I

n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

C R E A T I N G S T R O N G

District School Choice Programs

SM

I

n

n o v a t i o

n

s

i n

E d u c a t i

o

n

u . s . d e pa r t m e n t o f e d u c at i o n

o f f i c e o f i n n o vat i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t

C R E A T I N G S T R O N G

District School Choice Programs

SM
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-01-CO-0012, Task Order D010, with 

WestEd. Sharon Horn served as the contracting officer’s representative. 

U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Nina S. Rees

Deputy Under Secretary

Michael J. Petrilli

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Innovation and Improvement

Thomas M. Corwin

Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Planning

May 2004

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and 

Improvement, Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs, Washington, D.C., 2004.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in your 

area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a 

teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734.

or order online at: http://www.edpubs.org/. 

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For more 

information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
iii

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Foreword v

Introduction 1

 Help Parents Make Informed Choices 7

Build District Infrastructure 17

Support Schools 25

Improve Programs Over Time 29

Key Success Factors 35

Acknowledgments 37

Appendix A: District Profiles 39

Cambridge Public School District (41)

Desert Sands Unified School District (43)

Mesa Public Schools (45)

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (47)

Milwaukee Public Schools (49)

 Appendix B: Research Methodology 51

Appendix C: Resources 53

Notes 54

Contents
iv

L I S T O F F I G U R E S

Figure 1. Key Actions to Implement Choice 2 

Figure 2. NCLB Choice Requirements 3 

 Figure 3. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Timeline 4

 Figure 4. Demographics of Five Profiled School Districts 5

 Figure 5. NCLB Communication Steps in Milwaukee 8

Figure 6. Excerpt from Milwaukee 

Frequently Asked Questions 10

Figure 7. Milwaukee Parent Letter and 

NCLB Transfer Request Form 11

 Figure 8. Desert Sands Movie Theater Advertisement 13

 Figure 9. Community-Based Support for NCLB 14

 Figure 10. Cambridge Kindergarten Tour Checklist 16

 Figure 11. Miami-Dade NCLB Implementation Timeline 18

 Figure 12. Miami-Dade NCLB Transfer Factors and Zones 20

 Figure 13. Cambridge Family Resource Center 23

 Figure 14. Sample Mesa School Survey Report 31

 Figure 15. Study Scope and Guiding Questions 52
v

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Foreword 

In December 2002, I launched the Office of Innovation and Improvement within the U.S. Department of 

Education. I charged that office, under the leadership of Nina S. Rees, with promoting promising innovations in education and expanding parental options and information. I understood, even in those early 

days of the historic No Child Left Behind Act, that the law had the potential to set in motion a wave of 

innovation in our public schools, as teachers, principals, administrators, parents, and others worked to 

close the achievement gap among different groups of students that has plagued our nation for so many 

years. I suspected that, under the pressure for improvement created by the law, dedicated professionals 

would develop all kinds of innovative solutions to difficult problems, and I wanted an office to highlight 

and disseminate those solutions. And I was committed, as I have been my entire career, to ensuring that 

parents had a real say in the schooling of their young, as their first and most important teachers.

Fewer than 18 months later, I am proud to introduce the Innovations in Education series. These 

publications, to be released over the next six months, identify concrete, real-world examples of innovations flourishing throughout this great land in six important areas: public school choice, supplemental educational services, charter schools, magnet schools, alternative teacher certification, and 

school leadership. 

We start with what might be the most challenging aspect of No Child Left Behind, but also an area of 

great opportunity: implementation of the law’s public school choice provisions. For the past two years, 

some critics have complained that these provisions are impossible to put into place. Others have said that 

school districts will simply refuse to comply. Yet, this publication shows that superintendents and districts 

are indeed fulfilling their responsibilities and making public school choice work for their neediest students. 

It has not been easy, but the experiences of these districts can inform the work of others. By taking lessons 

from these case studies, districts can avoid starting from scratch.

To be sure, none of these districts is doing everything 100 percent right. And all of them had a head start, 

since they had adopted some form of public school choice before the federal law was passed. Surely, the 

requirement to provide such choice, while in line with America’s principles and values, can be difficult 

to implement logistically. As we learn from this booklet, a strong public school choice program must be 

integrated into a district’s overall strategy. Communication to parents, faculty, and the community must 

be accurate, consistent, and energetic. Transportation and scheduling challenges must be fully addressed. 

As a former superintendent, I know that this is no walk in the park.

But the message of this publication is loud and clear: it can be done. I sincerely hope that the examples 

and tools in this booklet—and the expanded resources available online at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice—

will help you to make public school choice a reality in your community. 

Rod Paige, U.S. Secretary of Education

May 2004

1

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Public school choice—letting parents decide which public school is the best place for their child and 

allowing and enabling the transfer to that school—is a key strategy in current federal legislation aimed at 

improving educational outcomes. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) supports choice through 

multiple grant programs as well as through the law’s key accountability provisions: school districts with 

Title I schools deemed to be “in need of improvement” must offer parents an opportunity to move their 

children to schools that are meeting standards, and districts must pay for the transportation to make 

this move. These requirements are creating new forms of choice and causing many more districts and 

schools to grapple with how to implement choice effectively. 

Public school choice is not itself a new idea, nor is it 

unique to NCLB. Districts offer parents choices in order 

to increase parent involvement, provide different types 

of learning environments that may better match children’s needs, increase integration of schools, and encourage the creativity of educators, all in the service 

of improved outcomes for students. Harvard University 

researcher Carolyn Hoxby has documented that competition from choice improves the quality of education 

provided across a district.1

 Public opinion polling has 

shown that the public strongly supports choice. In a 

1999 poll by Public Agenda, 88 percent agreed with the 

statement “Parents should have the right to choose the 

school they want their child to attend.”2

Districts operate choice programs that include a range of 

options for parents:

›› Open enrollment: Parents can choose among 

schools in a district, or even among districts. Thirtythree states have interdistrict open enrollment laws, 

and 15 require districts to offer open enrollment.3

›› Controlled choice or magnet schools: Specialfocus schools are designed to attract students 

and integrate schools; some restrictions are made 

to balance enrollment. More than 1,350 magnet 

schools were reported in 1999-2000.4

›› Alternative schools: Designed to provide nurturing 

environments for students at risk of school failure, 

these schools enroll some 610,000 students.5

›› Concurrent enrollment: High school students attend college classes and receive both high school 

and postsecondary credit. Twenty-one states have 

comprehensive dual enrollment programs.6

›› Charter schools: Public charter schools are run by an 

independent operator under the oversight of a chartering authority, which may be the school district. 

Some districts seek charter schools as a way to expand the range of options available to students. As of 

January 2004, the nation had 2,996 charter schools.7

Clearly, public school choice is attractive to many districts as well as to parents. This guide is designed to help 

districts implement choice options more effectively. It 

Introduction
2

FIGURE 1. Key Actions to Implement Choice

 Action First Steps Going Deeper

Help Parents 

Make Informed 

Choices

ü Communicate clearly about 

NCLB choice options.

ü Provide personalized follow-up.

ü Get ahead of the deadlines 

with NCLB information.

ü Develop a multifaceted 

communications strategy.

ü Partner with community 

organizations.

ü Help parents understand their 

choices more fully.

Build District 

Infrastructure

ü Assign and coordinate 

responsibilities.

ü Determine space and 

transportation options. 

ü Build information-processing 

capacity.

ü Expand space and 

transportation options.

• Start new schools and 

programs.

ü Establish new outreach roles.

ü Increase community 

involvement.

Support Schools ü Communicate to schools 

about choice.

ü Prepare schools to 

communicate with parents.

ü Make all schools “schools 

of choice.”

ü Support receiving schools.

ü Help schools market their 

programs to parents.

Improve 

Programs Over 

Time

ü Track parent choices and 

school enrollments.

ü Survey parents about 

satisfaction and reasons 

for choices.

ü Learn from results.

ü Follow a strategic plan.
3

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

draws on the concrete experiences of five districts that 

already had a history of implementing choice prior to 

NCLB. It provides ideas that have been implemented 

in these districts and elsewhere, as well as relevant 

research and resources. 

First Steps

At the most fundamental level, getting started with 

choice under NCLB will mean deciding who in the district office needs to do what—beginning with getting

the message to parents and managing an enrollment 

process—on timelines constrained by the availability of 

state test data. These tasks are likely to be first in the 

minds of districts implementing choice under NCLB. In 

addition to more long-range options, this guide offers 

practical suggestions for “first steps” in each of several 

areas. (See figure 1 as an outline of the key actions, 

both initial and long-range, described in this guide.) 

Some districts and schools are just learning about the 

NCLB choice provisions (see figure 2). After a school 

that receives federal Title I funding fails to make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for two consecutive 

years, that school is defined as “in need of improvement” and required actions set in (see figure 3). Parents must have the option of moving their child to a 

public school that is meeting standards. After three 

years missing AYP, the Title I school must offer parents an additional choice—supplemental educational 

services such as tutoring.* Choice remains an option 

if the school continues to miss AYP and enters the 

stages of corrective action or restructuring. (Information about federal resources under NCLB is available at 

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/.) 

Going Deeper

While districts may launch a public school choice program in order to comply with NCLB requirements, many 

have found that public school choice is a valuable 

part of a comprehensive district strategy for systemic 

change. Districts such as the five profiled in this guide, 

or others with a history of choice, find compelling reasons to encourage parental choice. Seeking fundamentally to improve student achievement, they see that 

choice creates a number of benefits that contribute to 

such achievement, including the following8

:

FIGURE 2.NCLB Choice Requirements

Children are eligible for school choice when the 

Title I school they attend has not made adequate 

yearly progress in improving student achievement—

as defined by the state—for two consecutive years 

or longer and is therefore identified as needing 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring. 

Any child attending such a school must be offered 

the option of transferring to a public school in the 

district—which may be a public charter school—not 

identified for school improvement, unless such 

an option is prohibited by state law. The district 

(subject to a spending cap in the legislation) must 

provide transportation to students who decide to 

change schools under this policy. In addition, children are eligible for school choice when they attend any “persistently dangerous school” or have 

been a victim on school grounds of a “violent” 

crime, as defined by the individual state. 

[Source: Questions and Answers on No Child Left Behind,

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro /faqs.html]

* A forthcoming guide in this series will cover supplemental educational 

services.
4

The examples and practical suggestions in this guide 

are intended to support thoughtful implementation 

over time. Key actions are described in the chapters 

that follow in terms of “First Steps,” followed by suggestions for “Going Deeper” (see figure 1). For example, 

if getting a clear letter to parents informing them of 

their NCLB choice options is a first step, then going 

deeper entails a more diversified communication strategy that might include community fairs, marketing, 

and targeted personal outreach. 

Case Study Sites and Methodology

Five districts are profiled in this guide: Cambridge, 

Mass.; Desert Sands, Calif.; Mesa, Ariz.; Miami-Dade 

County, Fla.; and Milwaukee, Wis. Basic statistics about 

these districts appear in figure 4.

These districts were selected because of their experience 

with choice. Each provided choice options within the 

district prior to NCLB. Some, but not all, are recipients 

of grants under the U.S. Department of Education’s 

Voluntary Public School Choice program and Magnet 

Schools Assistance program. In addition, they exist in 

a broader context of choice: in each district, charter 

schools authorized by entities other than the district 

are in operation; both Milwaukee and Miami-Dade have 

state-funded voucher programs that enable parents to 

send their children to private schools; Mesa and MiamiDade are in states that give tax credits for donations to 

scholarship funds for poor students. (For more information about the context of each district and its history 

with school choice, see appendix A.)

The experiences of operating choice programs and 

observing the dynamics of a competitive choice system have taught these districts valuable lessons. Their 

›› increased parent satisfaction,

›› greater parent commitment,

›› distinctive learning environments to meet 

different needs,

›› more creativity among educators, 

›› increased economic and racial integration across 

schools, and

›› increased organizational coherence.

Districts that embrace choice as part of their overall strategy can integrate NCLB choice into a more 

comprehensive approach—not “layering it on” but 

making it part of a coherent program. Districts then 

have the opportunity to implement their programs 

over time, developing them more fully, and continuously improving them. They are able to set their own 

parameters: timelines that allow more deliberate 

decision-making, broad community involvement in 

program design, and evaluation data to guide local 

program improvement.

FIGURE 3. Adequate Yearly Progress 

(AYP) Timeline

School 

Year 1

Does not

make AYP

School 

Year 2

Does not

make AYP 

School 

Year 3

1st year of school 

improvement

ü Technical assistance

ü Public school choice

School 

Year 4

2nd year of school 

improvement

ü Technical assistance

ü Public school choice

ü Supplemental 

educational services
5

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

practices have evolved and been tested over time and 

can serve as a reference point for others thinking 

through choice implementation. Yet even with a history of choice, these districts often found the requirements and timelines of NCLB choice to be challenging. They had to set up new enrollment periods and 

communicate to parents about a new set of options. 

The number of parents taking up the NCLB option to 

transfer to another school has sometimes been small, 

whether because of early implementation challenges, 

delayed timelines, and incomplete communications, 

which can be expected to be addressed over time; or 

because there is little pent-up demand for the options 

available in these districts, where thousands of parents already exercise choice. These districts, like others, need to gear up to fully promote NCLB choice and 

FIGURE 4. Demographics of Five Profiled School Districts

Cambridge, 

Mass.

