Study of the 

Voluntary Public School Choice Program 

Interim Report 

For 

U.S. Department of Education 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Prepared by 

Robert K. Yin 

Pirkko S. Ahonen 

Dawn Kim 

COSMOS Corporation 

Bethesda, Md. 

2007 
This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under Contract Number ED01CO0038 (Task 

Order No. 001) with COSMOS Corporation. Adrienne Hosek served as the contracting officer’s 

representative. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the 

Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or 

should be inferred. 

U.S. Department of Education 

Margaret Spellings 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Doug Mesecar 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Alan Ginsburg 

Director 

Program and Analytic Studies Division 

David Goodwin 

Director 

September 2007 

This report is in the public domain, except for the photograph on the front cover, which is used with 

permission, © 2005, Getty Images. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Study of the Voluntary Public School Choice Program: Interim Report, Washington, D.C., 2007. 

This report is available on the Department’s Web site at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, audiotape, or 

computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at 202-

260-0852 or 202-206-0818. 
iii

CONTENTS

Page 

 LIST OF EXHIBITS ........................................................................................................ v

 

 PREFACE ....................................................................................................................... vii 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. ix 

 1. OVERVIEW................................................................................................................. 1

 The National Evaluation of the Voluntary Public School Choice 

 (VPSC) Program.............................................................................................. 1 

 Previous Research .................................................................................................... 4 

 2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................................................................... 9

 Evaluation Design..................................................................................................... 9 

 Data Collection....................................................................................................... 12 

 Analytic Priorities................................................................................................... 14 

3. VPSC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 17 

 Types of Choice Arrangements .............................................................................. 17 

 Core Activities........................................................................................................ 22 

 4. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE................................................. 31 

 Enrollment Trends .................................................................................................. 31 

 Progress on Program Priorities............................................................................... 37 

 Progress in Collecting Data to Examine Student Achievement Trends ................. 40 

 

 5. INTERIM CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................... 47 

 Preliminary Findings .............................................................................................. 47 

 Useful Choice Practices.......................................................................................... 49 

 REFERENCES................................................................................................................ 53 

 APPENDIX: Questionnaire for Individual Schools.................................................... 59

v

EXHIBITS 

Page 

Exhibit ES-1 Eligible, Applying, and Enrolling Students During the First Three Years 

 of the VPSC Program (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005)................................ xiii 

Exhibit 1 Location of the Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) Grantees................2 

Exhibit 2 Other Public School Choice Options at the VPSC Program Sites 

 (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005)......................................................................11 

Exhibit 3 Context of the VPSC Sites: Community Characteristics ..............................18 

Exhibit 4 Brief Descriptions of the VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005)......................................................................19 

Exhibit 5 Four Types of Choice Arrangements Implemented by VPSC Sites ..............20 

Exhibit 6 Characteristics of Schools Participating in the VPSC Program, 2004–05.....21 

Exhibit 7 Efforts to Involve Parents and the Community in the 

 VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005)............23 

Exhibit 8 Parent and Community Outreach Activities (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005)....24 

Exhibit 9 Schools Surveyed on Parents’ and Families’ Understanding of 

Choice Options at VPSC Sites, 2004–05...................................................27 

Exhibit 10 Efforts to Notify Parents of Their Choice Options, 2004–05 ........................28 

Exhibit 11 Schools Involved in Capacity-Enhancing Activities at VPSC Sites..............29 

Exhibit 12 Teacher Professional Development ...............................................................30 

Exhibit 13 Eligible, Applying, and Enrolling Students During the 

First Three Years of the VPSC Program (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005).....32 

Exhibit 14 Site-by-Site Variations in the Numbers of Students 

Participating in the VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives, 2004–05...........33 

Exhibit 15 Participation Rates in the VPSC Program (Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) .......35 

Exhibit 16 Continuing Scale-Up of the VPSC Program, Based on the Program’s 

Existing and Anticipated Expenditure Rate...............................................36 

Exhibit 17 Student Transfers from Low- to Higher-Performing Schools, 2004–05........38 

Exhibit 18 Changes in Transportation Costs at VPSC Sites............................................41 

Exhibit 19 Number of Student Records Submitted by the Sites, Compared to 

Enrollment Officially Reported By the Sites.............................................43 

Exhibit 20 Potentially Useful Choice Practices from the VPSC Program.......................50 

vii

PREFACE 

 This report, Study of the Voluntary Public School Choice Program Interim Report, 

discusses the evaluation findings during the first three years of implementation of the 

Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) Program, administered by the U.S. Department of 

Education. 

 The report is part of an ongoing national evaluation of the VPSC Program being 

conducted by COSMOS Corporation. Robert K. Yin of COSMOS Corporation is the 

project director, and he, along with Pirkko Ahonen and Dawn Kim, authored the present 

document. The evaluation is supported under a task order and contract with the 

Department. Adrienne Hosek of the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service 

served as the contracting officer’s representative during the preparation of this report. 

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The National Evaluation of the 

Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) Program

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)1

 expanded public school choice 

opportunities for students, particularly for those attending schools in need of improvement. 

The new accountability requirements in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) (Title I, Section 1116[b]) require districts to offer public school choice to 

students in Title I schools that are identified for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring as a result of not meeting state definitions for adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2005).2 In addition, Congress created the VPSC Program 

(Title V, Subpart 3, Section 5241) to support the emergence and growth of choice 

initiatives across the country. The purpose of the program is to assist states and local 

school districts in the development of innovative strategies to expand options for students, 

and to encourage transfers of students from low-performing to higher-performing schools. 

The VPSC Program functions independently from the choice provisions in Title I and 

provides funds to a relatively small number of sites across the country. In October 2002, 

the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) awarded five-year grants to 13 

applicants. Awards ranged in size from $3.4 million to $17.8 million for an average award 

of $9.2 million, or approximately $1.8 million per year. The VPSC-funded sites included: 

the state of Arkansas; Albany, N.Y.; Chicago, Ill.; the state of Florida; Hartsdale, N.Y.; 

Hillsborough County, Fla.; La Quinta, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; the state of Minnesota; 

Swanzey, N.H.; New Haven, Conn.; Portland, Oreg.; and Rockford, Ill. 

This report presents interim findings from the National Evaluation of the VPSC 

Program, covering the first three years of implementation, from the fall of 2002 through the 

summer of 2005. Over a five-year period, the congressionally mandated evaluation is charged 

with assessing the program’s progress in meeting the goals and fulfilling the intent of the VPSC 

Program’s legislation. As directed by Congress, the evaluation addresses three central 

questions: 

1) What are the characteristics of the VPSC Program’s grantees? 

2) How and to what extent does the VPSC Program promote educational 

equity and excellence? 

 1

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L.107-110) amended the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965. 

2

 The law requires that if all schools in a district have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two 

or more consecutive years, the district shall, “to the extent practicable,” establish a cooperative agreement of 

transfer with other districts in the surrounding area (U.S. Department of Education, February 2004, p. 17). 
x

3) What academic achievement is associated with the VPSC Program? 

 Question one relates to basic descriptive information about the program sites and their 

implementation strategies, including activities related to community outreach and capacitybuilding within participating schools. 

 Question two relates to the stated goals of the VPSC legislation, which stipulated four 

priorities in the selection of sites: 

(a) Provide the widest possible choice to students in participating schools, 

(b) Promote transfers of students from low-performing to higherperforming schools, 

(c) Include interdistrict partnerships to allow students to transfer to a 

school in another district from their original school, and 

(d) Require sites to use funds to support student transportation services or 

costs (on the assumption that this would more likely enable students 

to attend more distant schools). 

The extent the program met the goal of providing “the widest possible choice to students” 

is measured by the overall student participation and participation rates in the VPSC 

Program’s choice initiatives. When available, the report also presents data on the numbers 

of transfers from low- to higher-performing schools, and evidence of interdistrict 

partnerships and transportation costs. By design, these priorities do not necessarily reflect 

the only ways in which an evaluation could define “educational equity and excellence.” 

However, they link directly to the legislation’s stated priorities for implementation. 

Exploring other definitions and collecting data to address them were beyond the scope of 

the evaluation. 

