Charter Schools. ..

South Carolina

South Carolina has no open-enrollment programs. No choice legislation is pending, although some discussion of choice issues is currently taking place in the legislature’s Education Committee. During the 1991 session, two open-enrollment bills were introduced, but no action was taken on either. The South Carolina Board of Education supports the development of locally initiated choice efforts, but it does not sanction a legal approach to the subject. In 1992 two bills expanding the availability of home schooling to parent were signed into law.

South Dakota

There are no choice programs in South Dakota. No legislation was pending .

Tennessee

Although no legislated choice programs exist in Tennessee, an extensive system of informal intra- and interdistrict open enrollment exists. A 1925 state law allows districts to accept students from other districts, with state aid following the child to his or her chosen district and school. In 1991 the legislature defeated a bill that would have created an intersectional voucher plan. No further legislation has been proposed, although there seems to be political and popular support for an intersectional approach to choice. In 1992 a charter school proposal was presented and referred to committee for further study.   On April 7 the Tennessee House Education Committee heard testimony on behalf of charter-school legislation backed by the Tennessee Parent power Committee. The Committee voted to refer the charter-school bill to the Joint Education Oversight Committee for study. The next day, the Senate Education Committee held a hearing on charter schools, and also referred it for further study. Tennessee allows students to attend public schools outside their district, but there are bureaucratic restrictions on this limited choice.

Texas

There are no official choice programs in Texas, although existing state law permits interdistrict transfers. A 1989-90 study by a state Board of Education committee found that a few districts, including Houston, have working intradistrict open-enrollment plans, often as part of a strategy to meet desegregation goals.  A 1991 bill sought to create an intersectional voucher system for low-income students in fourteen districts, but it did not pass out of the House of Education Committee. No further legislation has been proposed. In 1992 a group of CEOs in San Antonio announced the CEO Foundation, initially funded at $1.5 million to pay up to $750 per student for over seven hundred low-income students to attend a public or private school of their choice. James Leninger and other business leaders announced a $1.5-million scholarship program for low-income families. Their program was inspired by the privately funded voucher plan established by Pat Rooney and his Golden Rule Insurance Co. in Indianapolis. The 74th Legislature rewrote the Texas Education Code during the 1995 session. As passed, the code now provides for two types of charter schools and for home-rule school districts.

Utah

In 1990 the Utah legislature passed a plan that established that a formal program of voluntary statewide, intrasectional open enrollment. Previously, intradistrict choice plans have existed in many districts around the state, many based on magnet schools; some districts participated in interdistrict transfers. The 1990 legislation formalizes these practices and provides that 50 percent of the state education aid for each child follows the student to the school and district he or she chooses; the remainder of the funds is divided between the sending and receiving districts. There is no state subsidy for interdistrict transportation. So far, there has been limited participation in the new programs.

Vermont

Vermont does not have a formal system of school choice, and no pending legislation would establish such a system. However, Vermont has had an informal voucher system in place since 1894. Because of the rural nature of the state, many communities do not operate schools; in these cases, they may issue tuition vouchers backed by local funds that are redeemable at almost any public or private school. Exceptions include a 1961 law that prohibits these vouchers from being used at parochial schools and a provision for communities to restrict the private schools where their vouchers are eligible.  The Senate Education Committee did hold a hearing on a resolution by its chair, Jeb Spaulding, a co-chair, John McClaughry, calling for a study of expanding choice in Vermont. The resolution subsequently passed the Senate. (US Department of Education 1992:1-2). Vermont has had an educational choice system for students from towns that do not maintain their own public schools or belong to union-school districts. The Vermont Senate passed a charter school bill in 1995.

Virginia

Virginia does not have a system of school choice. A bill supporting open enrollment within a district was considered in 1993.  In the 1995 legislative session, Governor George V. Allen pushed education reform as one of his top issues for Virginia.

Washington

In 1990 the Washington legislature passed a statewide choice plan. Called "Learning by Choice", it set up a system of voluntary intradistrict open enrollment and mandatory interdistrict choice, although the plan restricts the use of interdistrict transfers. Interdistrict choice is encouraged, but a district may impose restrictions on admission. The state provide a subsidy for the interdistrict transportation of students, but here is no state-coordinated system of informing parents of their potential choices. Bills that seek to implement an intersectional voucher program for low-income students were introduced near the end of the 1991 legislative session, but no action has been taken.  Intra-district school choice was established for all Washington school districts.  Washington has no school choice program.

West Virginia

West Virginia does not support any formal choice programs. A bill that would have created a system of public school open enrollment was defeated in 1991. During the 1992 session, two pieces of legislation were introduced. One would create a tax credit program for parents who send their children to private schools or who teach their children at home. The other would set up a pilot voucher program. No action has yet been taken on either plan. West Virginia has no school choice program.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin does not have a system of statewide open enrollment; legislation that would have created such a program was defeated in 1989. In 1990 the state legislature passed the Milwaukee Parental Choice Law, which set up a limited intersectional voucher plan for the Milwaukee school district. The plan provides vouchers, worth $2,500, to a thousand low-income students; the vouchers may be redeemed at any public or participating nonsectarian private school in Milwaukee. This plan has caused widespread controversy and sustained repeated challenges to its constitutionality. However, the Wisconsin Supreme Court recently declared the plan constitutional and fully in line with the state code. To date, there has not been any legislative activity to expand the program elsewhere in the state, although Governor Tommy Thompson ( R ) supports such a plan. The state Board of Education opposes this system on the grounds that the use of vouchers is equivalent to direct state aid to private schools, at the expense of the public system.  In 1995, the Wisconsin legislature approved the expansion of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, and in 1995, Governor Thompson signed the new expansion of the program into law.