Desert Sands, 

Calif.

Mesa, 

Ariz.

Miami-Dade County, 

Fla.

Milwaukee, 

Wis.

Enrollment 6,750 25,714 74,366 370,000 97,293

Enrollment Trend Down Up Down Down Down

Number 

of Schools

13 27 89 340 223

Population Type Mid-size central 

city

Collection 

of small 

cities/towns

Urban fringe/

suburban

Greater 

metropolitan 

area

Large central 

city

Subsidized Meals 48% 58% 40% 62% 72%

English Language 

Learners

10% 27% 7% 17% 8%

Special Needs 23% 9% 8% 11% 15%

reach out to parents. They are not perfect; their choice 

initiatives are very much works in progress, but their 

previous experiences and lessons learned can help others along the road.

These five districts were selected from a larger set of 

possible sites as part of the benchmarking methodology 

that underlies this study. Twenty-three districts were 

identified as potential sites because they were mentioned in previous research on choice or suggested by 

the advisory group. Existing public data and targeted 

interviews provided preliminary information about 

these districts that was used to “screen” sites and identify those that appeared to have practices in place in 

several key operational areas. For example, they had 

clearly articulated placement plans, communications 

Note: These data were provided by the school districts and were current as of February 2004.
6

strategies that had evolved over time, and local data 

that they used to guide improvements.

This exploratory, descriptive study is adapted from the 

four-phase benchmarking process used by the American Productivity and Quality Center (see appendix B 

for further details). In benchmarking, organizations 

analyze their own operations and look to promising 

practice partners for ideas of specific practices that 

might help them improve. For this study, an advisory 

group of researchers and practitioners with expertise in 

choice helped guide the focus of the study. Their input, 

together with an examination of research literature 

and an analysis of NCLB requirements, led to the study 

scope (see appendix B). 

Descriptions of the districts’ practices were collected 

through a combination of individual interviews, conference calls, and one-day site visits. The districts arranged contacts with staff and community members 

knowledgeable about the study topics and also provided copies of artifacts such as sample letters, plans, 

pamphlets, schedules, and so forth. Individual case 

reports summarized practices and lessons learned in 

each site; a cross-site analysis organized the findings 

by topic and revealed common patterns. This guide is 

adapted from the full research report. Individual district results from specific practices, their rationales for 

what they did, patterns of consistency across districts, 

and common sense, along with the initial framework, 

led to the themes and suggested actions in this guide.

This descriptive research process suggests promising 

practices—ways to do things that others have found 

helpful or lessons they have learned about what not 

to do—and practical, “how-to” guidance. This is not 

the kind of experimental research that can yield valid 

causal claims about what works. Readers should judge 

for themselves the merits of these practices, based on 

their understanding of why they should work, how 

they fit the local context, and what happens when 

they actually try them. Also, readers should understand 

that these descriptions are not intended to add any 

requirements beyond what is already in the NCLB statute and regulations.
7

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

At its heart, public school choice is about giving parents a choice. Parents can ask themselves which school 

their child should attend with the expectation that their child can attend the school they choose. Under 

NCLB, districts are required to allow parents to move their child from a Title I school “in need of improvement” to a school that is meeting standards. In districts with choice programs, parents may regularly have a 

choice among schools with distinctive instructional programs, either within or outside their neighborhoods.

Help Parents Make 

Informed Choices

For choice to be effective, parents need information 

about the schools that are available to them, the characteristics of those schools, how the enrollment process works, and the transportation available. Ultimately, 

parents will want to think about which school would be 

best for their child, given a range of educational and 

personal considerations.

Districts have a responsibility to communicate with 

parents clearly and fully about school options and to 

help them make informed choices.

First Steps

COMMUNICATE CLEARLY ABOUT NCLB CHOICE OPTIONS

Mailing a letter home to parents is the most common 

way to let them know about public school choice under NCLB. Such a letter is a legal requirement of NCLB, 

and its purpose is to be user-friendly and help parents 

consider their options based on clear information. This 

is easier said than done.

Districts naturally face a conflict in communicating 

about schools in need of improvement. They want to 

support the schools to improve; in fact, schools must 

have improvement plans and tell parents about them. 

On the other hand, districts need to clearly set out parents’ option to transfer their child to a school that is 

already meeting standards. Direct and specific information should explain what the school is doing to improve 

and what’s available in other schools. In the end, it’s up 

to the parents either to give the current school another 

chance or to transfer to a school that they believe will 

better meet their child’s needs.

Some districts, like Milwaukee, have learned the advantage of breaking the information up into multiple 

communications and sequencing their release in digestible, user-friendly parcels (see figure 5). This strategy, recommended for communication with the media, 

can also support clear communication with parents.

Notice how Milwaukee’s steps are sequenced:
8

1. General communication about NCLB and 

accountability,

2. School communications about improvement 

plans, and

3. Notification of “needs improvement” status and 

choice options.

Knowledge about NCLB has begun to spread in districts and communities around the country. Media reports as well as district communiqués and the school 

report cards required by NCLB itself have all funneled 

information to parents. But it is a complex law, with 

new terminology and options for parents, so diligent 

communication is important. Surveys suggest that 

parents may not know if their child’s school has been 

identified as “in need of improvement.”9

 And it is lowincome parents, those most targeted to benefit from 

NCLB’s accountability provisions, who most depend 

on communication from the school or district, along 

with informal networks.10 Fortunately, parent-friendly 

resources about NCLB, along with resources about 

school choice in general, are increasingly available (see 

appendix C).

To make it easy for parents to understand their NCLB 

choice options, Milwaukee, for example, provides a frequently-asked-questions document, “My School & the 

Title I Enrollment Option,” in addition to the letter and 

enrollment form they send to parents whose children 

attend schools required to provide choice under NCLB 

(see figures 6 and 7 for excerpts from these documents). 

Because Milwaukee has a variety of choice options, the 

FIGURE 5. NCLB Communication Steps in Milwaukee 

Over the year, the district communicates information about NCLB to parents in a variety of ways, first by being 

clear about the difference between enrollment for choice options independent of NCLB and enrollment related to 

NCLB. The district also communicates parents’ rights under NCLB and the district’s obligation to parents. These 

communications occasion three separate letters:

1. The superintendent sends a letter out before the end of the school year to all families in the district. The 

page-and-a-half letter tells about the district’s efforts to improve achievement and describes what it means 

to be a “school identified for improvement” (SIFI). The letter alerts parents that the district will publish a list 

of schools identified for improvement and that parents should check to see whether their child’s school is 

on it. The letter encourages parents to be active partners, become engaged in their schools, and help make 

a difference. The letter states the district goal that all children be successful.

2. The district distributes a template letter about NCLB that all schools customize and send to their families. 

In the letter, schools that have already been identified for improvement outline the steps they are taking 

to improve. 

3. When the final list of SIFI for the year is available, parents who send children to those schools are notified 

and given the option to transfer to another school. Elimination from the SIFI list requires two years of improvement, so schools that have improved are noted but remain on the list. The district provides parents with 

four to 16 alternative schools from which they choose three as possible choices for their child to attend. 

Source: Information from district interviews.
9

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

district makes an extra effort to clarify how the NCLB 

choice options fit with others. 

Milwaukee’s experience adjusting the language it uses 

to communicate with parents is also instructive. The 

first year that the district sent parents a letter describing their NCLB choice options, the letter contained 

legalistic language. The next year it did not. Milwaukee revised the letter to parents to make it more readable, simplifying the language and increasing the type 

size. Other districts as well have worked to make their 

communications more parent-friendly. Many districts 

translate their communications into multiple languages. Miami-Dade, for example, reaches parents in Spanish, English, and Haitian Creole. In Mesa, the district 

provides schools with a two-column format: English 

on the left and Spanish on the right, for parallel communication to parents in both groups.

In these letters, one feature that might be emphasized 

clearly is which schools are eligible as receiving schools. 

Milwaukee found that parents frequently made invalid 

choices (selection of a private school, a school outside 

the transportation zone, or a school itself in need of improvement). Similarly, the Massachusetts survey found 

that parents expressed interest in a variety of public and 

private schools and that “a remarkably high percentage” 

selected other underperforming schools, which were 

higher-achieving than their own school and more demographically balanced but also in need of improvement.11

Other key features that might be included are details 

about the application process itself and the deadline 

by which applications must be received. A survey of 41 

districts that belong to the Council of the Great City 

Schools indicates that parents generally are given at 

least three weeks to respond, often four or more.12

This was true for the five districts in this study as well. 

Liberal deadlines anticipate possible delays in parents 

receiving the information and the logistics of providing 

the help they may need in making a decision.

Many districts take extra steps to be sure that parents 

get the basic NCLB choice information they need. They 

send repeat mailings from the district or individual 

school site, and they give students follow-up notes 

to take home. Automated phone calls are another option districts have used to communicate with parents 

directly. Additional common communication tools include parent meetings, Web sites, and advertisements. 

(Other tools for reaching parents are described in the 

section on developing a multifaceted communications 

strategy, page 12.) 

PROVIDE PERSONALIZED FOLLOW-UP

Even in the initial stages of reaching parents, the districts in this study added a personal component, having 

learned as Milwaukee did that “personal contact is the 

most effective means of communication.”

Several of the five districts took advantage of existing 

parent outreach centers. In Cambridge, parents who 

wanted to pursue choice were asked to call the Family 

Resource Center so the liaison could talk directly with 

them and explain their options more fully. Miami-Dade 

asked parents to come in to one of the six regional parent access offices.

Districts also reached out proactively. In Milwaukee, Parent Center representatives called or visited those parents 

who made choices that were not valid or who submitted 

incomplete forms. Parents were appreciative of the calls 

and visits, and the district’s proactive approach generated greater parent involvement and buy-in.
10

FIGURE 6.Excerpt from Milwaukee Frequently Asked Questions

What is my child’s current school doing to improve?

MPS has invested significant resources in your child’s 

present school to help improve its academic programs and 

services. The programs and services now being offered at 

your child’s present school are included in a letter sent to 

you from the principal.

What is the Title I Enrollment Option, and what does it 

mean for me?

The Title I Enrollment Option is designed to comply with a 

provision of a new federal law, entitled the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001. The law provides parents in certain 

federally funded Title I schools with the option of either 

keeping their children enrolled in their present school or 

seeking enrollment in other public schools. This option is only 

available where the child’s present school has been identified 

as a school in need of improvement by the state, which means 

that the school has not demonstrated two consecutive years of 

adequate progress in student academic performance. Almost 

all MPS schools are Title I funded schools.

Will my child’s current school always be in this 

program?

Not necessarily. The principal, teacher, parents, and staff at 

your child’s school are working hard to improve the academic 

performance of students. If the school demonstrates that its 

students are making adequate academic progress for two 

consecutive years, then it will be removed from the program.

How were we identified for this program?

The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction identified 

certain federally funded Title I schools on the basis of lack 

of adequate progress in student academic achievement, 

as evidenced by student scores on the Wisconsin Student 

Assessment System.

How do I apply to enroll my child in another school?

To request that your child be enrolled in another school, 

parents must complete a Title I Enrollment Option Request 

Form, which was recently mailed to parents. Additional 

copies are available at your child’s current school. Forms 

must be completed and returned to the Division of Student 

Services by September 27, 2002. Please note that no 

applications will be accepted after September 27, 2002.

If I complete the form, what school would my child 

attend?

Depending on space availability, even if you request to 

enroll your child in another school, your child may stay at the 

current school in the 2002-2003 school year. If you make a 

request and your request is granted, your child will attend a 

school in your transportation zone that has space available. 

You were sent a list of schools that may be available in your 

child’s transportation zone. If you request a transfer, there 

is no assurance that your child will be selected to attend one 

of these schools. This is the group of schools from which 

MPS will attempt to make seats available to meet transfer 

requests from your child’s current school.

The highest priority for the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) and your child’s school is to improve student 

achievement. We have a firm belief that all children can learn and will achieve. The school district is currently 

engaged in special efforts to improve performance in a group of federally funded Title I schools. Principals, 

teachers, parents, and staff are working hard to make Improvement for next year and to institute additional 

educational services and programs in these schools. If your child is enrolled in one of the schools identified for 

improvement by the state, you have the option of keeping your child enrolled in the current school or seeking 

enrollment in another public school for the 2002–2003 school year.

MILWAUKEE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

My School and the Title I Enrollment Option

Questions and Answers 2002–2003
11

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

FIGURE 7. Milwaukee Parent Letter and NCLB Transfer Request Form

Believe it ~ Achieve it!

M I LWAU KE E PU B LIC SCHOOLS

Dear Parent/Guardian: July 11, 2003

Your child’s school has been designated by the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as a School Identified for Improvement. This designation alone does 

not indicate a failing school, but provides a focus on areas for school improvement by principals, teachers, and parents. Identified schools then become eligible for 

additional support from the district and state as they work to improve teaching and learning, attendance, graduation, or participation in testing.

Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, when a school is designated as a School Identified for Improvement by the state, parents have the options of:

• remaining at the school and actively participating in the school improvement process,

• remaining at the school and applying for after-school supplemental services, or

• seeking enrollment in one of the designated schools listed below.