 Question three pertains to Congress’s interest in having the evaluation investigate the 

achievement outcomes associated with the VPSC Program. The current report includes a 

discussion of the efforts to date to collect achievement data. The results of this analysis 

will be presented in the final report. 

Main Findings 

The evaluation is based on a mixture of quantitative and qualitative methods (see 

chapter 2 of this report). Among other features, it draws from multiple data sources, 

including site visits, surveys, program documents, and student achievement records. Data 

collection will continue through the end of the five-year grant cycle, which ends in the 

spring of 2007. The evaluation data suggest the following interim trends regarding the VPSC 

Program’s choice activities, student enrollment, and progress on its priorities. 
xi

Characteristics of the VPSC Sites 

The 13 VPSC sites are located in various parts of the country. Ten sites are located in 

predominantly urban areas, two in areas that cover both urban and rural regions, and one in 

an entirely rural area. Ten of the locales represent a residential population of over 100,000 

people each. The public school student populations in the communities are mostly diverse 

and poor. Nonwhite students comprise over 60 percent of the student population at seven 

school systems represented by the sites. Similarly, over 60 percent of the students are 

eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program3

 at seven of the sites. 

 The sites vary greatly in the design of their choice initiatives; they differ widely in the 

number of students served, the number of participating public schools, and the capacity to 

accommodate transfers. In addition, they differ by how they define choice zones and 

manage the flow of students among participating schools. Despite this variation, sites have 

pursued some common paths. 

 First, although unique, school choice initiatives tended to fall under four major 

categories based on how sites have defined choice arrangements and directed the flow of 

transferring students: 

• Five of the sites designated specific schools to be either sending schools 

or receiving schools but not both. 

• Five sites defined initiatives whereby the same schools could be both 

sending and receiving. 

• One site established a within-school initiative, in which students choose 

from education programs within the same school and do not transfer 

between schools. 

• Two sites have initiatives that have involved a mixture of the first three 

types. 

 Second, all sites focused on two core activities throughout the implementation 

process: 1) engaging parents and community members; and 2) building capacity at schools 

to attract and accommodate choice transfers. As part of the parent and community activity, 

sites’ actions went beyond a rich array of outreach, marketing, and communication efforts. 

The sites also engaged parents and community representatives in developing and 

implementing the choice initiatives. 

 

 3 The Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program is part of the National School Lunch Program administered 

by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free 

lunches to more than 26 million students each school day. Children from families with incomes at or below 

185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. For the period July 1, 2004, 

through June 30, 2005, 185 percent of the poverty level was $34,873 for a family of four (USDA, 2004). 
xii

 As part of the capacity-enhancing activity, sites started new academic programs or 

subjects, purchased supplies and equipment for schools, and provided professional 

development to teaching staffs. However, none of the sites reported hiring more staff or 

taking other steps simply to expand the number of seats. The sites’ capacity-enhancing 

activities were therefore not necessarily accompanied by an increase in the number of seats 

or classrooms at the receiving schools. 

Educational Equity and Excellence 

 The first three years of the VPSC Program has produced considerable participation on 

the part of enrolling students. The sites’ experiences have been as follows: 

 Participants. The numbers of eligible students, applicants, and enrollees in the VPSC 

Program all have increased during the first three years of the program. 

• The number of VPSC sites enrolling students each year has steadily 

increased. Out of 13 sites total, the number has increased from five 

the initial year, to ten and 12 in years 2 and 3 respectively. 

• The capacity within sites to accommodate greater numbers of enrollees 

has increased over time, from 1,087 students in 2002–03 to 7,445 

students in 2003–04, and to 16,163 students in 2004–05 (see figure 1). 

 Participation rates. Over the VPSC Program’s first three years, there were also 

increases in the rates of participation, measured by three ratios, the number of: 1) enrolling 

to applying students; 2) applying to eligible students; and 3) enrolling to eligible students. 

• The proportion of enrolling students to those who applied increased from 

47.4 percent in 2003–04 to 56.9 percent in 2004–05. 

• Similarly, the proportion of eligible students who applied increased from 

2.1 percent to 3.3 percent during the same period. 

• The enrollment-to-eligible ratio showed the greatest rate of increase, from 

0.5 percent in 2002–03 and 1.0 percent in 2003–04, to 1.9 percent in 

2004–05. This rate is similar to those experienced at the outset of 

other public school choice initiatives, including those implemented 

under the Title I accountability provisions in the NCLB Act of 2001. 

 Variety of choices among educational programs. Progress has been substantial on 

the first of the four priorities. The variety of educational programs within the VPSCfunded initiatives and among other non-VPSC initiatives at each site has meant that 

students can choose from a large and diverse number of academic programs. 
xiii

Exhibit ES-1 

Eligible, Applying, and Enrolling Students 

During the First Three Years of the VPSC Program 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Eligible Applying Enrolling

Enrollment 

School Year

No. of sites 

enrolling 

students

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students*

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students

2002–03 5 4 219,690 5 1,391 5 **1,087 

2003–04 10 10 **755,387 10 **15,721 10 **7,445 

2004–05 12 11 862,396 11 28,388 11 16,163 

 *Applicant count is based on the number of applications received by the sites. 

**Estimates of participant numbers differ from earlier reports. Adjustments to the earlier estimates are 

based on new information from the sites, as of August 2005. 

Transfer of students from low-performing schools to higher-performing schools. 

These transfers are likely to have comprised only a portion of the students enrolled in the 

VPSC initiatives. First, fewer than half of the VPSC sites have created choice 

arrangements with predesignated sending and receiving schools, and of these, only four 

have limited their enrollment to transfers from low- to higher-performing schools. 

 Second, the majority of the sites permit a mixture of transfers that are not limited to 

students moving from low- to higher-performing schools. Moreover, the sites permitting 

this mixture have not always distinguished the portion of transfers from low- to higherperforming schools. Of those that did, only 5 percent of their students had transferred 

from low- to higher-performing schools. 

Overall, combining these sites with those with predesignated sending and receiving 

schools, the low- to higher-performing transfers only represent 13.8 percent of the total 

transfers. However, the actual portion could be larger or smaller, depending on the nature 

of the transfers at the sites that did not track or document the pattern of their transfers. 

Implementation of interdistrict approaches. Only four of the 13 sites provide 

interdistrict options, allowing students to transfer to schools outside their home district. 

Student transportation services or costs. Relative to enrollment, transportation costs 

did not increase proportionately as might have been expected, as the VPSC initiatives 

permitted many students who were already attending distant schools to select schools 

closer to home. 
xiv

Academic Achievement 

 The final report for the National Evaluation of the VPSC Program will contain results 

of the analysis of student achievement records collected over the entire period of program 

implementation. The analysis will look at both school and student level performance when 

possible, to assess the achievement outcomes associated with the VPSC Program. 

• Individual-Level Student Achievement Data. The evaluation will attempt 

to compare the achievement outcomes of students enrolled in the 

VPSC-funded initiative to a similar group of students who did not 

enroll. The analysis will be limited to sites that have detailed and 

accurate records for individual students enrolled in the program and 

those in the comparison group. In preparation for the final report, the 

VPSC sites are now receiving technical assistance for collecting 

individual-level student achievement data. However, there are several 

issues with data quality and reliability, which may restrict future 

analysis. 

• Systems-Level Student Achievement Data. The final report will also 

measure performance trends for schools participating in the initiative. 

The achievement outcomes of students in these schools will be 

compared to students in a similar group of schools not participating in 

the initiative. 

Useful Choice Practices 

A major motive underlying the creation of the VPSC Program is the hope that the 

sites’ experiences might serve as models to districts across the country wanting to initiate 

or strengthen their own public school choice options and practices. Even at this early stage, 

several potentially useful practices have emerged from the program. Part of the national 

evaluation’s work has been to document these and other workable strategies. These 

strategies include the design of choice initiatives; parent involvement in choice 

arrangements; and capacity-enhancing activities to augment or strengthen schools’ 

educational programs. In this manner, the VPSC Program’s experiences can ultimately 

help to strengthen public school choice initiatives across the country. 
1

1. OVERVIEW 

The National Evaluation of the 

Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) Program 

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)

4 expanded public school choice 

opportunities for students, particularly for those attending schools in need of improvement. 