Wyoming

There are no formal open-enrollment programs in Wyoming, although an informal interdistrict transfer system, where state aid dollars follow students to their chosen district and school, has traditionally operated throughout the state. Wyoming passed its first charter school law on March 6, 1995, when Governor Jim Geringer signed into law Enrolled Act. No legislation to implement further choice structures is pending.

************************************************************************

What is apparent from these very brief summaries is that school choice movements in every state are quite individual; moreover, each state’s choice coalition has a unique political configuration. Usually, this configuration is drawn together by grass-roots choice movements, which are often backed by major businesses. In Illinois, for instance, the choice coalition is called TEACH (Taxpayers for Education Accountability and Choice); in Pennsylvania, the coalition is REACH (Road to Educational Achievement through Choice); in Arizona, the coalition is called PACE (under child find)(Parents Avocation Choice in Education). Other groups include Floridians for Educational Choice, Oregonians for Educational Choice, and the Tennessee Parent Power Program. These groups come to Washington, DC, regularly, where the Center for Choice in Education sponsors brown-bad lunch seminars. A favorite speaker is Pat Rooney of the Golden Rule Insurance Company, who initiated a privately funded voucher program in Indianapolis, and Bob Woodson, president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise.

REINVENTING EDUCATION

The profound issues facing American education are not likely to be resolved through school choice alone because student enrollment policies do not address the question of educational purpose or the social problems that are literally destroying many American children. Schools may not transform society, but schools can transform the lives of children; schools are social interventions as well as social inventions. For too long we have viewed education as a contractual relationship. The nature of this relationship is made most explicit by market advocates who speak of "educational products" as though an education were something that could be manufactured and consumed. The meaning of the verb educate is to "draw out", not to "put in". Learning is not something we can buy; it is something we must experience.

The challenge of education is to develop in children a sense of active engagement with themselves. True education is about values, beliefs, and attitudes. There is much in our society that challenges the wholesomeness that should be our legacy to the next generation. To put the matter somewhat differently, we are challenged to choose between the fragmented consciousness of the modern materialistic mind and the humanistic vision of the whole empathetic and productive mind. We need a transcendent view of education, the elements of which include individual responsibility, the centrality of individual worth, equality, peace, and the primacy of the child’s physical, intellectual, and spiritual rights. In short, education ought be reclaimed, reinvented, and re-enchanted. The education of the future should engage the mind, touch the heart, and kindle the spirit.

Types of Choice Research

Essentially, there are four types of choice research: controlled experimental design, comparisons of public and private schools, qualitative studies of public school choice, and program evaluations.  None of these literatures is very strong, although there is now a great deal of data comparing public and private schools.  We will examine the public/private school literature in some depth and make reference to a select number of program evaluations.  Below, we will briefly touch on the controlled experimental design research and on the qualitative studies of public schools of choice, generally referred to as magnet schools.

The earliest systematic attempt to evaluate school choice occurred in the Alum Rock, California, School District, near San Jose.  This experiment was funded by the federal government as a way of determining the education and social effects a voucher plan would have on a school system.  In some ways, the Alum Rock voucher experiment reflected the liberal egalitarian social policies advocated by Christopher Jenchs, author and coauthor of many important studies.  Originally, the Alum Rock experiment was to last five years and be a test case for vouchers; only the public schools of the district participated.  Professor Patricia Lines, who participated in the experiment, believed then and still believes that vouchers are a way of helping the disadvantaged, buy she told me that he politics involved in implementing a voucher system in Alum Rock were so intense that its designers feared it would never be accepted by the teachers of the school district if private schools were included.

At the peak of the experiment in 1974-1975, fourteen participating schools offered fifteen mini-programs.  The Rand Corporation conducted a five-year evaluation of the experiment, but the results are inconclusive (Capell 1978).  To begin with, test-scores for the students in regular schools were unavailable for the first two years of the study.  More important, the experiment changed dramatically in nature during the last year.  Only two years were available for analysis, and only the reading scores were usable.  Nevertheless, the results of the survey are interesting.  When, for instance, parents were asked to choose between "traditional classrooms" and "open classrooms", the overwhelming majority selected the traditional ones, although affluent parents were more likely to select the open-classroom option than other parents(Bridge and Blackman 1978).  On the basis of this study, it appears that most parent at the outset of the experiment preferred their neighborhood schools.  But as families gained experience, they began to choose more distant schools.  There was no indication that students' reading scores improved as a result of school choice.  A key question in the Alum Rock experiment was whether choice would "upset" racial balance and thus lead to greater segregation.  Overall, racial balance remained fairly stable.  There was an increased desire among Hispanics for bilingual education.  It is not surprising, therefore, that bilingual classes enrolled a disproportionately high number of Hispanic students.