Based on your child’s current grade level and address, the following are schools that may be available in your child’s transportation area. While all parents will 

have the opportunity to indicate whether they want their children transported to other schools, there is no guarantee that all children will be able to attend other 

schools. Furthermore, if a school has entrance requirements, enrollment will be dependent on your child meeting these requirements. If you would like more 

information about any of these schools, you are encouraged to contact the principal at your child’s current school, the Division of Student Services at 475-8448, or 

the Division of Teaching and Learning at 475-8346.

Holmes Elementary, 2643 North Buffum Street, 267-1300 Northern Star, 8135 West Florist Avenue, 393-6782

Keefe Avenue Elementary, 1618 West Keefe Avenue, 267-4400 Story, 3815 West Kilbourn Avenue, 934-4800

LaFollette Elementary, 3239 North Ninth Street, 267-5200 Victory, 2222 West Henry Avenue, 304-6700

Lee Elementary, 921 West Meinecke Avenue, 267-1700 Webster, 6850 North 53rd Street, 393-5900

Milwaukee Leadership Training Center, 1501 South Layton Blvd., 384-8081 Wings Academy, 1501 South Layton Boulevard, 437-1356

If your child’s application to enroll in another school is approved, the school district will provide transportation services based on the district’s transportation 

guidelines.

We have worked very hard to improve the academic achievement of all of our students, and are initiating a variety of changes at the district and school levels 

to support academic achievement. We have demonstrated that the classroom is the most important place in our district, and we are working hard to support our 

families, teachers, and principals as they improve teaching and learning for all children.

If you choose to apply for a transfer, detach the bottom portion of this letter and return it to MPS. The address is on the reverse side and postage is included. We 

must receive your response no later than July 25, 2003. If you need assistance or have questions, please call the Division of Student Services at 475-8448 or the 

Division of Teaching and Learning at 475-8346.

Sincerely,

Chief of Pupil Services

(SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR MORE INFORMATION)

Detach bottom portion and return to Milwaukee Public Schools. Address is listed on the reverse side. Postage is included.

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT TRANSFER REQUEST FORM

PLEASE NOTE: There is no guarantee that your child will be able to enroll in another school if you submit this form. The number of seats at each receiving school is limited 

and applications will be approved only if space is available and students meet any entrance requirements that the school may have. Students who have low test scores and low 

income will have priority. Submitting this form indicates your preference to have your child enrolled in another school. Your response is due by July 25, 2003. 

 I request that my child be considered for transfer to the following school, based on space availability.

 1st Choice: _____________________________________________________________________

 2nd Choice: _____________________________________________________________________

– If you wish to have your child stay at his/her current school, NO RESPONSE IS NECESSARY. –

Parent/Guardian Name (please print) Student Name (please print)

Parent/Guardian Signature Date Telephone Number

Milwaukee Public Schools
12

In Desert Sands, the timeline was particularly difficult, 

as summer notification may have missed parents who 

left the desert to escape the heat. So, teachers called 

parents at the end of the summer to be sure they had 

received and understood the NCLB choice information.

GET AHEAD OF THE DEADLINES WITH NCLB INFORMATION

The timelines for NCLB choice are driven by each state’s 

release of accountability data—often in the summer, 

sometimes even later.13 For their regular choice programs, districts typically have winter or spring enrollment periods for the following fall. NCLB requires districts to set up additional, special enrollment periods 

later in the year.

As noted, to get ahead of the curve, Milwaukee established a series of communication steps, beginning with 

general information about NCLB (see figure 5). Cambridge uses a “nuts and bolts” pamphlet created by the 

Title I Dissemination Project from state information 

and also provides the U.S. Department of Education 

publication, No Child Left Behind: A Parents Guide.

In Miami-Dade, the district even notifies parents about 

the possibility that a school will miss AYP for two years 

in a row. The district sends a letter to parents in the 

spring that prepares them and asks them to make tentative plans for selecting another school. This early 

notification offers another opportunity to contact and 

work with parents, and it helps streamline the transfer 

process should parents want to transfer their child. 

Among the districts surveyed by the Council of the Great 

City Schools, nine informed parents about their options 

for 2003–04 before the end of the previous school year, 

and all of them, including Miami-Dade, were districts 

that had an open enrollment or “controlled choice” plan 

in place and made an educated guess about who would 

be eligible to transfer to a different school.14

Going Deeper

DEVELOP A MULTIFACETED COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

The forms of communication used to spread the word 

about choice programs have increased over the years. 

Districts report using all of the following techniques:

›› advertisements in the Yellow Pages of the 

phone book,

›› articles and ads in local newspapers,

›› ads on billboards and buses,

›› public service announcements on radio and TV,

›› a brochure that profiles the district’s schools,

›› individual school newsletters or brochures,

›› a pamphlet that describes the enrollment options,

›› movie theater advertisements,

›› refrigerator magnets,

›› community or townhall meetings,

›› school open houses,

›› booths at local malls,

›› an exposition sponsored by local businesses,

›› a choice fair, and

›› participation in ethnic fairs.

The New York City Department of Education has posted 

first-class mail and placed automated phone calls in 10 

languages, sent flyers home, convened regional information sessions, involved some 20 community-based 

organizations in reaching parents, provided materials at 

local PTA meetings, established a hotline, set up a special 

Web site, and placed ads in community newspapers.15

Marketing is an important adjunct to the magnet program being implemented in Desert Sands. The district 

recruits students for its three new magnet schools, 

paying special attention to achieving racial and economic diversity. The marketing team creates radio 
13

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

spots, movie theater and television commercials, brochures, and other items in both Spanish and English 

(see figure 8). Every other Saturday during the enrollment period, staff go to malls in the district’s primarily 

Hispanic neighborhood to meet prospective students. 

Other marketing events include activities at designated 

receiving schools, school tours, parent-to-parent communication, and sessions at designated sending sites, 

which help parents understand that the programs offered to their children are free as is the transportation 

to attend them. People with the necessary language 

skills are on hand to respond to parent questions at every event. The marketing team also participates in the 

area’s two business expositions. Business leaders help 

by communicating about the magnet program to their 

employees and to the community as a whole. 

PARTNER WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Community-based organizations are essential partners 

in communicating with parents about the school choices 

FIGURE 8.Desert Sands Movie Theater Advertisement
14

available to them. People often receive and trust information more readily when it comes from their networks 

and those they know. Faith-based organizations, civic 

groups, business partners, local education funds, affinity groups, and the like can all help get the word out. 

Not only district partnerships but also individual school 

partnerships should be tapped. 

In Milwaukee, for example, the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) sponsored radio ads and operated a 

telephone hotline when NCLB choice was first introduced. 

(See figure 9 for more about such community resources.)

In Miami-Dade, a coalition of private companies funded 

a parent guide about the district’s various programs and 

choice options. Printed in English, Spanish, and Haitian 

Creole, 500,000 copies of the 72-page guide have been 

delivered to almost every household in the district.16

HELP PARENTS UNDERSTAND THEIR CHOICES MORE FULLY

As challenging as it is to get basic choice information 

to parents, it’s an even greater challenge to help them 

think through what the choices mean to them and how 

to evaluate what’s best for their child.

As noted, both Cambridge and Miami-Dade ask parents to contact the district resource center if they are 

interested in exercising their NCLB choice option. The 

districts reason that if parents can talk over their questions with someone knowledgeable, they will make 

better choices for their children. 

FIGURE 9. Community-Based Support for NCLB

Several organizations received federal grants to enhance their support of communication about NCLB, especially the choice and supplemental educational services provisions. These and other organizations network to 

increase information flow:

Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO) - http://www.baeo.org

Project Clarion, a communications and media campaign, is designed to educate parents about NCLB, 

especially in cities with high concentrations of low-income black families and schools in need of improvement as identified by the state education agency (Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Dallas).

Hispanic Council for Reform and Educational Options (Hispanic CREO) - http://www.hcreo.org

Project CREO is designed to reach out to five urban communities in three states with high concentrations of Hispanic students (Miami; Austin, Dallas, and San Antonio; and Camden, N.J.). The project will 

establish parent, community, and school resource operations, and will develop Spanish-language communications tools and disseminate the information through Spanish-language communications outlets.

Greater Educational Opportunities Foundation (GEO) - http://www.geofoundation.org

GEO assists with parent outreach and communication about NCLB, especially in Colorado and Indiana.
15

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

It is important to balance support for more deliberate decision-making with ease of access. If parents have to go 

somewhere or do something that they see as a burden, 

then these steps can become a barrier to exercising choice. 

Districts should work to build parents’ familiarity with and 

trust in these assistance providers and monitor parents’ 

reactions to the resources that are provided. Sometimes 

a simple and direct approach is most effective.

As part of its regular choice enrollment process, Cambridge goes deeper, and encourages parents to take 

tours of the schools, observe carefully, and ask questions. For parents of prospective kindergarten students 

who may not know what to look for, the Family Resource Center has created a checklist of things to observe and questions to ask (see figure 10). These questions are intended to be parent-friendly and are specific 

to visiting Cambridge kindergarten classes. Other information about school achievement, teacher quality, and 

the research basis for instructional programs would 

also be of interest to parents.

Parents considering school options may find help in a 

booklet from the U.S. Department of Education, Choosing a School for Your Child. This planner includes brief 

descriptions of different types of schools and a checklist of questions to guide the search, school visit, and 

decision-making process. This booklet will be available 

beginning in June 2004 from ED Pubs, the U.S. Department of Education’s distribution center. See page ii for 

contact information.

Educators understand that parents make school choices 

based on a number of factors. Studies confirm that all 

parents want an environment in which their children 

can learn well.17 They consider academics and then factors like size, safety, location, and the desire to keep 

siblings together while meeting their individual needs. 

Many parents prefer to keep their children close by; 

others may find greater safety in sending them out of 

a dangerous neighborhood. Parents may be influenced 

by both their individual experiences with the present 

school and the choices they are offered. A study of 

early NCLB choice in Montgomery County, Maryland,18

found that the number and demographics of receiving 

schools were important factors.

For some parents, the NCLB remedy of supplemental 

educational services (SES), such as free tutoring, makes 

it more attractive to keep their child at a school in need 

of improvement than to choose a new school. (Given 

the isolation of some rural schools, SES may be the only 

feasible option.) [Supplemental educational services is 

the subject of another forthcoming guide in this series, 

Creating Strong Supplemental Educational Services 

(SES) Programs.] 

SUMMARY FOR Help Parents Make Informed Choices

First Steps Going Deeper

ü Communicate clearly about NCLB choice options.

ü Provide personalized follow-up.

ü Get ahead of the deadlines with NCLB information.

ü Develop a multifaceted communications strategy.

ü Partner with community organizations.

ü Help parents understand their choices more fully.
16

FIGURE 10.Cambridge Kindergarten Tour Checklist

What to Look for/ Hear about Check off if answered

In the classrooms:

Were children engaged in learning activities, discussions with teachers, 

or each other?

Did you see examples of printed text around the room?

Was artwork displayed in and outside of the classroom?

Were Math manipulatives (blocks, patterns) out for the children to use?

Does the school participate in the Literacy Program?

Did you see evidence of the Workboard and was the concept explained to you?

Were play areas established around the room?

Did you feel the children were happy?

Around the building:

Did you feel welcome in the building?

Before you began the tour, was what you were going to see explained 

to you?

Did you meet with an administrator?

Did you get all your questions answered, and if not, were you encouraged to call the school?

Did you see the gym, library, art room, auditorium, music room, computer lab, and cafeteria?

Did you hear about the Breakfast/Lunch program?

Were the after school programs discussed and material given to you 

about them?

Additional questions you may have:
17

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Build District 

Infrastructure

Being ready to communicate effectively requires a great deal of behind-the-scenes preparation. Staff 

across many departments are involved in gathering information and making decisions about space, assignment options, transportation, and the like. Establishing effective procedures and integrating NCLB 

choice into existing operations come first. Then, as districts expand choice options, new programs and 

structures may be called for.

First Steps

ASSIGN AND COORDINATE RESPONSIBILITIES

The sheer logistics of NCLB choice can themselves be 

daunting. In Miami-Dade, for example, 12 different 

departments coordinate aspects of the district’s NCLB 

plan. The district’s plan is more than 40 pages long, 

with an implementation timeline that takes up four 

pages alone (see figure 11).

NCLB operations in Miami-Dade are the responsibility of the School Choice and Parental Options (SCPO) 

unit in the central office. First organized in 1997 by the 

Miami-Dade County Public School Board as the Division of Schools of Choice, this umbrella office provided 

oversight and implementation of the various school 

choice programs. NCLB choice was naturally housed 

there as well.

Of course, the vast majority of districts do not operate 

on the same scale as Miami-Dade, and many will be 

scrambling to find staff who can assume responsibility 

for NCLB. While there is a risk that a specialized new 

division may take on a life of its own, the more common challenge will be to decide how to assign the new 

responsibilities to current staff. Districts often turn NCLB 

over to their Title I personnel. Yet if choice, or any other 

new assignment, is added to a long list of responsibilities, 

staff may become overloaded. They may manage immediate compliance requirements but then have limited 

capacity to plan for broader possibilities or to orchestrate new systems that would facilitate going deeper. 

Deciding how to assign new responsibilities for NCLB and 

how to restructure other duties should be predicated upon 

fully developed plans that identify the tasks that need to 

be accomplished. It may be a small comfort, but recognizing the trade-offs of different assignment decisions can 

help administrators and their staffs cope with them. 