The new accountability requirements in Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) (Title I, Section 1116[b]) require districts to offer public school choice to 

students in Title I schools that are identified for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring as a result of not meeting state definitions for adequate yearly progress (AYP) 

(U.S. Department of Education, 2005).5 In addition, Congress created the VPSC Program 

(Title V, Subpart 3, Section 5241) to support the emergence and growth of choice 

initiatives across the country. The purpose of the program is to assist state and local school 

districts in the development of innovative strategies to expand options for students, and to 

encourage transfers of students from low- to higher-performing schools. 

The VPSC Program functions independently from the choice provisions in Title I and 

provides funds to a relatively small number of sites across the country. In October 2002, 

the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) awarded five-year grants to 13 

applicants (see exhibit 1). Awards ranged in size from $3.4 million to $17.8 million for an 

average award of $9.2 million, or approximately $1.8 million per year. The VPSC-funded 

sites included: the state of Arkansas; Albany, N.Y.; Chicago, Ill.; the state of Florida; 

Hartsdale, N.Y.; Hillsborough County, Fla.; La Quinta, Calif.; Miami, Fla.; the state of 

Minnesota; Swanzey, N.H.; New Haven, Conn.; Portland, Oreg.; and Rockford, Ill. 

 This report presents interim findings from the National evaluation of the VPSC 

Program, covering the first three years of implementation, from the fall of 2002 through the 

summer of 2005. Over a five-year period, the congressionally mandated evaluation is charged 

with assessing the program’s progress in meeting the goals and fulfilling the intent of the VPSC 

Program’s legislation. As directed by Congress, the evaluation addresses three central 

questions: 

1) What are the characteristics of the VPSC Program’s grantees? 

2) How and to what extent does the VPSC Program promote educational 

equity and excellence? 

 4

 The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) amended the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965. 

5

 The law requires that if all schools in a district have not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two 

or more consecutive years, the district shall, “to the extent practicable,” establish a cooperative agreement of 

transfer with other districts in the surrounding area (U.S. Department of Education, February 2004, p. 17). 
2

Exhibit 1 

Location of the Voluntary Public School Choice (VPSC) Grantees 

Exhibit Reads: One of the 13 VPSC sites is in Portland, Oreg., and received a fiveyear VPSC award of $6,467,122. 

3) What academic achievement is associated with the VPSC Program? 

 Question one relates to basic descriptive information about the program sites and their 

implementation strategies, including activities related to community outreach and capacitybuilding within participating schools. 

 Question two relates to the stated goals of the VPSC legislation, which stipulated four 

priorities in the selection of sites: 

(a) Provide the widest possible choice to students in participating schools, 

School District of 

Hillsborough County, Fla.

Award: $10,226,759

Rockford Public School 

District #205, Ill.

Portland Public Funded: $10,095,054

Schools, Oreg.

Award: $6,467,122 State of Minnesota 

Department of 

Education

Award: $11,751,052

Chicago Public 

Schools, Ill.

Award: $10,225,138

Desert Sands 

Unified School 

District, Calif.

Award: $7,947,309

State of Arkansas 

Department of 

Education 

Award: $9,276,886

State of Florida 

Department of 

Education 

Award: $17,817,910

Miami-Dade 

County Public 

Schools, Fla.

Award: $11,717,901

Brighter Choice 

Charter Schools, N.Y.

Award: $3,411,567

New Haven Public 

Schools, Conn.

Award: $9,509,901

Greenburgh 

Central School 

District No. 7, N.Y. 

Award: $2,822,155

Monadnock 

Regional School 

District, N.H.

Award: $8,396,542

School District of 

Hillsborough County, Fla.

Award: $10,226,759

Rockford Public School 

District #205, Ill.

Portland Public Funded: $10,095,054

Schools, Oreg.

Award: $6,467,122 State of Minnesota 

Department of 

Education

Award: $11,751,052

Chicago Public 

Schools, Ill.

Award: $10,225,138

Desert Sands 

Unified School 

District, Calif.

Award: $7,947,309

State of Arkansas 

Department of 

Education 

Award: $9,276,886

State of Florida 

Department of 

Education 

Award: $17,817,910

Miami-Dade 

County Public 

Schools, Fla.

Award: $11,717,901

Brighter Choice 

Charter Schools, N.Y.

Award: $3,411,567

New Haven Public 

Schools, Conn.

Award: $9,509,901

Greenburgh 

Central School 

District No. 7, N.Y. 

Award: $2,822,155

Monadnock 

Regional School 

District, N.H.

Award: $8,396,542
3

(b) Promote transfers of students from low-performing to higher-performing 

schools, 

(c) Include interdistrict partnerships to allow students to transfer to a school 

in another district from their original school, and 

(d) Require sites to use funds to support student transportation services or 

costs (on the assumption that this would more likely enable students to 

attend more distant schools). 

The extent the program met the goal of providing “the widest possible choice to students” 

is measured by the overall student participation and participation rates in the VPSC 

Program’s choice initiatives. When available, the report also presents data on the numbers 

of transfers from low- to higher-performing schools, and evidence of interdistrict 

partnerships and transportation costs. By design, these priorities do not necessarily reflect 

the only ways in which an evaluation could define “educational equity and excellence.” 

However, they link directly to the legislation’s stated priorities for implementation. 

Exploring other definitions and collecting data to address them were beyond the scope of 

the evaluation. 

 Question three pertains to Congress’s interest in having the evaluation investigate the 

achievement outcomes associated with the VPSC Program. The current report includes a 

discussion of the efforts to collect achievement data and a plan for analysis. The results of 

this analysis will be presented in the final report. 

 The current report analyzes data from multiple sources using a mixture of quantitative 

and qualitative methods. The evaluation team conducted field studies of VPSC Program 

and comparison sites during the 2003–04 and 2004–05 school years, when team members 

visited administrative offices, parent information centers, and two participating schools at 

each site. In addition, the team carried out surveys of schools involved with the VPSC 

initiatives in both years, to corroborate the implementation of the VPSC initiatives at the 

school level. The evaluation also draws from program documents and student achievement 

records from the first three years of implementation. Data collection will continue through 

the end of the five-year grant cycle, which concludes in the fall of 2007. 

 Chapter 1 of the report outlines the purpose of the national evaluation, introduces the 

VPSC Program, and reviews previous research on public school choice. 

 Chapter 2 presents the methodology of the national evaluation. 

 Chapter 3 provides a detailed analysis of the characteristics of the VPSC Program and 

VPSC sites. This chapter categorizes sites by four types of choice arrangements, describes 

the schools participating in the choice initiatives, and documents the important program 

practices. 
4

 Chapter 4 reports the progress being made by the VPSC Program to provide greater 

opportunities for students to participate in public school choice. The chapter examines 

trends in eligibility, applications, and enrollment at the sites. In addition, it discusses the 

degree to which choice has provided students greater opportunity to move from lowperforming to higher-performing schools. 

 Finally, chapter 5 of the report summarizes the interim findings and their implications 

for the program, policymaking, and future research. The chapter also identifies useful 

choice practices that may be emerging from the VPSC Program. The evaluation will 

continue to monitor these practices as possible suggestions for other districts to emulate in 

designing their own choice initiatives. 

Previous Research 

 Public school choice under the VPSC Program is one of several ways of providing 

students with optional schooling opportunities (e.g., Ravitch and Viteritti, 1997; and Henig 

and Sugarman, 1999). Other opportunities include publicly funded vouchers, tax credits, or 

tax deductions that can be used for public or private schools; privately funded school 

choice; dual enrollment; home-schooling; and privately operated public schools such as the 

Edison schools (e.g., Fuller and Elmore, 1996; Hill, Pierce, and Guthrie, 1997; Education 

Commission of the States, 2001; Heritage Foundation, 2001; Greene, 2002; Moe, 2003; and 

Betts and Loveless, 2005). 

 All of these efforts seek to improve educational outcomes. These outcomes include 

the opportunity to attend better schools, hopefully leading to improved student learning. 