The Rand report on the experiment did reveal, however, that "socially advantaged families" were better informed about school choice options.  Moreover, advantaged families tended to learn about the choice program from written material, while socially disadvantaged parents were more likely to obtain information by word of mouth.  Over time, many of these differences diminished.  Equal access to information is critical if school choice is not to lead to greater racial and class segregation among students (Elmore 1986).  In Alum Rock it appeared that over time there was equality of information among families, whatever their income level or ethnicity.  The Alum Rock experiment offers no conclusive evidence about he effects of school choice on student achievement or racial balance in part because the experiment was politically compromised, but also in part because the relationship between governance and achievement is extremely difficult to document.

The same problem arises in qualitative studies of public school choice.  In her book Different by Design (1986), Professor Mary Hayward Metz called attention to the possibilities and problems inherent in creating magnet schools.  In essence, a magnet school is one that is given extra resources and develops a specific mission in order to attract students who would not ordinarily attend that school.  The creation of magnet schools was part of a general effort in the 1970s to promote peaceful racial integration and to create innovative schools.  Metz's work indicates that magnet schools can have desirable effects on parental involvement, faculty morale, and some student outcomes.  But much depends upon how the magnet school can have desirable effects on parental involvement, faculty morale, and some student outcomes.  But much depends upon how the magnet plan is designed and on how the community and school united in the implementation phases.  Rolf K. Blank (1989) reported that among the magnet schools he studied, the best performance was achieved by those that had strong central office support, energetic and able leaders and teaching staffs, and well-planned programs.

These results are not surprising.  Most effective schools share these characteristics.  In study of effective schools, Caroline H. Persell and I found that they generally have effective principals.  In fact, the most important element in creating an effective school is a dynamic, competent, and committed leadership team (Persell and Cookson 1982).  Magnet school programs throughout the country have aroused a great deal of controversy.  Activists such as Polly Williams find magnet schools particularly exasperating because while white children are being bussed into the inner city to attend a magnet school, African-American children are being bussed all over Milwaukee to attend neighborhood schools of no particular academic stature.  The magnet school is a two-edged educational sword; it helps a few students but has little or no impact on the educational system as a whole.  Because of the nature of the research on magnet schools, we have little idea of their impact on student achievement or on educational redesign.  We turn now to those studies which bear directly on the claim that school choice is related to student achievement.

Achievement by Association

In this section we will examine the research of several authors who make similar claims concerning the relationship between school choice and student achievement. These studies are considered together because they suffer from the same flaw: they identify a correlation and call it causation.  Specifically, we will examine the finding of Nancy Paulu and her colleagues, who guided the proceedings at the 1989 White House Workshop on Choice Education.  Then we will turn to the work of Seymour Fliegel and Raymond J. Domanico, both of whom have made strong claims that choice policies in Manhattan's Community School District 4 in East Harlem have led to substantial achievement gains for students in that district.

In Improving Schools and Empowering Parents:  Choice in American Education (1989), Paulu claims that choice policies lead to higher reading and math scores, lower rates of school violence, and higher attendance rates.  Paulu's approach to data collection is eclectic, to say the least.  She simply finds measures of association in her review of the literature and interprets them as being related casually.  To cite one concrete example, on the basis of an interview with Deputy Superintendent Juana Dainis in District 4, Paulu reports that in 1972 the district ranked last in reading scores among New York City's thirty-two community school districts, and that by 1988 it had risen to between twentieth and sixteenth place, with 84 percent of the East Harlem eighth-graders judged competent writers.  But Paulu's research strategy is based on what amounts to hearsay, makes no attempt to count for other possible explanations, does not clearly define achievement measures, and interprets alleged associations causally, leading the unsophisticated consumer of educational research to the erroneous conclusion that there is a direct link between choice and achievement.

Seymour Fliegel is a member of the board of the Manhattan Institute.  In an article entitled "Creative Non-Compliance" he claims that 15.9 percent of the students in grades two through nine were reading at or above their expected level in 1973, and that 64.9 percent were reading at or above their expected level by 1988.  He attributes this astonishing rise to the "introduction or parental choice" (1990:15).  If this is correct, we would expect to find similar results in similar studies, but we do not.  In a study conducted after the Alum Rock experiment, no evidence was found that open enrollment affects students' reading achievement, perceptions of themselves, or social skills (Capell 1978).  Fliegel's data on the percentage of students at or above grade level in mathematics are also limited.  He reports that between 1982 and 1985, the percentage of students at or above grade level in mathematics in District 4 rose from 41.8 to 49 to 50.6 to 51.  These data tell us virtually nothing about he relationship between governance and student achievement.

Raymond J. Domanico (1991), also of the Manhattan Institute, likewise claims that school choice improves student achievement.  Not surprisingly, his data are almost identical to Fliegel's and suffer from the same problems.  Domanico does attempt to expand on these data somewhat by comparing District 4 reading scores to citywide reading scores.  But the data make little sense because to compare District 4 to all the districts in the city masks variation and oversimplifies dramatically.  To take an example from Domanico's data, it appears that he percentage of students citywide who were reading at their expected level rose from 33.8 percent in 19974 to 65 percent in 1988.  In the same period, the percentage of students in District 4 who were reading at or above their expected level rose from 15.3 to 62.5.  Two immediate observations arise from these reported results:  Mush of the rise in reading scores in District 4 can be accounted for by the rise in scores citywide; and it is very difficult to isolate school choice as a causal factor in elevating reading scores when scores also rise dramatically in community school districts that do not have school choice policies.  Moreover, one has to wonder if the literacy rate among elementary school students really rose so dramatically in fourteen years. Let us not forget that school districts have a vested interest in reporting higher reading scores.  