Wherever NCLB coordination responsibility is housed, 

it is important to inform all district staff of where 

that is. Parents may contact the district at different 

entry points. They need to be directed efficiently to 

the NCLB authority.
18

FIGURE 11. Miami-Dade NCLB Implementation Timeline (page 1 of 4)

Miami-Dade County Public Schools NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE

Timeline 

(on or about) Task/ Assignment Responsible Office Contact Person

First Week of 

December

Identify personnel to monitor and 

implement NCLB as needed.

• Education Ms. Toural

• Information Technology 

Services (ITS)

Ms. Karcher

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce

First Week of 

February

Identify new issues to be addressed 

in the district’s NCLB Implementation 

Plan and incorporate these changes 

into the NCLB Implementation 

Timeline

• SCPO Mr. Bell & 

Mrs. Zarraluqui

• School Board Attorney Mr. Brown

Ms. Bass

First Week of 

February

Update schools (elementary, middle, 

and senior high) that will be assigned 

to each NCLB geographic zone.

• SCPO Mr. Bell & 

Mrs. Zarraluqui

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce

Mid February

Conduct an analysis of the NCLB 

zones and make any adjustments as 

warranted.

• School Board Attorney Mr. Brown

Ms. Bass

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce

First Week of 

March

Seek appropriate approval of any 

adjustments to the NCLB geographic 

zones.

• SCPO Mr. Bell & 

Mrs. Zarraluqui

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce

First Week of 

April

Update plan to distribute NCLB 

information to potential eligible parents 

and other community stakeholders.

• Prepare parent letter and postcard

• Prepare purchase order for printing 

and mailing

• SCPO Mr. Bell & 

Mrs. Zarraluqui

• Prepare press packet • Public Information Mr. Villafaña

• Prepare mailing data disks • ITS Ms. Karcher

• Notify affected ACCESS Center 

Superintendents and Principals

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce

First Week of 

April

Revise NCLB student application/

admission process as needed. Include 

criteria for student assignment.

• Attendance Services Dr. Leyva

• Instructional Operations Dr. Koonce
19

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

DETERMINE SPACE AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

Where to put the children eligible to move is a major question for everyone involved in a transfer. While 

some of the districts studied have space because of declining enrollments, others have growing enrollment or 

are already crowded. And the most desirable schools 

are most often at capacity.

Lack of capacity at the district level can’t be used as 

a reason to deny transfers. Every student enrolled in 

a Title I school in need of improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring who wishes to transfer to a 

school meeting standards must have that opportunity. 

Districts have to establish for each family two or more 

choices that have enough capacity overall to handle 

the anticipated transfers.19

The inability to move children into the highest-achieving schools because of facilities limitations has been a 

challenge for Milwaukee Public Schools. In order to create options and communicate them accurately to parents, the district created a team that involves facilities 

and maintenance staff; administrative specialists (who 

evaluate principals and are knowledgeable about how 

schools run); the database supervisor; and the administrator responsible for staffing, enrollment, and strategic 

planning related to school capacity. The team spent two 

months determining exactly how many students each 

school could take. 

Several of the districts give priority within their existing choice arrangements to students transferring under NCLB choice, either in initial placement decisions 

or on waiting lists.

Decisions about which school choices to offer to 

which students depend not only on space but also on 

transportation. Several of the districts have established 

transportation zones to facilitate shorter bus routes 

and provide choices within the zones. During the last 

few years, for example, Milwaukee has divided the city 

into three regions (north, central, and south) for the 

programs for which they provide transportation: Chapter 220 and citywide specialty schools. The intent is to 

reduce costs by limiting the distance students travel. 

The district transports students only to contiguous 

zones, so students in the north and south zones can 

choose schools within their own zones and the central 

zone, and students in the central zone can choose from 

all three zones.

Miami-Dade has six transportation zones, but the district created a new set of three larger zones for NCLB 

choice. Several factors were considered in defining 

zones that would provide a complementary set of 

schools (see figure 12). 

Other transportation strategies were also reported by 

the study districts:

›› compensation to parents for transportation when 

their child is geographically isolated, has special 

needs, or may be the only student transferring to 

a specific school,

›› tokens for students using city or county buses, 

›› small vans in addition to larger buses, and

›› staggered start times for schools.

In some districts, students choose to travel to a more 

distant school if the bus stop is closer to their home 

than is the bus stop of the nearest school, or if walking 

to school takes students through what parents consider 

an unsafe neighborhood. 
20

FIGURE 12. Miami-Dade NCLB Transfer Factors and Zones (page 1 of 4)

I. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND - TRANSFERS

 Students have the inherent right to be afforded equal access to quality educational 

experiences, regardless of socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, as part of 

the district’s plan, three geographic zones have been established. The map delineating the 

No Child Left Behind choice zones is included as Appendix B. In the development of the 

three zones, the following factors were taken into consideration:

1. proximity of schools that have met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives;

2. length of student transportation times;

3. sufficient numbers of alternate public school choices with available space;

4. feeder pattern integrity; and

5. diverse demographics.

 For purposes of the No Child Left Behind Public School Choice Implementation Plan, 

schools within each zone will participate in the transfer process based on their AYP status 

and their capacity. That is, students from designated Title I schools that fail to meet AYP 

for two consecutive years will be provided the opportunity to transfer to public schools 

within their zone that have met AYP objectives and have a percentage of utilization of 

permanent and relocatable capacity of 115% or less.

A. No Child Left Behind Choice Zones are:

• North Choice Zone

• Central Choice Zone

• South Choice Zone

The following table reflects the socioeconomic student distribution by No Child Left 

Behind Choice Zone as of June 2003:

Choice Zones Free/Reduced Lunch

North 71%

Central 71%

South 55%

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
21

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

BUILD INFORMATION-PROCESSING CAPACITY

In Desert Sands, the district has recently moved to 

build its capacity to manage student records and track 

student progress. In addition to having developed a 

sophisticated database of student demographics and 

test scores, the district is working to improve its ability 

to monitor the progress of students who transfer into 

and out of the district’s magnet programs. 

An integrated student database that includes charter 

schools affords Miami-Dade the opportunity to closely 

track its students and use patterns and trends in student movement to inform charter-authorizing and 

program-creation decisions. Transfers are also facilitated by having an integrated system; when a student is 

registered at a charter school, he or she is immediately 

dropped from the roll of the traditional school. 

Going Deeper

EXPAND SPACE AND TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS

With time, districts need to take up the challenge to find 

more space for popular programs or to use space differently. According to NCLB, lack of capacity can’t be used 

to deny choice, but beyond this requirement, maximizing the use of space is a logical response to what parents 

value and seek for their children. For example, high-demand schools may re-purpose some of their rooms or 

get more portable classrooms. 

Miami-Dade has made extensive use of portables. Denver created seven additional classrooms for incoming 

students in its two most-chosen schools by opening 

teacher lounges and resource rooms as classrooms.

Districts also continue to explore effective transportation strategies. The transportation patterns described 

earlier often evolve over time to better accommodate 

the districtwide choice and enrollment patterns.

Desert Sands, for example, continues to explore transportation solutions to its problem of major congestion 

because only two major thoroughfares serve the cities 

in its valley. The district recently purchased two vans to 

supplement its yellow buses. Federal funds can be used 

for this purpose. To develop additional solutions, the 

district is studying transportation strategies adopted 

by Hillsborough County (Tampa, Fla.) and is considering 

other options. 

Currently, Desert Sands accommodates student transfers on an individual basis, which results in some busing 

routes that are not cost-effective. The district would 

like to move to a system of districtwide pick-up points, 

as Hillsborough does. Discussions are under way to 

determine the best way to implement this change, including parent notification of the new policy, for the 

2004–05 school year. 

As they work through transportation challenges, districts recognize that it is worth the effort since the 

result is to enable parents to take advantage of the 

choices that have been carefully crafted for them.

START NEW SCHOOLS AND PROGRAMS

NCLB choice patterns are but one source of information about parent preferences that can drive the creation of new schools or programs. Ultimately, a district 

can create a diverse set of schools to address different 

needs and interests, making each school a “school of 

choice.” District-authorized charter schools, magnet 

schools, specialized schools within a school, alternative 

schools, or new community schools all offer an opportunity to increase the supply of quality schools and 
22

the options available to parents. Charter schools that 

operate independently from the district can also help 

increase capacity.

Mesa is one district that has responded to parent 

preferences and created new schools, in part due to 

pressure from local charter schools. An initial Benjamin Franklin back-to-basics school, itself created because of parent interest, was so popular that over time 

three more were established. Natural indicators, like 

the number of requests or the size of a waiting list, 

and special measures, like a parent survey, are used to 

gauge areas of interest.

Miami-Dade is concentrating on bringing successful 

programs to schools with low enrollment through its 

federal Voluntary Public School Choice program grant. 

The underenrolled status of some of its schools gives 

the district an opportunity to address facility needs. In 

addition to refurbishing schools to make them more attractive to parents, the district will be able to change 

existing facilities into new and innovative centers of 

learning. For example, district curriculum supervisors 

will be assigned to schools designated as professional 

development laboratory schools, providing targeted, 

on-site expertise for teachers and students, while at 

the same time easing space demands in the crowded 

administration building. 

When a new Miami-Dade school became available in 

2003, it was projected to be severely underenrolled. At 

the same time it had a potentially attractive location 

just west of the downtown business corridor. The district gave the school an international education theme, 

attractive to many families in this cosmopolitan community, and eliminated attendance boundaries. Parents 

drop students off on their way to work, and students 

from outside the district are also welcome to attend 

Miami-Dade’s first “commuter school.”

ESTABLISH NEW OUTREACH ROLES

The earlier sections on helping parents make informed 

decisions emphasized the importance of the personal 

element in outreach efforts. The local school is important in the communication process because parents 

often trust most their children’s teachers, the staff they 

know personally. In addition, districts found it helpful 

to establish new roles or even new units that focused 

specifically on outreach.

The Cambridge district’s Family Resource Center is the 

hub of all district communication with parents. In addition to providing school-related outreach and assistance, 

the center helps families with a range of social services 

(see figure 13). In Mesa, where students speak 59 different languages, district liaisons visit new families in their 

homes to help them transition into the school system. 

Milwaukee has three parent resource centers, two 

funded from the district’s Title I allocation and one 

from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

(IDEA) allocation. Staff in these Title I parent centers 

help parents resolve complaints and concerns, linking 

them to appropriate district departments or to the 

school principals, as needed. The parent centers are also 

a resource for parents seeking school-choice or tutoring information. Last summer the centers mobilized to 

call, meet with, and advise all parents who mailed in 

inappropriate choice requests. 

Miami-Dade recently transformed its six regional offices from administrative operational offices to public 

access centers. Each center has an advocacy director, 

whose job is to be responsive to student needs and act 
23

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

as an information clearinghouse. The regional offices 

also serve as a resource on school choice and transfers. 

The parent notification letters for NCLB choice direct 

parents to contact the public access centers.

Desert Sands locates its outreach role at individual 

school sites. Other districts also have school staff with 

responsibility for outreach, as will be discussed later.

INCREASE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT

Districts in this study have formalized ways for parents 

to be actively involved in community planning and 

direction-setting.

Desert Sands involves stakeholders in district planning 

through surveys and by inviting them to serve on two 

types of committees. The district’s strategic planning 

committee draws about a third of its 35 members from 

the local business community. Schools’ education specifications committees are responsible for developing 

programs and writing curricula. One such committee is 

already planning for the new pre-medical/pre-law high 

school the district will open in 2006. It was information gathered in a parent survey along with community dialogue, for example, that revealed interest in this 

specialized program. 

For 20 years, the Miami-Dade school-board-sanctioned 

Schools of Choice Advisory Committee has supported 

the district. The committee plays a key role in promoting 

greater understanding of the district’s goals for magnet 

FIGURE 13. Cambridge Family Resource Center

The Family Resource Center in Cambridge, Mass., is the hub of district communication with families. With a 

districtwide choice program, the center helps parents choose schools and make NCLB transfers. In addition, 

principals refer families to the center if they need housing assistance or help accessing social programs. Center 

staff take a holistic view of district families and assess their needs accordingly.

Everyone who registers for school comes through the doors of the resource center. Originally, it was simply a 

registration center, where students were assigned schools, but its mandate has grown. It serves at least 700 

new families per year and provides information and support for those already enrolled. It facilitates all transfers, 

and staff counsel parents regarding their choice options. Center staff encourage parents to visit schools and 

provide them with printed guidelines to help them evaluate their school visits. Also, a brochure explaining NCLB 

is available at the center. To increase the number of parents who take advantage of the center, its director goes 

into the community and makes presentations. Targeting kindergarten admissions, the director visits Head Start 

programs and other day-care facilities, providing details about the different programs at different schools and 

informing parents about the choices available to them.

Source: Interviews with district staff.
24

programs and schools, encourages community involvement, analyzes special program needs, ensures equity 

and quality of education for all sectors of the diverse 

Miami-Dade community, and makes recommendations 

for program expansion to the superintendent. Recently, 

the committee’s mandate was revised to incorporate a 

broader definition of “choice,” one that includes charter 

schools and other initiatives. 

Members of the advisory committee include representatives of the school board, the PTA, choice school 

principals, satellite learning center representatives, 

exceptional student education representatives, the 

teachers’ union, colleges and universities, and a group 

that addresses biracial and tri-ethnic issues.