Additional benefits include improved matches between educational offerings and students’ 

interests. 

 At the same time, choice initiatives have created debate because of their possible 

association with other, less valued by-products. A major concern has to do with the 

possible increase in social stratification (i.e., the extent to which schools undesirably differ 

according to racial or ethnic distinctions) of students across schools,6

 either by racial and 

ethnic distinctions or by social class distinctions. Whether and how such stratification 

occurs (e.g., Lee and Burkam, 2002; and Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 2003) or can be 

avoided in the design of choice initiatives in the first place (e.g., Willie, Edwards, and 

Alves, 2002; Scott, 2005; and Gill, 2005) remains a subject of debate and continued 

inquiry. 

 In some cases, these or other concerns have resulted in community resistance to 

choice options (e.g., Moe, 2003). For instance, suburban homeowners have expressed 

displeasure over the potential threat to their property values posed by shifting school 

enrollments (Nechyba, 2003; and Reback, 2005). 

 6 To give but one example from a much more extensive literature, a recently completed study of magnet 

schools examined but found little income-based stratification associated with the presence of magnet school 

choice (Archbald, 2004). 
5

Public school choice initiatives can vary considerably. Nevertheless, with the hope 

of attaining the claimed benefits, school systems across the country have been 

implementing an increasing array of public school choice initiatives. The initiatives follow 

no single model and vary considerably. Whatever the case, the choices are to be among 

public schools (only) and should be distinguished from initiatives offering choices for both 

public and private schools (including schools with religious affiliations). 

 Among the choice initiatives limited to public schools, possibly the most common 

variants, found widely across the country, have been magnet programs and charter schools. 

The magnet programs permit schools to offer a standard curriculum but then to specialize 

in certain subjects or use learning themes to attract students (e.g., Christenson et al., 2003). 

Charter schools are publicly funded but operate independently of school districts and can 

define their own instructional programs (e.g., Loveless, 2002; Miron and Nelson, 2002; 

Finnigan et al., 2004; and Ross, 2005).7

 Though less frequently found, the broadest arrangement among public schools calls 

for open enrollment. In this arrangement, school systems do not initially assign students to 

any school. Rather, students express their preferences during the preceding spring semester 

by applying to any of the public schools in the system. One of the oldest, districtwide open 

enrollment arrangements has been in place in Cambridge, Mass., since 1981 (Peterkin, 

1991; and Willie, Edwards, and Alves, 2002). As another example, students at Community 

District Four of New York City (Teske et al., 2000) submit applications, listing up to six 

schools they wish to attend. About 60 percent of the students usually receive their first 

choice (Cookson and Shroff, 1997). 

 Another arrangement offers transfer options, in which students can apply to enroll at a 

public school other than their assigned school. Districts may restrict the number of 

applications, based on the availability of seats at receiving schools or on other prestipulated criteria. The restrictions effectively limit the number of choices and students 

able to participate in the arrangement. When transfers occur, they are considered to be 

from a sending school to a receiving school. A common policy objective is to define lowperforming schools as the desired set of sending schools and higher-performing schools as 

the desired set of receiving schools. 

 Additional variation among choice initiatives arises from the extent of regional 

cooperation in an initiative. The choice arrangements may exist within a single district 

alone (intra-district) or between two or more districts (inter-district). In some cases, choice 

options may cover the whole state, such as the initiatives in Minnesota (Cookson and 

Shroff, 1997; and Boyd, Hare, and Nathan, 2002); Wisconsin (Wisconsin Department of 

Public Instruction, 1999); or Colorado (Benigno, 2000). Conversely, the options may 

pertain only to a small set of schools inside a geographic zone within a district. 

 7

 Because of the nature of the VPSC Program, the review does not try to address the vast literatures on 

specific forms of school choice, including school voucher initiatives, magnet school programs, or charter 

schools. 
6

 Finally, arrangements vary according to their application processes, selection 

procedures, coverage of transportation and tuition costs, and other administrative 

procedures. For instance, districts can offer choice options to students at every grade level 

or only for certain entry grades. As another administrative variation, once exercising a 

choice, a student may be able to continue through the entire feeder set of schools or may 

have to reapply when moving, from elementary to middle or from middle to high school. 

Districts also may offer different options by grade level. For example, many districts have 

zonal limits for elementary and middle schools but districtwide choices for high schools. 

As a final feature, analysts also have given considerable attention to the nature of outreach 

efforts and the amount and type of the information needed by families and students to make 

appropriate educational choices (e.g., Hamilton and Guin, 2005). 

 All these and other variations serve as a backdrop to the initiatives implemented under 

the VPSC Program. The program has provided a continuing opportunity for local districts 

to expand or start new choice initiatives through its funding support and technical 

assistance. The lessons learned from the VPSC Program can suggest improved ways for 

districts across the country to implement the expanded Title I choice options in the future. 

Public school choice has drawn increasing policy interest because of its possible 

association with desired educational benefits at two levels. Such benefits may occur 

regardless of the particular variation in choice arrangement. 

 At the first level, the academic performance for participating students may improve, in 

part because they have chosen schools associated with high achievement (e.g., Cullen, 

Jacob, and Levitt, 2005). Student performance also may improve because students are able 

to choose schools with programs more closely match personal and career interests (e.g., 

Hastings, Kane, and Staiger, 2005 and 2006). 

 Although an increasing number of studies have examined the benefits to participating 

students, no consistent findings have emerged. For instance, small or no gains in student 

achievement have been reported, and changes in other aspects of student performance, such 

as dropout and suspension rates, also have been mixed (e.g., Clotfelter, Ladd, and Vigdor, 

2003; and Cullen, Jacob, and Levitt, 2005). Overall, one review of choice outcomes by a 

panel of experts concluded that: 

 “...Existing research paints a mixed and complicated picture. Choice 

 could indeed lead to the benefits its supporters expect, or the harm its 

 opponents fear. If so, the effects, both positive and negative, are less 

 certain and more situation-dependent than advocates on either side 

 acknowledge” (National Working Commission, 2004, p. 23). 
7

 At the second level, the presence of choice options in a system may lead to the 

improvement of every school in the system. Presumably, schools will compete to retain 

and attract students if their budgets are linked to enrollment levels (e.g., Goldhaber et al., 

2005). Thus, much of the interest in school choice, including public school choice, is 

related to a sensitivity to economic market conditions and greater competition among 

schools, leading to improved performance or what Hoxby (2001) calls “school 

productivity” (e.g., Chubb and Moe, 1990; Belfield and Levin, 2002; Moe, 2003; and Betts, 

2005). 

 Competition can affect all schools in a system, even if the number of students actually 

enrolling in a choice initiative is low. For instance, nearly 95 percent of Arizona public 

school students remain in district schools, despite a proliferation of charter schools. The 

charters do not replace the district schools, but they push the district schools to compete, to 

win back the charter parents (Center for Education Reform, cited by National Working 

Commission, 2004, p. 27). Hoxby (2002), noting that choice is about school supply, points 

to the fact that the threat of competition matters and can be demonstrated through economic 

models. Thus, even with a small number of transferring students, all schools in a system 

may still try to improve themselves because of the threat that more students would want to 

leave in the future, should such improvement not occur. 

 Systemwide effects are nevertheless not easily detected. The most potent situation 

may occur when students’ tuitions and other costs are transferred directly as a result of 

students exercising choice (e.g., National Working Commission, 2004). The Seattle Public 

Schools has long used a choice arrangement whereby such costs not only transfer but are 

weighted: Students in special education, as well as in other special categories requiring 

more schooling efforts, have larger tuitions associated with their transfer than students not 

in such categories. The weights are deliberately defined so that schools cannot have a 

balanced budget if they do not attract any such students. Under these circumstances, the 

Seattle system reports that schools do respond competitively (COSMOS, 2004). 

 Other choice initiatives that started in the 1990s also have reported systemwide 

effects. These include the open enrollment initiative in Cambridge, Mass., (Peterkin, 1991) 

and the response to a voucher (but not public school) initiative in Milwaukee (Gardner, 

2002). In both of these two cases, the claims included increases in student achievement as 

well as gains in market share (the proportion of all K–12 students in a geographic area 

enrolled in the public school system). Similarly, District Four experienced significantly 

rising, annual test scores in reading and math from 1973 to 1996, compared to all other 

districts in New York City, in conjunction with the district’s expansion of its public school 

choice initiative (Teske et al., 2000). 