The Private School "Effect" 

When High Achievement:  Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared was published in 1982, it caused a great deal of controversy.  The authors, James Colema, Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore, claimed that when they compared the average test scores of public and private school sophomores and seniors, there was not one subject in which public schools students scored higher.  In reading, vocabulary, mathematics, science, civics, and writing tests, private school students outperformed public school students, sometimes by a wide margin.  For example, the test included thirty-three mathematics questions.  On average, public school sophomores answered eighteen questions correctly, Catholic and other private school sophomores on average answered twenty-two correctly, and elite private school sophomores averaged thirty correct answers.  Seniors' test scores followed the same pattern.

Are these differences between sectors due to student selection, or do schools also affect cognitive skills?  After conducting a series of regression analyses, Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore concluded (1982):  "In the examination of effects on achievement, statistical controls on family background are introduced, in order to control on those background characteristics that are most related to achievement.   The achievement differences between the private sectors and public sector are reduced (more for other private schools than for Catholic schools) but differences remain."  In other words, there is a private school effect on student achievement.

The results reported by Coleman and his colleagues have been criticizes sharply (Alexander and Pallas 1983; Goldberger and Cain 1982).  The essential issue is whether these results are substantial enough to support the argument that private schools, particularly Catholic schools, are superior learning environments when compared to public schools. For instance, when we examine the Colemen, Hoffer, and Kilgore data in terms of student cognitive growth between the sophomore and senior years for the three  types of schools analyzed, we discover that the percentage differences among the three sectors are relatively insignificant when compared with he cognitive growth for all students in that cohort.  That is, even if there is some private school effect, it is unlikely that it is significant enough from an educational point of view to justify the claim that private schools are markedly superior to public schools.

Jencks (1985), in a reanalysis of Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore data, concluded that public school students' scores on the 'High School and Beyond' tests rise by an average of .15 standard deviation per year.  Catholic-school students' scores rise by an average of .18 standard deviation per year if they start at the Catholic-school mean and by .19 standard deviation per year if they start at the public-school mean.  The annual increment attributable to Catholic schooling thus averages .03 or .04 standard deviations per year.  By conventional standard this is a tiny effect, hardly worth study.  But conventional standards may by misleading in this case.

Jencks reports that in the final analysis the vaunted "Catholic school effect" is quite small and probably insignificant in terms of student learning.  He recognizes, however, that Coleman's findings have important political ramifications because they appear to validate the academic superiority of private schools, which in turn may promote policies that result in public funding of private schools.  

Private School Choice and Equity

Because so few school choice plans include private schools, there is very little empirical evidence as to the consequences of including private schools in choice programs.  Private schools, especially those that enroll students from high-status families, are able to pass on to their students what the sociologists call "cultural capital".  Graduating from a private school confers a certain amount of social status.  Much of the literature concerning private schools has been extremely naive because the authors have failed to take into account that distinction between educational among and educational route.  When student enters the private sector, he or she is on a different educational route than a public school student.  We know, for instance, that private school students attend more selective colleges than public school students, even when the students' academic achievements and family backgrounds are similar.  We also know that there is a network that helps private school students gain admission to private selective colleges.  Private schools are able to place "floors" under their weaker students; that is, average or below-average students are protected against downward educational mobility by the mere fact of having attended a private school.

Moreover, the higher the social status of the private school, the greater effect in the secondary school-to-college transition.  Private school attendance has a direct effect on students' educational mobility and thus tends to reproduce social-class and educational stratification.  Socially and academically, elite private schools have internal characteristics and external connections that make them potent vehicles for creating and maintaining educational inequalities.  These inequalities can last a lifetime, although it should be said that the elite schools do enroll a good number of disadvantages students, for many of whom the advantages of graduating from an elite school can last a lifetime.

Not all private schools have so much social power, but it takes little imagination to see that large-scale private school systems such as those proposed by the founder of the Edison Project could have significant consequences on educational equity.  These comments are not intended as an indictment of private education, but rather as recognition that in a highly stratified society it is quite likely that including private schools in choice plans will increase rather than decrease educational inequality.  Private schools in the inner city perform a public service unlike other private schools.  Without these schools we would lose an important resource in an already desperate situation.  I believe that these schools deserve public support, not through a large-scale voucher plan, but through a low-cost government loans and outright grants.

School Choice and Community

Conclusion:

One of the ironies of examining the outcomes of school choice is that the farther one gets from the technical core of instruction, the more significant the effects of choice appear.  By this I mean that the process of choosing schools is perhaps more important than the measurable, tangible outcomes of school choice that so obsess the research community.  Perhaps the most important outcome of school choice is the sense of ownership that students and families can have if they are able to choose schools creatively.  Perhaps the most important outcome of school choice is the sense of ownership that students and families can have if they are able to choose schools creatively.  Choice is a form of empowerment, an over-used but nonetheless important term.   There is something dignified about being allowed to choose a school rather than being compelled to attend a particular school. 

***

Appendix

Milestones in Education

During the 1960s, '70s, '80s and '90's the U.S. Supreme Court established major precedents in the areas of student rights, school finance, and access to education.