The advisory committee usually meets monthly and 

discusses a range of topics concerning choice in Miami-Dade, such as how the district is sharing best practices, the status of upcoming magnet fairs, and how 

to increase representation of Hispanic students in the 

magnet program.

SUMMARY FOR Build District Infrastructure

First Steps Going Deeper

ü Assign and coordinate responsibilities.

ü Determine space and transportation options. 

ü Build information-processing capacity.

ü Expand space and transportation options.

ü Start new schools and programs.

ü Establish new outreach roles.

ü Increase community involvement.
25

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Because schools are critical to effective communication 

with parents, districts want to be sure that school staff 

can represent NCLB clearly. To parents, the face of the 

education system is the teacher or principal they know. 

New immigrant parents, who constitute an important 

part of the parent group that NCLB choice needs to 

reach, may have very little knowledge of the school district and understand only their child’s school building 

and the people they see there. Even with the kinds of 

district outreach roles described earlier, the school is an 

essential communication link. 

First Steps

COMMUNICATE TO SCHOOLS ABOUT CHOICE

To assist with NCLB communication, schools first need to 

know about NCLB and their and the district’s role in it. 

Many districts implemented communication plans to inform principals and faculty about their roles and responsibilities under the NCLB act. One district held a full-day, inservice meeting with the principals to explain the law, how 

their schools were affected, issues they should focus on in 

formulating required site improvement plans, and talking 

points they should use to communicate with others. 

Milwaukee makes sure teachers are educated about 

school choice. Communication paths lead to schools 

and to teachers directly. Teachers learn about NCLB in 

a variety of ways:

›› Through the principal. The primary vehicle for 

communication from the district office to the 

schools is a weekly administrators’ bulletin. The 

district also communicates with principals during 

monthly meetings. 

›› Through literacy coaches. In each school, these 

school staff members lead the school’s learning 

teams. District administrators communicate with 

the literacy coaches during their twice-a-month 

training at the district level. The literacy coaches 

are able to supplement the NCLB information provided by principals. 

›› Through meetings. Communication about NCLB 

is included in teacher meetings. 

›› Through workgroups. Teachers are members of 

workgroups that address specific reform issues 

requiring focused attention. Workgroup topics 

have included attracting highly qualified teachers, 

report cards, school transfers, parental involvement, and school safety. Workgroups meet periodically to discuss best practices, to understand 

Support Schools 

While choice is administered as a district program, parents experience it at the school level. Districts create the conditions so that all schools can meet standards and so that all students attend good schools 

that work for them. In any choice program, it is important to focus on what schools need to know and do. 

Under NCLB, this means two things: bringing schools into the communication loop and helping schools 

respond to accountability demands. 
26

how to follow state and federal laws, and to address compliance issues. 

PREPARE SCHOOLS TO COMMUNICATE WITH PARENTS

Many of the districts prepare sample letters for the 

schools to send to parents, both about their school improvement efforts and about choice options.

In Milwaukee, each school on the “schools identified 

for improvement” list handled itself differently. The district worked with the schools to help them reach out to 

parents and include parents in the reform process. Improvement schools were notified two days before they 

were identified in a state press release, and in some of 

these schools teachers organized a telephone chain to 

notify parents about the designation before they read 

it in the newspaper. 

A particularly difficult issue is helping schools provide 

balanced information to parents, as discussed earlier. 

Of course, school staff want to communicate to parents about the positive steps they are taking to make 

the school better, and they should do so. That’s an important part of the school improvement process that 

NCLB is promoting. At the same time, parents may naturally turn to the familiar school site for information 

about their options to transfer, and schools need to 

be evenhanded in providing this information. Districts 

should equip schools with clear and specific information and encourage them to help parents understand 

their choice options. 

In Mesa, school staff understand that choosing a 

school is an emotional as well as an academic decision. 

As part of their ongoing choice program, principals and 

teachers are trained to help parents decide which program would be right for a child. For example, they are 

knowledgeable about which schools provide the most 

structure, and they can describe schools that feature

programs that allow students to spend two years with 

the same teacher. 

Going Deeper

MAKE ALL SCHOOLS “SCHOOLS OF CHOICE”

The superintendent of a mainstream school district 

once commented that each of his schools needed to 

be a “school of choice”—a school that parents wanted 

their child to attend. Rather than bemoan competition 

or hold parents at arms length with “professional expertise,” he saw the value of proactive communication 

from each school about its strengths and distinctive 

programs. The reporting requirements of NCLB further 

encourage communicating this kind of comprehensive 

and meaningful information.

The districts in this study have developed an array of options, including alternative schools, magnet schools, and 

charter schools. Miami-Dade, for example, has 31 charter 

schools and 71 different magnet programs or schools, 

which have special emphases in careers and professions, 

communications and humanities, international education, math/science/technology, visual and performing 

arts, and Montessori methods. The district makes these 

choices available within each of six transportation zones.

Earlier sections of this guide provide additional examples and suggestions about expanding school choices.

SUPPORT RECEIVING SCHOOLS

Schools that take in students transferred under NCLB 

may need support to deal with associated responsibilities. Often, the students they receive, especially 
27

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

students from high-poverty environments, need extra 

help that their new schools will have to provide. Receiving schools worry that their own test scores, high 

enough to meet AYP, will be brought down by lowerperforming students. Both moral support and strategic 

assistance from the district are called for.

Desert Sands, with its magnet program, provides an example of how to support schools that take on a new 

student base. Principals in high-achieving schools, the 

Voluntary Public School Choice schools, felt threatened 

by school choice because they received students who 

they thought would bring test scores down. When the 

students arrived, attitudes changed. Principals saw 

educating these new students as a challenge, and they 

hired tutors. The schools’ test scores did not decrease 

but have actually increased over the last four years. 

The full-time site coordinators in Desert Sands magnet 

schools are key to their progress. Site coordinators, who 

are often teachers who have switched into the role, 

follow up with transfer students at regular intervals 

to make sure they are transitioning smoothly and adjusting to their new schools. Site coordinators are also 

responsible for related budgeting and administration, 

and for peer coaching. Some report feeling underprepared for such a range of roles, even though the district 

provides training and professional development.

HELP SCHOOLS MARKET THEIR PROGRAMS TO PARENTS

For many school administrators, marketing their programs to parents is a new challenge. This is another 

area where the district can provide assistance.

The Cambridge district’s Schools at a Glance publication, 

a slick 20-page brochure that can also be found on the 

district Web site [http://www.cpsd.us/], has a feature 

on each school and also clearly outlines registration requirements and choice options, along with district policies for transportation and food services. 

Recent school consolidation in Cambridge has delayed plans to hire a marketing professional to work 

with underchosen schools, but in at least one instance,

parents themselves have become active in marketing 

the school. When the school made program changes, 

some parents were upset and left the school, but others remained involved and helpful. In 2002, parent 

volunteers created a brochure to attract prospective 

students. Also, a school psychologist and a third-grade 

teacher started an international parent group. And a 

parent liaison meets with prospective parents to provide tours of the school and introduce parents to the 

principal. Parents have also created a school Web site to 

promote the school’s vision and activities.

Desert Sands has also worked on marketing. In 1996, 

when the district first considered magnet schools, some 

teachers and principals were concerned about how 

competition might affect schools in low-income areas. 

The first magnet school was not built in a low-income 

neighborhood, but marketing for the school targeted 

high-achieving, low-income students. The principal of 

a primarily low-income school worried that the loss of 

these high-achieving children would ruin his school. In 

response, the district, including the marketing team, 

worked with his school to create a program that increased its attractiveness to affluent, high-achieving 

students. According to a district representative, competition has been good, raising the bar for everyone—including the district administration. 
28

SUMMARY FOR Support Schools

First Steps Going Deeper

ü Communicate to schools about choice.

ü Prepare schools to communicate with parents.

ü Make all schools “schools of choice.”

ü Support receiving schools.

ü Help schools market their programs to parents.
29

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Districts with strong choice programs have invariably worked hard over time to perfect them. Several of 

the districts in this study began to implement choice decades ago. An earlier study of districts that won 

a national award for model professional development found the same thing—the districts took years to 

move from early versions of choice to more evolved and comprehensive ones.20

Improve Programs 

Over Time

Time alone is not enough, of course. Nor does change 

necessarily follow a steady developmental course. 

Buffeted by changing policies and pressures, modern 

school districts may find themselves changing simply 

to be responsive and to do something (Frederick Hess’s 

“policy churn”21

). They don’t have the luxury of constancy; but neither do they improve in steady and deliberate ways.

Progress is possible, however. A strong sense of purpose and vision, and stakeholder involvement in a wellmanaged change process, can pay off in improvement 

over time, not only for schools but also for programs 

and districts as a whole. A key is looking at data to 

gauge progress and guide successive steps.

First Steps

TRACK PARENT CHOICES AND SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS

In the area of choice programs, the data that matter 

most have to do with parental preferences, the choices 

they make, and the reasons for those choices. The innovative choice sites use quantitative data (i.e., parent 

requests for transfer, student persistence, teacher turnover, student achievement data, and student demographics) in order to make decisions about their school 

choice programs. They typically have in place, or are 

planning for, a secure centralized database system that 

houses individual student records so that district and 

school administrators, along with community advisory 

committees, can make informed decisions. 

The Cambridge Public School District has a process to 

identify the most- and least-chosen schools. The district 

then works with principals of underenrolled schools to 

create recruitment plans. The district also intends to 

implement a database system to disaggregate student 

achievement data, within and across schools. Better 

data will support better decision-making and help the 

district address achievement gaps. The database system 

will be essential for teachers who are measuring their 

students’ achievement more frequently.

As noted earlier, an integrated student database affords Miami-Dade the opportunity to closely track its 

students and ascertain patterns and trends in student 
30

movement from the district to local charter schools. All 

charter schools in Miami-Dade are linked to the district’s mainframe computer system, so they are able to 

simply register the students rather than transfer them. 

When a student is registered at a charter school, he or 

she is immediately dropped from the roll of the traditional school. This key registration data informs the 

district’s authorizing and program-creation decisions.

With data about districtwide student movement in 

Miami-Dade, the school choice advisory committee 

is able to create transportation zones that reduce 

district costs of transporting students from one school 

to another and also reduce the time students spend 

commuting.

SURVEY PARENTS ABOUT SATISFACTION AND REASONS 

FOR CHOICES

To get a fuller understanding of choice patterns, districts go beyond analysis of the numbers and ask parents and students questions: How satisfied are they? 

What features do they value? What do they think about 

their school’s programs and services?

Miami-Dade surveyed charter school parents informally about why they left the traditional schools. Parents 

listed the following factors as influencing their decision: Reduced class size, small schools, a safe learning 

environment, and convenience. With “I Choose!” and 

other initiatives, the district is trying to reproduce these 

qualities in new programs and schools.

Local surveys are important to understanding the 

knowledge and preferences of local parents. When a 

district conducts surveys regularly, the surveys can also 

contribute to a better general understanding of parents as choosers, how they access information, and the 

priorities they weigh in making decisions. Two recent 

studies of parents as choosers22

 both conclude that 

low-income parents look first and foremost for a solid 

academic program, just as do more advantaged parents, but they have less information on which to base 

their decisions.

According to Miami-Dade survey results, parents leave 

a school for two reasons: they are attracted to another 

school, or they are unhappy with their current school. 

The district believes that it is a mistake to concentrate 

solely on providing wonderful options that attract students without focusing on the root causes of attrition 

in schools that are losing students. The Miami-Dade 

district takes a hard look when a school has a high 

attrition rate.

Desert Sands and Mesa routinely survey parents, students, and staff. Desert Sands, for example, annually distributes a parent survey, a student survey, and a 

teacher survey. The district gathers the answers and an 

outside evaluator analyzes the results. The survey does 

not have any open-ended questions, but respondents 

have taken to adding comments in the margins. Both 

districts report increased parent satisfaction as a result 

of choice. Parents and students especially value and 

take pride in distinctive schools that they have chosen, 

such as the Benjamin Franklin schools in Mesa.

In Mesa, during the spring of each year, the district 

sends a parent survey home with every student and 

collects survey information from selected fifth-graders 

and secondary school students (see figure 14). Mesa also 

administers an annual employee quality service survey. 