 Possibly the clearest system response to the threat of competition was reported by 

Greene (2001) in Florida. Starting in 1999–00, students attending schools that received 

two “F” grades in four years were eligible to receive opportunity scholarships to attend 

other schools. Greene’s study showed that schools receiving their first failing grade, facing 

the prospect of student out-transfers, exhibited exceptionally large gains in the proportion 

of their students passing the state assessment, to avoid receiving a second “F” designation. 
8

 At the same time, system effects may be small (e.g., Figlio and Rouse, 2006) or may 

not always be found (e.g., Nechyba and Heise, 2000). In addition, some of the systemic 

effects may not be desirable. For instance, schools may spend more time and money on 

public relations and the marketing of schools rather than on the needed academic 

programming (Powers and Cookson, 1999). 

 Because of their potential importance, the possibility of changes at either of the two 

levels deserves monitoring. The present evaluation is therefore using individual-level data 

to track possible changes among participating students and school-level data to track 

possible systemwide changes at any given VPSC site. The analyses of individual student 

level data are planned for the final report. 
9

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 

 The national evaluation follows mixed quantitative and qualitative methods, using 

data from a variety of original and archival sources. This breadth of information will help 

to address the three central evaluation questions previously presented in chapter 1. 

Evaluation Design 

 The evaluation design is a nested design. At the school-level, the relevant schools at 

each site can be depicted as a “system of schools.” The systems can consist of any 

combination of the following types of schools: 

(a) Schools from which students have transferred (sending schools); 

(b) Schools to which students have transferred (receiving schools); 

(c) Schools to which students have transferred and from which 

students have transferred (same schools are both sending and 

receiving schools); and 

(d) Schools eligible to serve as sending schools, receiving schools, or 

both sending and receiving but in which no transfers may have 

occurred (other eligible schools). 

 Aggregate (school-level) data will be collected about the trends in academic 

performance of these different types of schools, to permit comparisons. These data also 

will cover the demographic characteristics of the enrolled students. 

 At the student-level in the nested design, the relevant students include the following: 

(a) Students applying for transfer and then transferring (enrollees); 

(b) Students applying for transfer but not transferring, either by their 

own decision or because their applications could not be 

honored—e.g., due to a lack of seats (applicants); and 

(c) Students eligible to apply (eligibles). 

The national evaluation will use student-level data, gathered by the 13 sites, to compare the 

trends among these groups of students. 

Definition of comparison sites. For each of the VPSC sites, the evaluation team has 

selected a comparison site. The comparisons do not include schools that are any part of the 

“system” of schools participating in a VPSC initiative. 
10

 In addition to being outside of the “system” of schools, the selected comparison sites 

have several preferred characteristics. First, they were selected based on proximity to the 

VPSC site, using the following criteria: 

• For sites that limit choice to a well-defined zone or zones in their district, 

the comparison site is a similar set of other schools outside of the 

zone(s) but in the same district; 

• For sites whose choice initiatives cover the whole district, the comparison 

site is another district in the same state; 

• For sites that cover multiple districts (e.g., a metropolitan area or a rural 

area), the comparison site is a similar kind of multiple-district area in 

the same state; and 

• For statewide sites, the comparison sites are nonparticipating districts in 

the same state that are similar to the participating districts.8

 

 Second, the comparison sites are comparable to the VPSC sites in academic 

performance, demographic characteristics, and enrollment size. In cases in which all three 

criteria could not be met, priority was given to the first two. 

 Third, the comparison sites had few available public school choice opportunities 

similar to the VPSC Program at the time of selection. However, the comparison sites are 

not “no treatment” sites. For instance, across the country, virtually every district offers 

magnet and charter schools, and these same choice programs exist at many of the VPSC 

sites. Similarly, eligible districts also must offer choice related to Title I provisions. Given 

these conditions, the general goal was to identify comparison sites that had no choice 

initiatives resembling those at the VPSC sites, as funded by the U.S. Department of 

Education’s VPSC Program. 

Definition of the initiatives being studied. The national evaluation defines the 

initiatives under evaluation as the ones being supported by VPSC funds. The use of VPSC 

funds has not only defined the initiatives of interest but also has helped focus on specific 

facets of the initiatives. For instance, for some of the 13 sites, the bulk of the funds were 

used to support and enhance parent information centers; other sites have invested heavily in 

parent outreach and media campaigns; yet others have provided funds for new educational 

programs at receiving schools to increase their capacity and attractiveness to serve 

transferring students. The use of funds also has usefully directed the national evaluation’s 

attention to more specific activities, while still attending to the overall VPSC choice 

initiatives at the 13 sites. 

 8 The fact that all districts are eligible to participate may create a complication. However, this 

complication was considered less troublesome than selecting sites from an entirely separate state, where the 

choice and other educational policy conditions could be entirely different. 
11

Exhibit Reads: Of the 13 sites, 12 sites had magnet schools in addition to the 

VPSC-funded initiative. 

 At the same time, there are two complications that diminish the evaluation’s ability to 

determine a direct association between the VPSC Program and school or student outcomes. 

Other choice initiatives at the same site. First, the VPSC-funded initiative may not 

be the only public school choice initiative at a site. In fact, nearly all of the sites already 

had a variety of other initiatives ongoing, at the onset of the VPSC initiative. These other 

options included magnet and charter schools, Title I public school choice, and a variety of 

other choice options offered by the district or state. For instance, several of the VPSC sites 

are located in states that offer open enrollment to all students to attend any public school in 

the entire state. Overall, even when sites used VPSC funds exclusively to support the 

VPSC Program’s initiatives, they had other unrelated choice initiatives operating at the 

same time (see exhibit 2). 

Exhibit 2 

Other Public School Choice Options at the VPSC Program Sites 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Other choice options

Number of sites with other public school 

choice options in addition to the 

VPSC-funded initiative*

Magnet schools 12 

Charter schools 12 

Title I choice 10 

Interdistrict options 7 

Other district options 7 

Other state options 7 

Total for all 13 sites **55 

 *Individual VPSC Program sites can appear under more than one type of choice option. 

**On average, each of the 13 sites had four or more public school choice options in 

addition to the VPSC-funded initiative. 

 Sources: Analysis of site visit data and Grant Performance Reports. 

Expansion of existing programs. Second, the VPSC Program permitted applicants to 

expand existing arrangements and not just establish new ones. The majority of the sites 

have chosen to expand existing initiatives. Separating the VPSC-funded portion of a 

choice initiative from other aspects of the initiative has not been easy or precisely 

delineated. 
12

Data Collection 

 The relevant data include: multiple site visits to the VPSC sites; site visits to the 

comparison sites, mainly to confirm the absence of a VPSC-like initiative at the site and to 

document the nature of other choice options that may be in place; surveys covering an 

average of 50 schools at each VPSC site; and the collection of archival data about the 

participating students and the performance of schools in the district (or the site) as a whole. 

The archival data are collected for all of the relevant schools, including those at the 

comparison sites. 

For the site visits and school survey, the instruments include: 

(A) Protocol A: Interview with the VPSC Project Director and Staff (a site 

visit instrument, covering VPSC implementation and trends 

associated with VPSC and largely directed at the VPSC project 

director and staff); 

(B) Protocol B: Interview with Other Participating Persons (a site visit 

instrument directed to school principals, teachers, or parents of 

transferring and non-transferring students); 

(C) Protocol C: Interview with the Comparison Site District and Title I 

Staff (a comparison site instrument, mainly for collecting data from 

district offices); and 

(D) School Survey (a school survey instrument—see appendix—directed to 

principals of schools participating in the VPSC initiatives and to 

administrators of participating districts in the two statewide 

initiatives). 