The roots of local control date back to the colonial era, when laws were passed mandating compulsory schooling. Massachusetts Bay Colony passed such a law in 1642, but it put the responsibility for schooling on parents.

The Land Ordinance of 1785, which established the pattern for land survey in the American West with its provisions for the survey of the Northwest Territory, set aside the 16th section of every township for the support of education.  Responsibilities for the schools was left with local and state governments.

U.S. Supreme Court firmly established the rights of private institutions at the college level in the Dartmouth College case (1819) by ruling that a college's charter is an invariable contract between the state and the college guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Morrill Act of 1862 provided every state 30,000 acres of land per congressman, thus launching the land-grant colleges of which there are now 70. Military training of students, along with agricultural and mechanical studies, was required for qualification. The second Morrill Act, in 1890, provided annual funding.

The Office of Education was established in 1867. In 1869 it became a part of the Department of the Interior, and in 1939 it was transferred to the Federal Security Agency. It became a constituent agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which was established in 1953.

1890 The Second Morrill Act is passed, providing further endowment for colleges. Part of this funding is to be used for institutions for black students, leading to the creation of 17 historically black land-grant colleges.

The Smith-Lever Act 1914 –though amended-- began extension services in homemaking and agriculture through the land-grant colleges. It continued the principle of matching federal and state funds, begun under the Marine Schools Act of 1911. The provisions of the Smith-Lever Act were extended by the Capper-Ketcham Act of 1928 and the Bankhead-Jones Act of 1935

The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 provided federal aid for vocational education programs below the college level. It involved the principle of matching funds.

The National Defense Act, 1920, extended federal participation in military training at the secondary and college levels. The ROTC programs are an outgrowth of the legislation. Instructors, equipment, and facilities are provided. The armed forces design the course of study and supervise the program. Private as well as public institutions have participated.

The Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the National Youth Administration (NYA) were financed by the federal government during the depression that began in 1929. The NYA provided funds so that students could continue their education. The money was earned, usually by working in the institution attended. Classes, mainly for adults, were operated under the Federal Emergency Relief Administration and the Works Progress (later, Work Projects) Administration. This emergency education program was staffed, for the most part, by unemployed teachers. The government also made some direct grants to school districts in especially depressed areas to keep schools open.

1934 Congress creates the National Youth Administration to enable college students to earn money by performing educationally useful tasks and to continue their studies

Under the Lanham Act, 1941-45, care for the children of working mothers was provided during World War II. Nursery schools were established throughout the United States. Federal and local control were involved in the implementation.

The "GI Bill,", had broad provisions for financing the education of veterans of World War II. Later it was extended to include veterans subsequently discharged.

Brown v. Board Of Education Of Topeka, Kansas (1954) barred the de jure segregation of students by race, ruling that separate schools were inherently unequal. It was the first of a series of decisions directly promoting school desegregation.

The National Defense Education Act, 1958, provided assistance, for four years, to all levels of education from elementary through graduate school in science, mathematics, foreign language, counseling and guidance, graduate fellowships, research and experimentation in instructional aids such as television, and improvement in informational and statistical services.

The Educational Television Act, 1962, authorized grants to educational institutions or non-profit groups to build educational television stations.

The Civil Rights Act, 1964, provided for technical and financial aid to local public school districts to help with desegregation. Discrimination was barred under federally assisted programs.

The Economic Opportunity Act, 1964, stimulated the cooperation of local, state, and federal governments in establishing programs to aid public schools. Youth programs, work experience programs, volunteer services in America, urban and rural community action programs, and special programs for the poor in rural areas were included.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965, strengthened secondary and elementary education programs for educationally deprived children in low-income areas and provided for additional school library resources, textbooks, and other instructional materials, supplementary educational centers and services, and the improvement of educational research and state departments of education. Students in nonpublic schools were also included as beneficiaries of the act.

The Higher Education Act, 1965, provided undergraduate scholarships and fellowships for experienced or prospective teachers. A Teacher Corps was authorized to serve in urban and rural poverty areas.

The Education Professions Development Act, 1967, was designed to help school systems, state education agencies, and colleges and universities develop more effective ways to recruit, train, and utilize educational personnel.

Tinker v. Des Moines  Independent Community School District (1969) upheld the constitutional rights to freedom of speech and expression of public-school students and teachers. The ruling has been applied to decisions involving underground newspapers, demonstrations, and refusal to participate in patriotic exercises.

The Supreme Court Decision on Bussing (1971) (Swann vs. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education), ruled that bussing to "dismantle the dual school systems" of the South was constitutional.

The Supreme Court Decision on Financial Assistance to Nonpublic Schools (1971) (Earley vs. DiCenso and other cases), ruled that direct state support for nonpublic elementary and secondary schools was unconstitutional.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 36 L. Ed. 2d 16, 93 S. Ct. 1278 (1973) held that school finance reform is a matter to be resolved by state lawmakers and not a constitutional issue.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) guaranteed due process to students in cases involving suspension and expulsion from school.

The Supreme Court Decision on Racial Quotas, (1978) (Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke), ruled that, though universities may consider race as a factor in admitting students, admission quotas based on race alone are unconstitutional.  University Of California v. Bakke approved admissions policies that seek to promote the inclusion of certain groups but barred the use of group quotas.