The district tracks the data for five years and shares the 

results with members of the public who are interested. 
31

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

FIGURE 14. Sample Mesa School Survey Report

Mesa Public Schools Quality Service Survey

Parents

1. I feel welcome at my child’s school.

2. This school is preparing my child for the future.

3. The staff has my child’s best interests at heart.

4. The school staff treats my child with respect.

5. This school provides a positive learning environment.

6. The staff listens to the issues or concerns I raise.

7. The school encourages my child to learn.

8. Please grade the overall quality of your child’s school:

5th Grade Students

1. I’m proud of my school.

2. My teachers care about me.

3. My principal cares about me.

4. Office staff is helpful.

5. I’m getting a good education at this school.

6. In general, what kind of grade would you give your school?

Parents

Overall Grade

A B C D F

Spring 2003 91% 9 1 – –

Spring 2002 85 15 – – –

Spring 2001 90 9 – 0 –

Spring 2000 87 13 – – –

Spring 1999 – – – – –

5th Grade Students

Overall Grade

A B C D F

Spring 2003 72% 24 4 – –

Spring 2002 47 33 14 3 3

Spring 2001 51 31 10 3 5

Spring 2000 50 40 3 8 –

Spring 1999 – – – – –

Quality Service Ratings 2003

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

Not 

Observed

Valid # of 

Responses

90% 9 1 – – – 172

85 14 1 – – – 173

82 16 3 – – – 174

78 21 1 – – – 173

83 14 2 – – – 169

74 20 4 – – 2 163

89 9 2 – – – 173

A B C D F

91% 9 1 – – 173

Strongly 

Agree

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly 

Disagree

Valid # of 

Responses

52% 36 10 – 2 42

80 15 – – 4 46

76 20 2 – 2 46

67 15 7 – 11 46

89 7 2 2 – 46

A B C D F

72% 24 4 – – 46

5 Year Historical Report (1999–2003)

Research & Evaluation June 19, 2003

# Returned vs. Enrollment Sum of 

A’s & B’s 50% 70% 90%

99%

100%

100%

100%

–

Sum of 

A’s & B’s 50% 70% 90%

96%

81%

82%

90%

–

Composite 50% 70% 90%

98%

94%

95%

97%

–

0

250

500

750

1000

99 00 01 02 03

0

161 226 216 174
32

The Mesa survey asks parents to give the school an 

overall grade, reflecting their satisfaction with their 

child’s achievement. It also asks parents whether they 

feel welcome at the school, how well the school is preparing their child for the future, whether the staff has 

the best interest of their child at heart, whether the 

staff treats their child with respect, whether the school 

provides a positive learning environment, whether the 

staff listens to concerns, and whether the school encourages their child to learn. 

The Mesa students who are surveyed also give their 

school an overall grade and report whether they are 

proud of their school, whether their teachers care 

about them, whether their principal and office staff are 

helpful, and whether they think they are receiving a 

good education. 

Going Deeper

LEARN FROM RESULTS

Besides looking at enrollment and satisfaction data, 

districts need to look at student achievement results. 

Programs may be popular for a variety of reasons, 

as suggested above, but do they produce the learning gains that are also required? New programs and 

individual school improvement plans aim to improve 

results. Do they? What lessons can districts learn and 

apply to new challenges?

Desert Sands, for example, uses an automated student information system to measure increases or 

decreases in student scores as students move from 

one school to the next. Connected by a student ID 

number, each student’s records include all their test 

scores. The school board examines the scores for 

each magnet program and isolates scores of various 

groups. It compares how students were performing 

before entering a program with their performance 

after entering the program. Desert Sands has determined that test scores in receiving schools increased 

over the past four years, even though there had been 

concern that they would decrease. 

Desert Sands also benchmarks against other districts. 

When they want to improve a process, they find out 

which other districts have promising practices and 

learn from them. Needing more efficient transportation 

routes and procedures for students, they benchmarked 

against other districts and found some especially helpful ideas in Hillsborough, Fla., as described earlier.

The numerous magnet schools in the Miami-Dade district 

are dependent on grant funding as well as on funding 

from the district. When outside grants expire, the district 

examines a magnet’s performance in promoting student 

achievement and attracting enrollment and decides annually whether to continue supporting the school.

FOLLOW A STRATEGIC PLAN

Desert Sands echoes the approach of each of these districts when it cites the importance of a coherent overall 

plan. The district does not develop any school in isolation; every school is part of a complete K-12 strategy. 

All of the district grants have targeted kindergarten 

through grade 12, not a specific level of student. The 

district does not create a primary years program unless it has a way to support the students through the 

middle and high school years. It never creates a high 

school program before planning to prepare students to 

feed into it.
33

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Mesa emphasizes that a comprehensive approach 

must address not just choice programs but a broader 

range of issues. Mesa has developed plans, procedures, 

guidelines, and steps for practically every situation and 

considers parent input essential across the board. For 

example, the district systematically collects feedback 

from parents and other stakeholders through small focus groups and curriculum review committees. Crossfunctional groups come together when needed and 

disband when their missions are accomplished. The 

district studies data, listens to parents and others, and 

then acts to meet the needs of its diverse population. 

Using this approach, Mesa has engaged stakeholders in 

implementing character education and developing the 

district’s mission statement. 

In Miami-Dade, the district’s current strategic plan will 

expire at the end of 2004, and a revised version of it 

will be implemented in 2005. The district is currently 

conducting community meetings to collect input from 

key stakeholders on the new plan. Increasing school 

choice by building capacity and creating additional options is specifically part of the plan.

SUMMARY FOR Improve Programs Over Time

First Steps Going Deeper

ü Track parent choices and school enrollments.

ü Survey parents about satisfaction and reasons for choices.

ü Learn from results.

ü Follow a strategic plan.
34
35

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Key Success Factors

Amid all the details of implementing choice programs, what are the big ideas, the lessons that the five 

study districts have learned about what is especially important? Each district was asked about key success factors. Clustering their responses, four themes emerge.

Competent Leaders and Staff

Those we interviewed were quick to point out that 

district success cannot be achieved without dedicated 

district staff who have time to focus on implementing 

school choice. Key staff characteristics were cited at all 

levels of district organizations:

›› a superintendent with “businesslike energy and efficiency,” who is “on a mission to close the achievement gap,”

›› a “stable and supportive” school board,

›› “motivated and involved” principals who are “passionate” about the school program,

›› “highly qualified and committed” site coordinators, and

›› “top-notch” teachers.

These responses reflect the inclusive team approach 

that districts took. No one group can manage choice 

without the others. These districts were clear that everyone needs to be on board, and in addition to organizing district teams at different levels, they put in place 

“strong, effective communication among groups.” 

True Partnership with Parents and 

the Community

“Seek parent involvement from the beginning,” urged 

one administrator. These districts have learned to bring 

parents into the process at both the school and district levels, as outlined in previous sections. They view 

parents as both clients and partners. They have started 

to “listen more.” They also see benefits in “laying out 

all the facts and being open and honest.” In response, 

they find parents stepping up to become champions for 

school and district programs, and ambassadors representing them to others.

Accountability and Competition as 

Positive Factors

While coping with many challenges, these districts also 

assert the benefits of strong accountability measures 

and competition. “Competition encourages strength,” 

in the view of one administrator. It makes parents “proactive in finding solutions for children,” said another. 

Similarly, districts report that accountability is “crucial.” 

It brings increased attention to helping schools succeed, 

and it causes them to “transition through the steps of 

change quickly.” Districts in this study do not shy away 

from competition and accountability. They take hold of 

these forces and use them to drive improvements.
36

A Strong Strategy

No one factor is sufficient. Districts need a complete 

strategy that invites schools in at every stage and every 

level. Different forms of choice need to be part of a 

coordinated strategy. Resource allocation needs to follow district priorities. Strong infrastructure and proactive communication are necessary. “Every classroom 

must become a quality classroom.” Change takes time. 

These districts are attentive to the change process. They 

support and “stand beside” their schools, while schools 

and the district alike keep at the hard work of becoming 

increasingly focused and effective organizations.
37

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Acknowledgments

The development of this guide was initiated and directed by Nina 

S. Rees, deputy under secretary of the Office of Innovation and Improvement at the U.S. Department of Education. Sharon Horn was 

the project manager. 

An external advisory panel provided feedback to refine the study 

scope and prioritize issues to investigate. Members included Michael 

Bell, assistant superintendent, School Choice and Parental Options, 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools; Jane Hannaway, director, Education Policy Center, The Urban Institute; Bryan Hassell, co-director, 

Public Impact; Frederick M. Hess, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute and executive editor, Education Next.

In addition to the advisory panel members, the following people 

reviewed and provided feedback on drafts of the guide: Judy Seltz, 

American Association of School Administrators; Monique Miller 

and Deborah McGriff, Black Alliance for Educational Options; Linda 

Brown, Building Excellent Schools; Checker Finn, Fordham Foundation; Vicki Murray, Goldwater Institute; Adam Kernan-Schloss, 

KSA-Plus Communications; Scott Spicer, National Governors Association; and Lance Izumi, Pacific Research Institute.

Staff in the Department who reviewed drafts include: Tom Corwin, 

Michael Petrilli, Cynthia Dorfman, Stacy Kotzin, Meredith Miller, Christine Wolfe, Phil Rosenfelt, Kathleen Leos, John Gibbons, Jeff Sims, Carolyn Adams, Jacquelyn Zimmermann, and Margaret West Guenther. 

This guide was written and designed by WestEd from a report developed by Edvance.

WestEd is a nonprofit research, development, and service agency 

committed to improving learning at all stages of life, both in school 

and out. WestEd has offices across the United States and also serves 

as one of the nation’s 10 regional educational laboratories.

Edvance, a nonprofit organization created by the American Productivity and Quality Center, is a resource for process and performance 

improvement with a focus on benchmarking, knowledge management, performance measurement, and quality improvement initiatives in education.

The five districts cooperating in the development of this guide 

and the report from which it is drawn were generous with both 

their time and attention to this project. We would like to thank 

the district superintendents and the many district staff members 

who were instrumental in coordinating and participating in the site 

visits that inform the report and this guide. 

Cambridge Public 

School District

159 Thorndike Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

http://www.cpsd.us/

Thomas Fowler-Finn

Superintendent 

Lenore Prueser

Director, Family Resource Center

Desert Sands Unified 

School District

47-950 Dune Palms Road

La Quinta, CA 92253

http://www.dsusd.k12.ca.us/

Doris Wilson

Superintendent 

Darlene Dolan

Assistant Superintendent,

Educational Services

Mesa Public Schools

61 East Main Street #101

Mesa, AZ 85201

http://www.mpsaz.org/

Debra Duval

Superintendent 

Joe O’Reilly

Director of Testing and 

Special Projects

Miami-Dade County 

Public Schools

School Choice and 

Parental Options

1500 Biscayne Boulevard, 

Suite 237

Miami, FL 33132

http://www.dadeschools.net/

Merrett R. Stierheim

Superintendent 

Michael Bell

Director, School Choice and 

Parental Options

Milwaukee Public Schools

5225 W. Vliet Street

Milwaukee, WI 53208

http://www.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/

William G. Andrekopoulos

Superintendent 

Ada Rivera

Chief of Pupil Services

WestEd

730 Harrison Street

San Francisco, CA 94107

http://www.wested.org

Glen Harvey

Chief Executive Officer

Nikola Filby

Associate Director, 

Regional Laboratory Program

Edvance

123 Post Oak Lane, Floor 3

Houston, TX 77024

http://www.edvance.org/

C. Jackson Grayson Jr.

Chief Executive Officer 

Kristin Arnold

Project Director
38
39

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Appendix A: 

District Profiles

 Cambridge Public School District 41

 Desert Sands Unified School District 43

Mesa Public Schools 45

 Miami-Dade County Public Schools 47

Milwaukee Public Schools 49 
40
41

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Cambridge Public School District

D I S T R I C T D E M O G R A P H I C S

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

6,750 Down 13 Mid-size central 

city

48% 10% 23%

data from the district. The purpose of the study was 

to determine:

›› the effectiveness of the strategies used to recruit 

students to various schools, 

›› which schools were overchosen and which were 

underchosen, and 

›› why a school was consistently underchosen.

The team recommended that the district try to eliminate high concentrations of poverty in specific schools 

through changes in the controlled choice plan. Beginning with the 2002–03 school year, Cambridge enhanced its strategies to recruit students to schools, 

implemented improvement processes for the schools 

that were not meeting student achievement goals or 

drawing diverse student populations, and instituted 

socioeconomic status as a factor in assigning students 

to schools.

The district is working to improve its communication 

with parents about optimal school placements. For example, the district is increasing the role of its Family 

Resource Center, which, in addition to referring families 

to a wide range of social services, helps with school registration, logistics, counseling, after-school placements, 

and transition programs for students needing extra academic support. 

The district also sponsors an annual kindergarten tour, 

encouraging parents of prospective kindergartners to 

In Massachusetts, certainly, and in much of the country, if 

you say “Cambridge,” the automatic association is “Harvard.” For some, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Radcliffe will also come to mind. This image 

of ivy walls, privilege, and academic achievement does 

not carry over to the city’s one high school and 12 K–8 

schools, however. Instead, the Cambridge Public School 

District serves a bifurcated student population, half affluent and half impoverished. While many students have 

family ties to the academic core of the community or live 

in private homes with an average value of over a million 

dollars, many others qualify for subsidized meals, live in 

public housing projects, or are homeless.

Although district administrators concede that the local 

housing pattern has largely eliminated the middle 

class, diversity has been actively sought in Cambridge 

schools since 1980, when the district voluntarily instituted school choice. Currently, the district’s struggle is 

to maximize options that encourage students to stay in 

the district and to excel. Cambridge faces fierce competition for its students from private schools, a growing 

number of independent charter schools, and Catholic 

high schools. 

A controlled choice plan was implemented in 1980 to 

create racial diversity in all of the district’s schools. The 

plan worked to an extent, but all children were not receiving the same educational experience. Therefore, the 

district reviewed the plan in 2000 by asking a crossfunctional team that included the superintendent to 

examine education research, relevant case law, and 
42

visit any number of schools, observe, ask questions, 

and consider the benefits of different placements for 

their children. To increase the number of low-income 

parents who take advantage of the tour, the district 

now sends the director of the Family Resource Center 

to local Head Start facilities to inform parents about 

their school choice options and to recruit them for the 

kindergarten tour.