 The list of instruments does not include the collection and analysis of quantitative 

archival data, to address the evaluation questions related to student achievement. Schoollevel data come from existing databases compiled by the U.S. Department of Education 

(the Department), providing annual data for nearly every school in the country, starting 

with the year 1998–99. These databases may be supplemented by Web site data from state 

departments of education. Student-level data are compiled and provided to the national 

evaluation by the 13 VPSC sites. 

 The completed national evaluation will then have covered the entire five-year VPSC 

Program and have drawn from multiple sources of evidence, as follows: 

• Annual (2002–03 through 2006–07): 

— Original VPSC grant applications (summer 2002 only); 

— Grant performance reports from each VPSC Program site; 

— Individual records of participating students and 

 a comparison group; and 
13

— School-level records of student achievement trends 

 at VPSC Program sites and comparison sites. 

• Selected Years (2003–04, 2004–05, and 2006–07): 

— Field studies of VPSC Program sites and comparisons 

— Surveys of schools participating in the VPSC Program’s initiatives. 

 Site visits. The site visits covered the VPSC project site as well as one sending school 

and one receiving school (or two participating schools at those sites not designating 

specific sending and receiving schools). The sites chose two schools with a lot of choice 

activity (i.e., many transferring students), so that the site visit team could observe and learn 

about the VPSC Program’s initiative in action at the school level. 

 A two-person team conducted the site visits. During the first two rounds, the site 

visits occurred in the second semester of the school year. These visits included interviews 

of administrative staff from the state or district agency, parent information centers, and any 

affiliated organizations. The third round of site visits will be conducted during 2006–07. 

School survey. School surveys gather data from schools participating in the VPSC 

initiatives and mainly corroborate the participation in the VPSC initiatives by specific 

schools. 

 During the first three years of the study, the evaluation team collected survey data from 

410 schools in 2003–04 and 659 schools in 2004–05. At most sites, all of the schools that were 

eligible to participate in the choice initiative were included in the survey. Two statewide 

initiatives were the exceptions. At one statewide site, a random sample of approximately 50 

schools in each of two participating districts completed the survey. At the second site, no 

schools were surveyed; instead, the 12 districts with ten or more students participating in the 

choice initiative were asked to complete the survey at the district level.9

 The school survey takes the form of a closed-ended questionnaire to the schools 

participating in the VPSC initiatives (see appendix).10 The survey, directed at the schools’ 

principals, collects information about: student demographics; school performance; the 

choice options available to students; the percentages of students taking part in these 

options; the methods by which choice information is shared with parents; and the receipt of 

professional development by staff members related to school choice. 

Performance reports. The data collection also covers the VPSC grantees’ annual 

performance reports submitted to the VPSC Program Office at the Department. Each year, 

the office issues reporting requirements, based in part on the data collection suggestions by 

 9

 At this site, the district is the appropriate respondent because many of the participating students are not 

assigned to specific schools, either prior to or as part of the VPSC initiative. 

10 Participating schools were those with students who were either eligible for or enrolled in a VPSCfunded initiative. 
14

the national evaluation team. During the first three years, the evaluation team suggested 

that the sites provide more detailed descriptions of their VPSC initiatives. Recently, the 

VPSC Program Office has agreed to request more detailed expenditure information from 

the sites in 2005–06 and 2006–07, so that the evaluation team can more thoroughly analyze 

these expenditures.

Analytic Priorities 

 The distinctive contribution of the national evaluation will be to conduct a cross-site 

analysis to arrive at findings for the VPSC Program as a whole, rather than assessing the 

accomplishments at any given site. The nature of the cross-site analysis will vary 

according to the scope of the data supplied by the sites. 

 Individual student-level analyses. VPSC sites have been submitting records of 

individual student achievement. The records primarily contain achievement scores of 

students prior to enrolling as part of a VPSC-funded initiative. 

 The VPSC sites’ student-level data submissions to date suggest that the sites need 

additional assistance in compiling the desired individual student-level records. The VPSC 

Program is currently engaging a technical assistance provider to help sites compile the 

needed records. 

School-level analyses. To examine systems-level performance at every site, the 

evaluation will rely on sources other than the VPSC sites. The major source, both archival 

and available to the public, is a database compiled by the Department (the National 

Longitudinal School-Level State Assessment Score Database) to be supplemented, when 

needed, by school-level scores posted on states’ Web sites. 

 To analyze the data, the national evaluation team has developed and fully tested a 

procedure for aggregating trend data across different sites and states (Yin, Schmidt, and 

Besag, 2006). The procedure aggregates the various trends to estimate an “effect size” for 

the VPSC Program as a whole (Cohen, 1988; and Lipsey and Wilson, 1993). The 

aggregation procedure therefore assumes the form of a meta-analysis, as if findings by the 

VPSC sites were findings from separate research studies. 

 The final analysis will compare preprogram and concurrent trends. In addition, the 

analysis will compare the differences with those at the comparison group of (non-VPSC) 

schools. The relevant analysis therefore consists of comparing the “differences [in the 

VPSC and non-VPSC groups] between differences [in preprogram and concurrent trends].” 

The unit of analysis is the school, providing the ability to compare the academic 

performance at different grade-level bands (elementary school, middle school, and high 
15

school11) for the VPSC Program. Finally, separate analyses will examine scores in reading 

and in mathematics. 

Qualitative analyses. The general analytic strategy in dealing with qualitative data is 

to examine the extent to which plausible arguments can be made regarding any relationship 

between a VPSC initiative and subsequent educational outcomes, including student 

achievement. 

 The analysis will initially focus on within-site conditions. A key technique will be to 

assemble the VPSC Program’s features, prior to actual data collection, into an evaluation 

framework. The framework should attempt to “explain,” in qualitative terms, how various 

actions and events can theoretically produce the desired outputs relating to educational equity 

and excellence (Evaluation Question Two). Qualitative data from the site visits and other 

documentation will then be used to test the framework’s theory. An important part of this 

procedure is to search for and understand the role of possible rival explanations (Yin, 2000). 

For instance, ongoing district or school policies apart from the VPSC initiative may be strongly 

associated with the observed outputs. 

 The qualitative analysis will also consider conditions across sites, looking at trends 

associated with all VPSC sites. For instance, findings and lessons from the VPSC Program 

could reveal different types of choice initiatives, with the 13 sites arrayed into groups based 

on the design of their VPSC-funded choice program. The subgroups could help provide 

greater insight into the associated outcomes from choice initiatives and also serve as 

practical examples to be evaluated by other districts in the future. 

 Another analytic priority comes from an expressed need, by the Department, for the 

national evaluation to report new information about useful practices for conducting choice 

initiatives. From the national evaluation, such information on choice initiatives would 

serve at least two audiences: districts implementing the choice provisions of Title I and 

districts wanting to start or strengthen their own public school choice initiatives 

independent of the Title I requirements. 

 11 The definition of the bands followed the definitions used by the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), accommodating the varied conditions confronted across the country: “elementary” 

includes low grades from pre-K to 3 with high grades up to the 8th grade; “middle” includes low grades from 

4 to 7 with high grades from 4 to 9; and “high” includes low grades from 7 to 12 with a high grade of 12 only. 

17

3. VPSC PROGRAM CHARACTERISTICS 

 In the VPSC Program, the Department awarded grants to three types of organizations: 

1) nine local or regional school districts; 2) three state education agencies; and 3) one 

nonprofit, charter school organization. Two of the three state education agencies 

contracted with other organizations to implement their choice initiatives. For example, one 

site allocated funds primarily to districts throughout the state to support local school choice 

plans, as well as to an area university to assist these districts with the operation of choice 

information centers. 

 The 13 VPSC sites are located in various parts of the country. Ten sites are located in 

predominantly urban areas, two in areas that cover both urban and rural regions, and one in 

an entirely rural area (see exhibit 3). Ten of the locales represent a total population of over 

100,000 people each. The public school student populations in the communities are mostly 

diverse and poor. Nonwhite students comprise over 60 percent of the student population at 

seven school systems represented by the sites. Similarly, over 60 percent of the students 

are eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program12 at seven of the sites. 

 The VPSC sites vary greatly in the design of their choice initiatives. They differ 

widely in the number of students served, the number of participating public schools, and 

the capacity to accommodate transfers. In addition, they differ by how they define choice 

zones and manage the flow of students among participating schools (see exhibit 4 for brief 

descriptions). 