The Department of Education   was established at the Cabinet level in 1980. It absorbed several federal agencies, including offices of the Education Division that had been created in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1972.

The Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981 altered the mode of distributing a large portion of federal education funds by consolidating 42 programs into 7 programs fundable through block grants to the states. Federal intervention has neither augmented local and state operating budgets nor exercised direct control of education. Rather, it has been problem focused, targeted for particular populations, and limited in duration. Although many programs exist scattered among about 40 agencies, the principal agency is the U.S. Department of Education.

Mueller et al. v. Allen et al. (endnotes)(1983) upheld a Minnesota law allowing tax deductions for the costs of public and private education.

1980 Congress passes the Education Amendments of 1980 (to the Higher Education Act of 1965).

1992 President Bush signs the Higher Education Act Amendments, re-authorizing the 1965 Higher Education Act.

1993 The National and Community Service Trust Act establishes a corporation to coordinate programs though which students receive minimum wage stipends and tuition benefits in return for community service.

1993 The federal government begins "direct lending," a program that enables colleges and universities to provide loans using federal funds directly to students, thus avoiding private lenders and streamlining the process.

1994 The Elementary and Secondary Education Reauthorization Act of 1994 provides land-grant status to 29 Native American colleges, located primarily in the plains states and areas of the west.

In 1994, over 20,000 AmeriCorps members tutored students, immunized children, reclaimed urban parks, and patrolled neighborhoods. In return, they earned $4,725 per year of service towards college tuition or job training.

President Clinton signed into law Goals 2000 , a national standard of excellence for our public schools. Already, 41 states and territories have received federal grants to raise academic standards and improve schools.

Charter School legislation signed by President Clinton encourages states and localities to set up public school choice

105th Congress, 1997-1998

Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education (HOPE) Act of 1997   On March 20, 1997, Secretary of Education Riley and Secretary of the Treasury Rubin transmitted to Congress the "Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education (HOPE) Act of 1997." The bill includes a $10,000 million tuition, a $1,500 HOPE Scholarship tax credit, a substantial Pell Grant expansion and increase, a cut in student loan fees, new educational assistance from employers, and other provisions.

School Construction On March 14, 1997, Secretary Riley transmitted to Congress the Partnership to Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 1997. The bill authorizes $5 billion to pay for up to half the cost on interest on bonds and other financing mechanisms for new school construction, renovation, and modernization.

Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act  On May 8, 1995, Secretary Riley submitted to Congress the "Adult Education and Family Literacy Reform Act of 1995," the Administration's plan to create a comprehensive strategy for meeting our Nation's adult education and family literacy needs. The bill amends the existing Adult Education Act and consolidates numerous programs into a simplified, flexible funding stream.

Technology   On February 15, 1996 the President launched a national mission to make every young person technologically literate by the dawn of the 21st century, challenging the private sector, schools, parents and governments to provide teacher training, develop effective software, provide access to computers and connect every classroom in America to the information superhighway.

Family Involvement   In 1993-1994, President Clinton sent to Congress, and it passed, a series of important pieces of education legislation -- including the GOALS 2000: Educate America Act and the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 -- that emphasize strengthening parent-school-community partnerships and promoting parent involvement in learning. On September 7, 1994, Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley responded to the eighth national education goal codified in the GOALS 2000: Educate America Act, by announcing the formation of a nationwide partnership to increase family involvement in learning.

Goals 2000   On April 21, 1993, President Clinton submitted to Congress legislation entitled the "GOALS 2000: Educate America Act" which "strives to support States, local communities, schools, business and industry, and labor in reinventing our education system so that all Americans can reach internationally competitive standards, and our Nation can reach the National Education Goals." Subsequent to Congressional modification and approval, the legislation (H.R. 1804 / S. 1150) was signed into law on March 31, 1994 (P.L. 103-227). Today, GOALS 2000 provides funding to States and communities for raising academic standards, increasing parental involvement, expanding the use of computers and technology, and supporting high-quality teacher training.

Improving America's Schools Act   On September 13, 1993, Secretary Riley submitted to Congress the Administration's proposal to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Entitled the "Improving America's Schools Act," the proposal recommended high standards for all children, a focus on teaching and learning, more flexibility and less regulation, links with parents and communities, and targeting Federal dollars to the greatest needs and in amounts sufficient to make a difference. It covered such programs as Title I for disadvantaged children, safe and drug-free schools, Eisenhower professional development for teachers, technology, charter schools, Indian education, impact aid, bilingual education, and numerous others.

Safe Schools   On May 25, 1993, Secretary Riley transmitted to Congress the "Safe Schools Act of 1993" to help every school in America achieve a better learning environment, free of drugs and violence. Subsequent to Congressional action, the legislation (S. 1125/H.R. 2455) was incorporated as Title VII of the "GOALS 2000: Educate America Act" (P.L. 103-227). In 1994, the safe schools program and the drug-free schools and communities program were combined into the "Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994" as Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the Improving America's Schools Act .

The "School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1993," another major Administration initiative,was submitted by Education Secretary Riley and Labor Secretary Reich to Congress on August 4, 1993. The final legislation (H.R. 2884/S. 1361) was signed into law by President Clinton on May 4, 1994 (P.L. 103-239). This program, jointly administered by the Departments of Education and Labor, provides support to States and communities to build high school learning systems that prepare students for further education and careers in high-skill, high-wage jobs.