The district’s “junior kindergarten” pilot program at two 

schools, designed in collaboration with the Harvard 

Graduate School of Education, is another initiative to 

increase the number of low-income students attending high-achieving and predominantly high-income 

schools. The purpose of the program is to give an academic boost to children who might otherwise enter 

kindergarten unprepared for elementary school work; 

low-income parents may enroll their four- and fiveyear-olds no matter where in the district they reside. 

The only stipulation is that parents keep their children 

at the school for their subsequent year of regular kindergarten. The hope, of course, is that these children 

will feel comfortable, competent, and welcome at the 

school and will stay on through the elementary grades.

In parallel with efforts to motivate the enrollment of 

low-income students more evenly across the district, 

Cambridge is working to improve the appeal of its 

underselected, low-income schools, hoping to attract 

high-income students to choose them and further 

contribute to income diversification across the district. 

One of the district schools avoided by upper-income 

parents is the Tobin School, which, with a population 

three times the district average, has also failed to meet 

AYP standards. Tobin has established a volunteer relationship with MIT and Harvard, has a strong parentmentor group in technology and science fields, and has 

won a grant to create a science and technology magnet 

program at the school. The principal reports that although affluent parents are not yet choosing Tobin, the 

emphasis on science has made Tobin a better school, 

and students’ achievement scores have improved.

Cambridge has identified its particular challenges and 

is now moving forward with increased focus, new programs, and districtwide goals to leave no child behind.
43

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Desert Sands Unified School District 

D I S T R I C T D E M O G R A P H I C S

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

25,714 Up 27 Collection of small 

cities/towns

58% 27% 9%

The Desert Sands district, on the outskirts of the resort 

city of Palm Springs, Calif., has been growing at a rate 

of 4 percent a year for the last 10 years. The district 

currently has 10 new schools on the drawing boards. 

In considering whether to make these neighborhood 

schools or magnet schools, the school board listened to 

stakeholders and evaluated its recent experience developing school choice options. 

Of the district’s 27 current schools, eight are magnets 

and one is a district charter school of long standing. 

The magnet schools were developed to address disparities in student achievement between schools located 

in the district’s mostly Hispanic and low-income town 

of Indio and schools located in the district’s five other, 

mostly white and more affluent towns. Desert Sands 

draws its students from migrant camps as well as from 

middle-class towns and wealthy enclaves surrounded 

by private country clubs.

In 2000, the district decided to create a K–12 International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO) program for its 

first set of magnet schools (an elementary, a middle, and 

a high school). It located the schools in the geographic 

and socioeconomic center of the district and marketed 

them to high-achieving students in Indio. The result has 

been that these magnet schools are the district’s most 

economically and culturally diverse, as well as its highest achieving.

The decision to draw the highest-achieving students 

out of the Indio schools did not go unnoticed there. 

Principals felt vulnerable that they would be losing 

their best students. The district is now creating a second set of K–12 magnet schools, this time in Indio. 

When surveys of parents and the community indicated 

a growing need for medical and legal professionals, the 

district decided to feature pre-medical and pre-law 

curricula at the new schools. The district hopes this 

focus will attract affluent students as well as boost opportunities for Indio residents. 

In 2001, the district secured a Voluntary Public School 

Choice program grant to create five magnet schools 

with an environmental science, mathematics, and 

technology focus. This program has been very popular 

at the district’s charter school, and the community is 

fortunate to have the participation of scientists from 

the nearby Living Desert park and the Joshua Tree National Monument in designing the magnet schools’ 

curricula. These high-achieving schools are located 

in the district’s affluent Palm Desert community. The 

district markets them in Indio, again to provide school 

choice options to students whose current schools are 

low-achieving.

Principals at the receiving schools were initially concerned that the low-income transferring students, including students making NCLB transfers, would bring 

down the schools’ test scores. But this has not happened. In fact, scores at the schools have increased. 

At each of the magnet schools a site coordinator 

meets new parents as soon as their children enroll and 
44

regularly thereafter. The coordinator follows each child’s 

progress, and if a student needs a tutor, the coordinator 

provides one. The role of the site coordinators, and their 

individual efforts to see each student as an opportunity, has been crucial to turning attitudes around at 

the receiving schools. As the assistant superintendent 

explains, “We do not want students to go back to their 

old schools because they do not feel connected or because the parents do not know anyone.” 

The district credits communication among the magnet schools as another critical factor in their success. 

Site coordinators meet monthly with the magnet grant 

administrator to share experiences and seek input for 

ongoing problems. During each meeting, the group reviews the goals of the magnet project to be sure they 

are being met and identifies additional resources that 

may be needed.

Desert Sands is proud of its choice program and markets 

it heavily, especially to English learners and low-income 

students. A marketing team creates radio spots, movie

theater ads, and television commercials in Spanish and 

English and goes to malls in Indio during the enrollment period to meet prospective students. The district 

makes a big effort to enroll kindergarten students in its 

choice program and created a refrigerator magnet for 

Head Start parents that has a “to do” list that includes 

“learn more about voluntary school choice,” “review the 

magnet school program,” and “enroll my child in public 

kindergarten.”

The district is intent on continuing to develop its 

choice program, as well as its neighborhood schools. 

The district feels optimistic that it has accomplished 

the hard work of winning employees and stakeholders 

over to the benefits of choice, and it plans to create 

magnet programs at each of its new schools. These will 

accept neighborhood students first, reserve seats for 

1 percent of the students in the other attendance areas, and fill any remaining seats by lottery. In Desert 

Sands, the goal is to create a range of schools that 

parents will want their children to attend.
45

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Mesa Public Schools

D I S T R I C T D E M O G R A P H I C S

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

74,366 Down 89 Urban fringe/

suburban

40% 7% 8%

Parents in Mesa, located in the Greater Phoenix area 

of Arizona, experience many forms of choice in a state 

that was rated first of 50 on the Manhattan Institute for 

Policy Reseach 2001 Education Freedom Index. With a 

strong charter school law enacted in 1994, Arizona had 

492 charter schools by fall 2003, sponsored by either 

the state or a local school district. Low-income students 

may apply for privately funded scholarships supported 

by the state’s education tax credit. Both intradistrict 

and interdistrict open enrollment are mandatory.

In this environment, Mesa Public Schools actively seeks 

input from its stakeholders and pays close attention 

to what it learns. The open enrollment program allows 

parents to choose a variety of specialty, magnet, or 

alternative schools, with about 5 percent of students 

choosing schools outside their neighborhood. Specialized schools include the district’s alternative schools 

and the East Valley Academy, which draws on strong 

community partnerships to prepare students who plan 

to become health care workers, attend technical school 

or community college, or enter the military. 

Especially popular are the four Benjamin Franklin 

campuses that provide highly structured, traditional 

education. An initial Benjamin Franklin school, established in 1978 through the efforts of parents who 

wanted a more traditional program, drew such long 

waiting lines for registration that the district moved 

to set up three more campuses in other parts of the 

city. To compete with similar charter schools, the 

district added regular bus service to the Benjamin 

Franklin schools. Now, both parents and students at 

these schools give especially high satisfaction ratings 

on the annual district surveys.

More recently, an International Baccalaureate program 

was established at a high school with a decreasing population, to better support student learning and to draw 

students from across the district to fill the campus.

These examples illustrate Mesa’s deliberate approach to 

planning. The district studies data, listens to parents, 

and acts to meet the needs of the diverse population. 

When 19 of the district’s 89 schools failed to meet AYP 

in 2002, the district stepped up its efforts to improve 

the programs in these schools, in keeping with NCLB 

requirements. District staff met with principals and 

provided resources, curriculum specialists developed 

improved instructional programs, and faculties developed action plans for individual students. The superintendent also hired an analyst to identify promising 

practices in successful schools that could be shared 

across the district. Only two schools failed to make AYP 

the following year.

The district also actively helped schools in need of improvement communicate with parents about NCLB and 

the choice options. A newsletter template in English 

and Spanish was provided to staff at all the schools, 

who then customized it with their own content. This 

newsletter explained the school’s status, improvement 

efforts, and parents’ option to transfer their child to a 

school that was already making AYP.
46

Achievement data are regularly used to guide district 

planning and the creation of school programs. Principals receive a “data book” and meet with research and 

evaluation staff during the summer to review their data. 

With NCLB, the district is conducting additional analyses to determine which students are achieving, and also 

sharing data more fully with teachers and helping them 

understand how to use data to guide instruction.

Parents are recognized as an important resource. At 

each school they are encouraged to become ambassadors to other parents and to act as advisers to the 

district. For example, Mesa’s universal homework standards are the result of parent activism.

Regular parent and student surveys make parent feedback a formal, quantitative element of the data book 

used to guide planning. During the spring of each year, 

the district sends a survey home with every student and 

collects survey information from selected fifth-graders 

and secondary school students. Five-year trend data on 

these measures show both areas of progress and areas 

for improvement.

According to these critical audiences, Mesa schools are 

on the right track. Since 1999, parent and student satisfaction with Mesa elementary schools has increased 

steadily, to a composite of 93 percent. Parents feel welcome and believe their children are respected and challenged. Students feel proud of their school, feel they 

are getting a good education, and believe that their 

teachers and principal care about them.
47

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Miami-Dade County Public Schools

D I S T R I C T D E M O G R A P H I C S

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

370,000 Down 340 Greater 

metropolitan area

62% 17% 11%

improving the appeal of their facilities, designing new 

school programs, and participating in professional development aligned with their program goals. Another 

option for parents comes from the state of Florida’s 

“Opportunity Scholarships Program,” which overlaps 

with NCLB accountability measures. The program 

allows children to transfer out of schools designated 

as failing, and it provides a voucher of about $4,000, 

which can be used at a private school. Florida also offers scholarships to its disabled students through the 

McKay program and tax credits for donations to private 

school choice programs. Currently 13,000 students in 

Florida participate in the tax-credit program.

Not surprisingly, the complexity of the district’s school 

choice program calls for an administrative division for 

school choice. In addition, Miami-Dade has created a 

cross-district “schools of choice” advisory committee to 

promote greater understanding of the district’s goals 

for magnets, analyze special program needs, make recommendations for program expansion, and encourage community engagement with the district’s choice 

program. It is the role of the advisory committee, for 

example, to make recommendations for increasing the 

participation of Hispanic students in the district magnet schools.

Until 2001, the district was still under court order to 

address racial segregation in its schools. An extensive 

transportation program was part of the remedy. The 

district’s new, voluntary desegregation plan has redeMiami is often referred to as the capital of Latin America, and its huge school district has long welcomed immigrants from the Caribbean and points south. Of the 

district’s 370,000 students, 58 percent have a Hispanic 

heritage. Students of Haitian background, whose home 

language is typically Creole, are a significant language 

minority. African American students make up 30 percent of the school population, and white students have 

dwindled to 10 percent.

It was a 1971 school desegregation order that first led 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools to institute school 

choice—in the form of magnet schools designed to 

compensate for the district’s highly segregated housing patterns. Today, Miami-Dade offers a wide array 

of school choice options, designed to increase student 

diversity, diminish concentrations of low-income students, and improve student achievement. 

Among the district’s school choice options are 71 magnet programs, 31 charter schools, 16 controlled choice 

schools, two satellite schools hosted by large employers 

on their sites, and a “commuter” school for the convenience of parents who work in downtown Miami and 

drop their children off nearby. A new program, funded 

by a Voluntary Public School Choice program grant, is 

the “I Choose!” initiative. Plans are to create as many as 

eight “choice zones” in which schools will be modeled 

on successful magnet and charter schools—designed to 

reverse declining enrollment in designated areas. Currently, nine “I Choose!” schools are in the process of 
48

fined diversity to better reflect Miami’s changing demographics. Students’ transportation options have also 

been redefined. Budget constraints have caused the 

district to reorganize into tighter transportation zones 

and to call on parents to take more responsibility for 

transporting children. 

The Miami-Dade area also has a rapidly increasing 

number of independent charter schools. Currently the 

district’s 31 charters enroll about 12,000 students. By 

2006, 103 charter schools will enroll 56,000 students. 

These schools average 300 to 500 students, in comparison with the district average of 1,100. Until recently, 

a state cap on the number of schools within a district 

made it possible for Miami-Dade to negotiate with 

charter applicants, so that new schools would be located in areas where district schools were most crowded. 

Now, without a cap, charter applicants are competing 

more directly with the district. 

Charter schools are attractive to parents, and the district is intent on reproducing the qualities that make 

charters so popular. In an informal survey of charter 

school parents, the district learned that parents left 

traditional schools in part because of the feeling of 

comfort and security offered by charter schools. The 

schools themselves were smaller, classes were smaller, 

the learning environment felt safe, and the schools selected were convenient. 

As Miami-Dade continues to roll out its “I Choose!” program and to develop its other school choice options, 

it will be paying close attention to better serving its 

constituents. District administrators believe that the 

Florida decision to encourage competition between 

charter schools and traditional schools is having its 

intended effect: to improve both types of schools. Parents, they say, are driving the interest in choice and 

accelerating the district’s responsiveness to the needs 

of its students.
49

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Milwaukee Public Schools

D I S T R I C T D E M O G R A P H I C S

Enrollment Enrollment Trend Number of Schools Population Type Subsidized Meals English Learners Special Needs

97,293 Down 223 Large central 

city

72% 8% 15%

As part of a court-ordered desegregation plan in 1977, 

Milwaukee Public Schools created well-endowed magnet schools and a voluntary exchange program with 

23 neighboring suburban districts. The initial result, 

however, was more-segregated, not less-segregated 

schools. White students left the district, and the suburban schools in the exchange program, which came 

to be known as Chapter 220, did not actively recruit 

Milwaukee’s African American students. 