 Despite this variation, sites have pursued some common paths. First, although unique, 

school choice initiatives tended to fall under four major categories based on how sites have 

defined choice arrangements and directed the flow of transferring students. Second, all 

sites focused on two core activities throughout the implementation process: 1) engaging 

parents and community members; and 2) building capacity at schools to attract and 

accommodate choice transfers. 

Types of Choice Arrangements

 The VPSC Program allows grantees to design choice initiatives to meet their own 

needs. Nevertheless, going beyond the unique circumstances at each site, the VPSC 

 12 The Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program is part of the National School Lunch Program 

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost 

or free lunches to more than 26 million students each school day. Children from families with incomes at or 

below 185 percent of the poverty level are eligible for free and reduced-price meals. For the period July 1, 

2004, through June 30, 2005, 185 percent of the poverty level was $34,873 for a family of four (USDA, 

2004). 
18

Exhibit 3 

Context of the VPSC Sites: Community Characteristics 

Characteristic No. of sites

Type of community: 

 Urban 10 

 Rural 1 

 Mixed 2 

Population: 

Under 100,000 3 

 100,000 to 1million 6 

 Over 1million 4 

Public school enrollment: 

 No. of students enrolled 

 Under 25,000 4 

 25,000–100,000 4 

 Over 100,000 5 

 Percent nonwhite 

 Under 30 1 

 30–60 5 

 Over 60 7 

 Percent eligible for the Free And 

Reduced-Price Lunch program 

 Under 30 1 

 30–60 5 

 Over 60 7 

 Source: NCES-Common Core of Data. 

 Exhibit Reads: Ten of the VPSC sites are located in urban areas. 

Program appears to be supporting four types of choice arrangements (see exhibit 5) that 

provide a fuller understanding of the ways that public school choice can work. 

First, five of the VPSC Program’s initiatives designated specific schools to be either 

sending schools or receiving schools but not both. In this first type, students attending 

sending schools are eligible to transfer, and their choices are limited to a select group of 

receiving schools. At these sites, VPSC funds mainly supported the strengthening or 

capacity-enhancement at the receiving schools. 

 Under this first arrangement, four of the sites have defined their sending schools as 

“low-performing” according to the NCLB criteria regarding schools identified for 

improvement. However, because the VPSC legislation does not prescribe a standard for 
19

Exhibit 4 

Brief Descriptions of the VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

VPSC grantee

Award 

amount 

($ million) Description of initiative

1. Arkansas 

Department of 

Education

$9.3 Has supported three cohorts of students attending an off-campus (residential or community) 

program to receive a rigorous and comprehensive, self-paced education, delivered online and 

aligned with the state’s standards (requires students to take state assessment). The program 

covered K–5 in 2002–03, K–7 in 2003–04, and K–8 starting in 2004–05. 

2. Brighter Choice 

Charter Schools, 

N.Y.

$3.4 Opened its first three charter schools in Albany in 2005–06. In preparation, the site continued to 

educate the public on Title I choice; support charter school development; and coordinate 

supplemental educational services in two districts. 

3. Chicago Public 

Schools, Ill.

$10.2 Has supported two cohorts of students (K–8) attending neighborhood learning clusters (NLCs) of 

four-to-six schools each. Four clusters started in 2003–04, three started in 2004–05, and two 

started in 2005–06. There is a new school in each cluster, and existing schools develop 

magnet themes; clusters have coordinators; and schools receive VPSC funds. 

4. Desert Sands 

Unified School 

District, Calif.

$7.9 Has supported two cohorts of students transferring from low-performing sending schools to higherperforming receiving schools (K–12). Funds help augment curricula at receiving schools with 

environmental studies theme to make them more attractive to transferring students. 

5. Florida 

Department of 

Education

$17.8 Has supported student transfers beginning in 2004–05. Funds assist a subset of districts to 

expand choice options (could cover K–12); funds are allocated to mentor districts (already 

successful at choice options) and mentee districts (needing to expand options), and 

postsecondary institutions (to start school choice information and assistance centers). 

6. Greenburgh 

Central School 

District No. 7, N.Y.

$2.8 Has supported two cohorts of middle and high school students (7–12) attending new academies of 

choice in middle and high school. Beginning in 2004–05, three elementary schools 

implemented the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme (IB) to offer choice to 

all K–6 students. 

7. Hillsborough 

County School 

District, Fla.

$10.2 Has supported a districtwide controlled choice initiative (K–12), starting 2004–05, involving seven 

zones or regions and the creation or expansion of 51 “attractor” programs at existing schools to 

maintain or increase student diversity. Plans for the initiative were in place well before VPSC, 

which only partially supports the initiative. 

8. Miami-Dade 

County Public 

Schools, Fla.

$11.7 Has targeted two of eight transportation zones in the district. Provides funds to create choice 

programs at under-enrolled schools (K–12). In 2003–2004, the site opened one new 

“commuter” school in Zone 1. In 2004–05, the site created or enhanced choice programs at a 

total of nine schools in Zone 1, and four schools in Zone 2.

9. Minnesota 

Department of 

Education

$11.8 Has supported existing program allowing MPS students qualifying for FRPL to transfer to 56 

schools in eight surrounding suburban districts, and suburban or MPS students to attend 12 

schools in MPS (K–12) with VPSC funding Parent Information Centers, some transportation, 

and support services. 

10. Monadnock 

Regional School 

District, N.H.

$8.4 Has supported three cohorts of students making interdistrict transfers (9–12), attending new 

programs in their original schools (6–12), transferring to an alternative high school (MC2) and a 

virtual high school, or enrolling in college courses. Has added new choice programs at two 

high schools and two middle schools. Expansion to elementary school is in progress. 

11. New Haven Public 

Schools, Conn.

$9.5 Has supported three cohorts of students transferring from low-performing schools to identified 

higher-performing schools including Lighthouse Schools, magnets, charters, and suburban 

public schools. VPSC funds expanded programs at four Lighthouse Schools (K–6) in 2002–03, 

five Lighthouse Schools in 2003–04, and three in 2004–05. 

12. Portland Public 

Schools, Oreg.

$6.5 Has supported two cohorts of transfer students through the augmentation of a districtwide, 

previously available choice program (K–12). VPSC funds help support new enrollment and 

transfer policies; selection, lottery, and transition services; and collaborative curricula planning. 

13. Rockford School 

District #205, Ill.

$10.1 Has supported three cohorts of transfer students from low-performing schools (K–8) to identified 

receiving schools, as part of an existing districtwide choice plan. VPSC funds provide support 

to receiving schools; parent and transportation services; and three tutoring programs run by 

community or faith-based organizations. 

 Sources: Analysis of site visit data and Grant Performance Reports by COSMOS Corp., 2005.
20

Exhibit 5 

Four Types of Choice Arrangements Implemented by VPSC Sites 

Type of choice arrangement

No. of VPSC 

sites

No. of 

participating 

schools

Predesignated sending or receiving schools 5 *60 

Same schools are both sending and receiving schools 5 502 

Within-school options only 1 6 

Mixture of the first three groups 2 **6 

Total 13 574 

*Represents the schools at only three of the five sites. The fourth site only started its VPSC-funded 

enrollment in 2005–2006, and the fifth site was enrolling students at predesignated off-campus sites 

(residential or community facilities), but had no predesignated sending schools. 

**Represents the schools at only one of the two sites, because the second site started enrollment in 

2004–05 but did not identify its participating schools. 

Sources: Survey of Schools, Grant Performance Reports, and analysis of site visit data. 

Exhibit Reads: Five VPSC sites have 60 predesignated sending or receiving schools. 

identifying “higher-performing” schools, the program and its sites have defined the 

receiving schools simply as those that are not “low-performing” schools. At one of the four 

sites, initially eligible receiving schools later became identified for improvement during the 

second year of its VPSC initiative. At that point, the site then ruled those schools to be 

ineligible as receiving schools. 

 The fifth site in this first type of arrangement had predesignated sending and receiving 

schools but did not attempt to limit either group according to any low- to high-performing 

criteria. All schools in the system could be a sending school, and the receiving “schools” 

were pre-designated off-campus sites. 