REFERENCES

"What is Controlled Choice?"  1997  URL: http://www.lee.k12.fl.us/choice/choexpl.htm.

"Choice: Open Enrollment" 1997  URL: http://www.ecs.org/ecs/2162.htm

"An Act Concerning Public Charter Schools"  URL: http://statlab.stat.yale.edu/cityroom/kidslink/educat/texts/9602-35.html

"1997 Final Resolution: Education Program"  1997  URL: http://ftp.msba.gen.mo.us/res97.htm

"Introduction of Controlled Choice" 1997 URL: http://www.lee.k12.fl.us/choice/faqs.htm

"The Magnets, the Choices, the Challenges" URL: http://www.san-antonio.isd.tenet.edu/Misc/magnet/magnet.html

"Post-Secondary Options"  URL: http://job.careernet.org/postsec.htm

"Changing Populations, Changing Schools. Ninety-fourth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part II"  URL: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/abstracts/ed382743.html

"Questions and Anwsers About Charter Schools"  1996  URL:http://www.ade.state.az.us/charter/def.html

"Marymount College Continuing Education Workplace Training" 1996 URL:http://uta.marymt.edu/~conted/workpl.html

"Vouchers"  1996 URL: http://www.psea.org/psea/iresearch1/848897225.html

"Vouchers/Tax Credit"  URL: http://www.mnea.org/171.html

"A Public Education"  URL: http://www.edisonproject.com/PublicEd.html

"Questions About New American Schools"  1996  URL: http://www.ecs.org/ecs/218a.htm

"SAVING AMERICA 2000: CAN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION RETAKE THE INITIATIVE ON EDUCATION REFORM?  1992  URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/library/categories/education/bup182.html

"Alabama"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/alabama.html

"Aaska"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/alaska.html

"School Choice Initives"  URL:  http://www.cpac.org/atr/ch-choic.html

"Arizona"  URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/arizona.html

"Arkansas"  URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/arkansas.html

"California"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/californ.html

"Colorado"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/colorado.html

"Conneticut"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/connecti.html

"Delaware"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/delaware.html

"District of Columbia"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/district.html

"Florida Department of Education"  URL:  http://www.firn.edu/doe/menu/rf6.htm

"Florida" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/florida.html

"Georgia" URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/georgia.html

"Hawaii"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/hawaii.html

"Idaho"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/idaho.html

"Illinois"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/illinois.html

"Indiana"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/indiana.html"

"Iowa"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/iowa.html

"Kansas"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/kansas.html

"Kentucky"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/kentucky.html

"Louisiana"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/louisian.html

"School Choice"  1996 URL:  http://edreform.com/pubs/chcdec96.htm

"Maine" URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/maine.html

"School Choice: 1996  URL:  http://edreform.com/pubs/chcdec96.htm

"Maryland"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/maryland.html

"School Choice Laws in Massachusetts"  URL:http://www.ed.psu.edu/dept/ae-insys-wfed/insys/esd/Choice/MAChoice.html

"Michigan"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/michigan.html

"Minnesota"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/minnesot.html

"Mississippi"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/mississi.html

"Missouri" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/missouri.html

"Montana"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/montana.html

"Nebraska"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/nebraska.html

"Nevada"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/nevada.html

"New Hampshire"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/new_hamp.html"

"New Jersey"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/new_jers.html

"New Mexico"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/new_mexi.html

"New York"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/new_york.html

"North Carolina"   URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/nor_caro.html

"North Dakota"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/nor_dako.html

"Ohio"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/ohio.html

"Oklahoma"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/oklahoma.html

"Oregon's School Reform"  1995 URL: http://www.cascadepolicy.org/cim-cam.htm

"Pennsylvania"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/pennsylv.html

"Rhode Island" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/rhode_is.html

"Souht Carolina"  URL: http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/sou_caro.html

"South Dakota"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/sou_dako.html

"Tennessee" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/tennesse.html

"Texas"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/texas.html

"Utah"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/utah.html

"Vermont"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/vermont.html

"Virginia"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/virginia.html

"Washington"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/washingt.html

"West Virginia"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/west_vir.html

"Wisconson" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/wisconsi.html"

"Wyoming"  URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/wyoming.html

"Illinois"  "The Situation" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/illinois.html

"Pennsylvania" "State Contacts" URL:  http://www.heritage.org/heritage/schools/pennsylv.html

"Arizona Department of Education"  URL:  http://ade.state.az.us/directory/AzDepEdC.html

"Two hundred years of selected public words and deeds supporting the New Regionalism"  1995  URL:  http://www.al.net/hisevents.html

"Text of Federal Legislation Relating to Land-Grant Colleges and Universities"  URL:http://www.nasulgc.nche.edu/landgrtAct1.htm

"Text of Federal Legislation Relating to Land-Grant Colleges and Universities"  URL:http://www.nasulgc.nche.edu/landgrtAct2.htm

Act of 1914 Establishing Cooperative Extension Work: Smith-Lever Act" URL:http://www.ces.msstate.edu/division/laws/smithlvr.htm

"HISTORY AND FORMATION OF THE COOPERATIVE EXTENSION"  URL:http://are.berkeley.edu/~norwong/bkground.html