Today, open enrollment is available to all Wisconsin 

students, and Chapter 220 districts have set enrollment goals to increase cross-district transfers. This 

school year, 6,410 Milwaukee students took advantage of open enrollment, and participation in Chapter 

220 open enrollment has been increasing over time. 

The district also offers 20 charter schools, with specialties ranging from music to Montessori to language 

immersion. There are also 10 charters authorized by 

other agencies. Perhaps the most significant form of 

choice might be the city’s voucher program. Instituted 

in 1990 as an alternative for low-income students, the 

program allows students with a family income of 1.5 

percent times the national poverty level to use vouchers to attend private schools. In 2003–04, more than 

13,000 Milwaukee voucher students enrolled in 107 

private schools—both sectarian and non-sectarian. 

Voucher use has increased to more than 13 percent of 

the school population and is approaching the statelegislated 15 percent cap. 

In the face of steadily declining enrollment and funding, Milwaukee is now moving to bolster its 163 neighborhood schools and to encourage parents to make 

the school “down the street” their primary school 

of choice. This effort, known as the Neighborhood 

Schools Initiative (NSI), is in its third year of implementation. To simultaneously fund this new effort and 

make needed budget cuts, the district took a long look 

at its $55 million annual transportation budget. Some 

of the savings from keeping more buses in the garage 

are being transferred to refurbishing neighborhood 

schools. In addition to upgrading physical plants, the 

district is trying to incorporate other feedback from 

parents about what they want in a neighborhood 

school. District priorities include creating more K–8 

configurations, adding specialty programs and beforeand after-school programs, and increasing neighborhood safety. Additionally, funds are being spent to 

make sure that if all the students in an attendance 

area choose their neighborhood school, the school will 

have enough classrooms to accommodate them. 

Parents learn about schools identified for improvement 

and students’ NCLB transfer options in a three-stage 

communication from the district. First, the superintendent sends a letter to all parents that describes the 

district’s efforts to improve achievement and what it 

means to be a school identified for improvement. Once 

improvement schools are determined, each of these 

schools customizes a district-initiated template letter to let parents know what the school is doing to 
50

improve. In schools where students have the right to request an NCLB transfer, another letter is sent to parents 

explaining the transfer process. The district gives NCLB 

transfers first priority, and staff in two parent centers 

work personally with parents on NCLB transfers.

The improvement work called for by NCLB and the new 

work of NSI are being supported by another comprehensive district initiative—a refocusing of its program 

of teacher professional development. The district now 

places a literacy coach in every school. These on-site 

coaches work with colleagues to build capacity that is 

tightly aligned with school and district learning targets. Not only does each school have on-site literacy 

expertise, but all members of a faculty are working 

toward common professional development goals. 

Teacher development is also enhanced by the district’s 

involvement in the Milwaukee Partnership Academy. 

This partnership with local colleges and universities, 

the Milwaukee Teacher Education Association, and area 

business groups has the goal of preparing teachers specifically for work in an urban environment.

The Milwaukee district has a long history of facing its 

challenges by working with parents to make school 

choice correlate with effective education. As it moves 

ahead, district personnel have outlined two overriding 

goals: Lay out all of the facts, and make every classroom a quality classroom.
51

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Appendix B: 

Research Methodology

The project methodology is an adaptation of the four-phase benchmarking process used by the American 

Productivity and Quality Center (APQC),* including case descriptions of individual districts and a cross-site 

analysis of key findings. While classic benchmarking looks for best or promising practices, using quantitative 

measures and comparisons among organizations, the practice of implementing district choice programs is too 

new to fully support this methodology. A brief description of this project’s adapted methodology follows.

* American Productivity and Quality Center. (2001). Benchmarking 

in education: Pure and simple. Houston, TX: Author.

Plan

First, a conceptual framework was developed from an 

analysis of research on school choice and organizational 

management as well as an examination of what districts 

need to do to meet the No Child Left Behind Act’s public 

school choice requirements. School choice experts, recruited to serve on an external advisory panel (see page 

37), provided feedback to refine this framework and prioritize issues to investigate. The resulting study scope 

guided all aspects of the study (see figure 15).

Site selection was a multistep process to ensure that 

the guide would feature an array of practices covering 

the elements of the framework and would represent 

a variety of geographic locations and contexts with 

which district administrators could identify. A list of 

23 potential public school choice sites was compiled 

through primary and secondary research conducted by 

Edvance, the education non-profit created by APQC, 

and by WestEd and the expert advisory panel. A screening template was developed to systematically analyze 

the weighted criteria for site selection identified by the 

advisors, including the presence of clearly articulated 

plans, communication strategies that had evolved over 

time, and local data that were used to guide improvements. The template was completed for the candidate 

districts based on public documents such as strategic 

plans, report cards, and district Web sites, supplemented with targeted phone interviews with district staff. 

The five districts that were selected had relatively high 

ratings on the template for preliminary evidence that 

promising practices were in place. No site was uniformly excellent, but each had developed practices in several 

areas from which others might learn.

Collect Data

Collecting detailed descriptive information from project participants was key to understanding the district’s 

practices, the outcomes or impact achieved, and lessons 

learned in implementation of school choice that others 

could benefit from. The major steps to this phase were 

finalizing the site visit interview guide, and arranging 

and conducting site visits to the school choice sites. 
52

from the site visit discussion guide. In addition, artifacts 

from the sites, such as letters to parents, schedules, or 

training agendas, were collected to provide concrete 

examples of district practices. The study team collated 

the information collected during the site visits and developed a case study for each site. 

Analyze and Report

Once all the data were collected, the project team 

analyzed them to understand the promising practices 

uncovered throughout the benchmarking project, both 

within and across sites. Thirteen key findings discussed 

in the final report emerged from the cross-site analysis. 

Two products resulted from this research: a report of 

the findings and this practitioner’s guide. The report 

provides an analysis of key findings across sites, a detailed description of each site, a collection of artifacts, 

and key project documents. The practitioner’s guide is a 

summary of the report intended for broad distribution.

Adapt

Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to select, 

adapt, and implement practices that meet their individual needs and contexts. The guide will be broadly 

distributed around the country through presentations at national and regional conferences, as well as 

through national associations and networks. The guide 

and report are also accessible online at http://www.

ed.gov/nclb/choice.

Districts coming together in learning communities may 

continue the study, using the ideas and practices from 

these sites as a springboard for their own action research. In this way, a pool of promising practices will 

grow, and districts can support each other in implementation and learning. 

FIGURE 15. Study Scope and 

Guiding Questions

District Strategic Planning and Resource Allocation

What are the strategic actions undertaken and 

the organizational infrastructure constructed by 

a school district to initiate, plan, develop, implement, and monitor a public school choice program?

Communication with Families and Staff

How does the district communicate with parents and students to notify them of their school 

choice options? How are district employees being informed and involved in the school choice 

program?

Facilities, Logistics, and Transportation

How is the district logistically managing shifts in 

student population? What criteria are being used 

to ensure fair and equal access for all students 

to enroll in the school of their choice?

Local Context and Managing Change

How is the district accommodating issues of local 

context, culture, and history in its school choice 

program?

Monitoring and Evaluation

How is the district determining the impact of 

school choice options? What criteria and indicators are used to assess school choice 

implementation effectiveness and student 

achievement results?

The five sites hosted visits that were facilitated by the 

project team. Site visits were a combination of conference calls, interviews, and one-day, on-site visits. During the site visits, key personnel were asked questions 
53

Innovations in Education: Creating Strong District School Choice Programs

Appendix C: Resources 

NCLB Information for Parents and the Public

The U.S. Department of Education has published No Child Left 

Behind: A Parents Guide (2003) along with other information 

for parents and educators at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/.

The Learning First Alliance has published A Practical Guide 

to Talking to Your Community About No Child Left Behind 

and Schools in Need of Improvement and provides links to 

other organizations’ materials at

http://www.learningfirst.org/.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has an extensive section on communications, including several pieces 

with tips for communicating effectively that were written by 

communications professionals at KSA-Plus Communications, 

at http://www.ccsso.org/federal_programs/NCLB/.

The Education Trust has a collection of materials on NCLB, including the No Child Left Behind User Guide and fact sheets 

for parents and the community. It also publishes The ABC’s 

of “AYP” at http://www2.edtrust.org/edtrust/ESEA/.

The School Information Partnership is a public–private collaboration designed to empower parents, educators, and 

policy-makers to use required No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 

data to make informed decisions and improve school results. Standard and Poor’s created the Web site, which includes a suite of interactive analytical tools from Standard 

and Poor’s School Evaluation Services and the National 

Center for Educational Accountability’s Just for the Kids. For 

schools, districts, and states across the nation, the Web site 

displays available data required to be publicly reported under NCLB. This initiative is funded by The Broad Foundation 

and the U.S. Department of Education. See the Web site at

http://www.schoolresults.org/.

School Choice Information

The Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota 

works with educators, parents, business people, students, 

policy-makers, and other concerned people throughout 

the United States in a number of ways: to increase student 

achievement; raise graduation rates; improve student attitudes toward learning, their schools, and their communities; and strengthen communities through building stronger 

working relationships among educators, parents, students, 

and other community members. See the Web site at http://

www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/school-change/.

The National Governors Association (NGA) operates the NGA 

Center for Best Practices, an online resource that includes links 

to promising practices in different aspects of NCLB, including 

public school choice at http://www.nga.org/center/.

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation provides links to major 

studies and to around 50 other organizations’ Web sites in 

the areas of charter schools and choice at 

http://www.edexcellence.net/.

The Center for Education Reform provides up-to-date reports 

on choice and charter school activity around the country. 

Its Web site links to “fast facts” and resources designed with 

parents in mind at http://www.edreform.com/.

The Office of Innovation and Improvement in the U.S. Department of Education operates the Voluntary Public School 

Choice grant program and offers other resources at http://

www.ed.gov/programs/choice/.

The Education Commission of the States maintains an extensive database about NCLB, including detailed information about requirements in different states. The law’s choice 

provisions are tracked as one of several key sub-issues at

http://www.ecs.org/.

The Web resources listed below that were not developed by the U.S. Department of Education are provided as examples 

of materials that may be helpful to the reader. The listings should not imply an endorsement by the Department of the

resources or the Web sites. There also may be many other useful Web sites on these topics.
54

1. C. Hoxby (ed.). (2003). The economics of school choice. Chicago: 

The University of Chicago Press.

2. Public Agenda Online. (1999). The poll report, On thin ice: How 

advocates and opponents could misread the public’s views on 

vouchers and charter schools, was based on a June 1999 telephone survey of 1,200 members of the general public. Retrieved 

April 2004 from http://www.publicagenda.org/research/research_reports_details.cfm?list=32.

3. See the Web site of the Education Commission of the States. 

Retrieved March 2004 from http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.

aspx?id=205.

4. Magnet schools: Select No Child Left Behind: Choice: Magnet 

Schools: Quick Facts. Retrieved March 2004 from http://www.

ecs.org/ecsmain.asp?page=/html/issue.asp?issueid=19.

5. See the Web site of the National Center for Education Statistics. 

Select the Condition of Education: “Public alternative schools 

for at-risk students.” Retrieved March 2004 from http://nces.

ed.gov/programs/coe/2003/section4/indicator27.asp.

6. As reported by K. Kafer in School choice 2003: How states are 

providing greater opportunity in education (2003). Washington D.C.: The Heritage Foundation. From a policy brief by the 

Education Commission of the States, Center for Community 

College Policy.

7. See the Web site of the Center for Education Reform. Retrieved 

April 2004 from http://www.edreform.com.

8. A good review of important potential outcomes of choice is 

included in a report from the National Working Commission on 

Choice in K-12 Education. (2003). School choice: Doing it the 

right way. Washington D.C.: Brown Center on Education Policy 

at the Brookings Institution. 

9. Howell, W. (forthcoming). Parents, choice, and NCLB’s future. In 

C. Finn and F. Hess (eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for 

kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10. Schneider, M., Teske, P., and Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing 

schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools.

Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

11. Howell, op. cit., p. 25.

12. Casserly, M. (forthcoming). No Child Left Behind: A status report on choice and supplemental services in America’s Great City 

Schools. In C. Finn and F. Hess (eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

13. For the 2003–04 school year, only six of the 41 districts surveyed 

by the Council of the Great City Schools received finalized state 

data before August. Fourteen received finalized data in August, 

and 21 did not receive finalized data until after the school year 

had begun. Casserly, op. cit, p. 15.

14. Casserly, op. cit., p. 21.

15. Casserly, op. cit., p. 11.

16. Pinzur, M. (2004, February 3). New schools guide puts parents in 

the know. Miami Herald.

17. Howell, op. cit.; Schneider, op. cit.

18. Reed. D. (forthcoming). Montgomery County, Title I and No Child 

Left Behind: Four stories of implementing school choice. In C. Finn 

and F. Hess (eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

19. See Reed, op. cit., for analysis of choices offered in Montgomery 

County, Md., and how parents responded. 

20. See WestEd. (2000). Teachers who learn, kids who achieve. San 

Francisco: Author.

21. Hess, F. (1998). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school 

reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

22. Howell, op. cit.; Schneider, op. cit.

Notes