"The Florida Agricultural Experiment Station"  1996 URL: http://research.ifas.ufl.edu/FAES.html

"Agricultural Education and The 1862 Land-Grant Institutions: The Rest of the Story"  1996  URL:  http://www.cals.vt.edu/AgEd/camp/edvt5604/hillison.html

"RECORDS OF JOINT COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS, 1789-1968"  URL:http://gopher.nara.gov:70/0/inform/dc/legislat/senguide/chapt19.txt

"15 USCS Sects. 1051 - 1127"  URL:  http://www.law.cornell.edu/lanham/lanham.act.html

"2-70a GI BILL 50 YEARS OLD"   URL:  http://amf.org/text/2-70a.htm

"NDEA to IST: 1957 - 1972"  1995 URL:http://education.indiana.edu/ist/students/history/ndeaist.html

"Before the Federal Communications Commission"  1996 URL:http://gabrielmedia.org/news/ctaupdate.html

"Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964"  URL:http://dol.gov/dol/oasam/public/regs/statutes/titlevi.htm

"An Act"  URL:  http://oig.lsc.gov/lscpages/lscact.htm

"Improving Education with Federal Resources: Professional Development"  URL:http://www.col-ed.org/smcnws/msres/esea.html

"THE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965 A COMPILATION OF FEDERAL EDUCATION LAWS"   URL:  http://www.aacc.nche.edu/govtrel/legisu/heareau/hea.htm

"The Committee for Educational Rights"  1995  URL:http://www.state.il.us/court/supremes/78198.txt

Cases "Goss vs. Lopez  URL: http://www.bwslaw.com/education-links.html 

 "Suprem Court Decision on Racial Quotas"  URL:http://www2.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/html/aa/aa02.html

"Department of Education" 1997  URL:  http://www.ed.gov/

"Family Policy"  URL:  http://www.savers.org/townhall/FRC/fampol/fp96ded.html

"A Chronology of Federal Legislation Affecting Public Higher Education"  1997 URL:http://www.nasulgc.nche.edu/fed_leg.htm

"What's New In the Goals 2000 Act"  1996 URL:http://www.ed.gov/G2K/ProgRpt96/new.html

"The Hope and Opportunity for Postsecondary Education Act of 1997"  1997  URL:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OPE/PPI/HOPEAct/

"A Bill"  1997  URL:  http://www.ed.gov/offices/OLCA/edbill.txt

"U.S. Department of Education: PRESIDENTIAL HONORS SCHOLARSHIP ACT OF 1996"  1996  URL:  http://www.ed.gov/updates/PresScholar.html

"US Department of Education Technology Initiatives"  1997 URL:http://www.ed.gov/Technology/

"Family Involvement in Education" 1997   URL:http://www.ed.gov/Family/

"Goals 2000 Legislation and Related Items"  1996    URL: http://www.ed.gov/G2K/

"Improving America's School Act of 1994"  1996 URL:http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA/

"About Safe & Drug-Free Schools Program"   1997  URL:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/SDFS/aboutsdf.html

"School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994"  1994 URL:http://www.stw.ed.gov/factsht/act.htm

Research Section

****

1.  Capell, F., Jr.  1978.  A Study in Alternatives in American Education. Vol.6:  Student Outcomes in Alum Rock, 1974-1976.  Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

2.  Bridge, R.G., and J. Blackman.  1978.  Family Choice in AMerican Education:  A Study of Alternatives in American Education.  Vol. 4 Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.

3.  Elmore, Richard F. 1986. Choice in Public Education.  Santa Monica, California:  Rand Corporation.

4.  Metz, Mary Heywood.  1986.  Different by Design.  New York:  Routledge.

5.  Blank, Rolf K. 1989.  Educational Effects of Magnet Schools.  Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center in Effective Secondary Schools, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.

6.  Persell, Caroline Hodges, Sophia Catsambis, and Peter W. Cookson, Jr. 1992.  "Differential Asset Conversion:  Class and Gendered Pathways to Selective Colleges."  Sociology of Education.

7.  Paulu, Nancy. 1989.  Improving Schools and Empowering Parents: Choice in American Education.  Washington, D.C.:  US Government Printing Office.

8.  Fliegel, Seymour.  1990.  "Creative Non-Compliance."  Choice and Control in American Education.  New York;  Falmer.

9. Domanica, Raymond.  1989.  Model for Choice:  A Report on Manhattan's District 4.  New York: Manhattan Institute Center for Educational Innovation.

----1990.  Restructuring New York City's Public Schools:  The Case for Public School Choice.  New York:  Manhattan Institute Center for Educational Innovation.

----1991.  A Model Public School Choice Plan for New York City School Districts.  New York:  Manhattan Insitute Center for Educational Innovation.

10. Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore.  1982.  High School Achievement:  Public, Catholic, and Private Schools Compared.  New York: Basic Books.

11. Alexander, Karl, and Aaron Pallas.  1983.  "Private Schools and Public Policy:  New Evidence on Cognitive Achievement in Public and Private Schools."  Sociology of Education 56:  170-82.

12. Jencks, Christopher. 1985.  "How Much Do High School Students Learn?"  Sociology of Education 58: 128-35.

Jencks, Christopher, et al.  1972.  Inequality.  New York: Basic Books.