Second, five initiatives defined the same schools as both “sending” and “receiving.” 

Under a second type of arrangement, five sites permit transfers between all public schools 

either districtwide or within prespecified zones. In the latter case, students can choose only 

among the public schools located within their assigned zone. Whether delineated by zone 

or district, students can attend any school within that area, regardless of a school’s prior 

performance. This type of choice arrangement gives sites little or no ability to direct the 

flow of students from low- to higher-performing schools. 

 An additional observation is noteworthy. At least one site deliberately defined its 

geographic zones to include both schools identified for improvement and higherperforming schools. Thus, in a large countywide district, “pie-shaped” zones may have 
21

suburban-like, higher-performing schools at their perimeter and urban-like, low-performing 

schools at their center. While the site may limit transfers to within-zone choices, the 

initiative nevertheless gives students the opportunity to transfer from schools identified for 

improvement to higher-performing schools (and from an urban to a more suburban 

environment). 

 For both of these first two types of arrangements, the majority of the student bodies in 

all three types of schools (sending-only, receiving-only, or both sending and receiving) 

were nonwhite students and were eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program 

(see exhibit 6.) However, in comparing the two types of arrangements, those with the nondesignated (both sending and receiving) schools had lower proportions of low-income and 

minority students than the sending-only schools in the first type of arrangement; in turn, the 

receiving-only schools tended to have the lowest proportion of low-income students and 

Title I schools. 

Exhibit 6 

Characteristics of Schools Participating in the VPSC Program, 2004–05* 

Characteristics of Schools 

Sending 

schools only 

(n=27) 

Receiving 

schools only 

(n=32)

Schools that are 

both sending and 

receiving 

(n=288)

Average percent, per VPSC site: 

Race/ethnicity: nonwhite 70.6 58.2 52.7 

Eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price 

Lunch program 68.5 51.1 55.4 

 

Percent of schools that are Title I: 

Title I schools 63.0 31.3 57.3 

*Total number of schools within the VPSC sites is approximately 574. Of those, data for 347 

schools were available for this analysis. 

Source: NCES, Common Core of Data, 2005. 

Exhibit Reads: On average, 70.6 percent of students in sending schools are nonwhite. 

Third, one site established a within-school initiative, in which students choose from 

education programs within the same school. In this third type, all students remain at the 

original schools. At the single VPSC site that implemented this third type of arrangement, 

students at their high school could choose between two different academic programs that 

had been put into place with VPSC funds. Middle school students had a similar choice. At 

the elementary level, students could choose between two forms of assessment when 
22

enrolling in a new International Baccalaureate (IB) option: being graded on the basis of 

either completing a project or taking a test.13

Fourth, two initiatives have involved a mixture of the first three types. One VPSC 

initiative encompasses multiple school districts in the same state, with each district defining 

its own choice options. Because the initiative involves 26 districts, the choice options 

cover nearly every variety of arrangement. The second site under this last arrangement had 

a mix of choices, including education programs within the same school as well as transfers 

in which schools could be both sending and receiving. During the site’s initial 

implementation, it also had a designated sending school, which was a high school that had 

been low-performing. The high school was then closed the following year as planned. 

Every VPSC site has other, non-VPSC-funded public school choice initiatives 

operating at the site. These other options include magnet programs and charter schools, 

Title I public school choice, and a variety of other choice options offered by the district or 

state. For instance, several of the VPSC sites are located in states that offer open 

enrollment to all students to attend any public school in the entire state. Overall, even 

when sites supported public school choice initiatives using VPSC funds exclusively, they 

had other unrelated choice programs operating at the same time (see earlier exhibit 2, 

chapter 2). 

Core Activities 

Regardless of the arrangement, all of the sites carried out two core activities. 

 Engaging, Notifying, and Reaching Parents and Community 

 Members

Parents and community representatives have played an important role in the 

development and implementation of the choice initiatives. From the beginning, VPSC 

sites invested in outreach to parents and communities to ensure that public school choice 

initiatives met local needs. Sites notified parents and community members of their plans, 

giving them the opportunity to express preferences for educational content, student 

selection criteria, and the design of parent information centers. Among these topics, the 

VPSC sites report focusing on engaging parents and community members in selecting the 

type of educational programming that would best attract students to receiving schools (see 

exhibit 7). 

 13 Although this type of choice deviated somewhat from the more traditional public school choice 

options, the VPSC Program granted the site a special waiver to implement this arrangement. 
23

 Several VPSC-funded sites also used parent and community input as a way to 

generate public approval for their choice initiatives. At one site, partnership agreements 

between the district and several community agencies were instrumental in developing a 

new environmental studies curriculum. By engaging these groups in the planning and 

implementation of choice initiatives, the sites worked to garner support for their VPSCfunded initiatives. 

Exhibit 7 

Efforts to Involve Parents and the Community in the 

VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Type of involvement Sites’ activities

Establishing the 

initiative

Market research, surveys of parents, community and parent advisors, 

 community focus groups and forums 

Planning the 

initiative

Parent advisory committees, principal and teacher input, parent representation 

 on lottery and parent information center committees 

Implementing the 

initiative

Parent participation in daily instruction, community support for curriculum 

and materials, parent and student surveys, specialists or counselors, workshops 

on parenting skills, technical assistance to schools on parental involvement 

 Sources: Analysis of site visit data and Grant Performance Reports.

Exhibit Reads: Sites engaged parents and the community in establishing the choice 

initiatives through varied site activities, including: market research; surveys; advisory 

teams; and focus groups. 

 As the VPSC sites transitioned from the planning stage to implementation, several 

created ways to keep parents and community members actively engaged. Choice information 

centers have sponsored workshops on parenting skills, health and nutrition, computer 

literacy, and other topics in addition to providing information about public school choice. 

 VPSC sites invested in a variety of outreach, marketing, and communication efforts 

targeted at students and families eligible to participate in choice options. With public 

awareness growing, though, many sites have begun to scale back intensive marketing 

campaigns more recently. During the first three years of implementation, the VPSC sites 

used a wide variety of community outlets, including billboards, movie “trailers,” e-mail 

announcements, and Web advertisements (see exhibit 8). An especially ambitious site 

mailed over 100,000 brochures to parents of public school eligible students. In addition, 

sites have invested in training school staff to assist in the communication process. 

Recognizing the importance of raising public awareness, a few sites have entered into 

formal subcontracts with public relations or marketing consultants to increase their 

effectiveness. 
24

Exhibit 8 

Parent and Community Outreach Activities 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Notification activity No. of sites* Activities 

Face-to-face parent and 

community outreach 12 Districtwide and school fairs and open houses, community 

meetings, door-to-door marketing 

Media campaigns 12 Advertisements, TV appearances, handouts, Web sites, 

printed resources 

Direct mailing 10 Postcards, brochures, newsletters, catalog choice options, 

Applications 

Parent information 

centers 10 Centralized and neighborhood centers, temporary booths at 

area mall or events 

Staff education 6 Centralized and school-based training, videos and brochures 

to staff 

Total for all 13 sites 50 (On average, each of the 13 sites conducted three or more 

types of notification activities.) 

*Individual VPSC Program sites can appear under more than one type of activity. 

Sources: Analysis of site visit data and Grant Performance Reports, COSMOS Corp., 2005. 

Exhibit Reads: Of the 13 sites engaging in community outreach activities, 12 sites 

conducted face-to-face outreach activities that included districtwide or school fairs and 

open houses, community meetings, and door-to-door marketing. 

 Many of the sites that initially engaged in large-scale public education campaigns 

reported scaling back these efforts as parents, students, and teachers have become aware of 

their choice options. One site decided to eliminate an intensive advertising campaign 

conducted during the first two years of implementation. Sites also have shifted strategies 

over the past two years, concentrating funds previously devoted to districtwide marketing 

campaigns to increasing awareness among the parents of preschool age children. Other 

sites now use communication funds on efforts to increase the capacity of receiving schools 

to accommodate more transferring students. 

 A common outreach mechanism has been the development and staffing of parent 

information centers. By 2004–05, ten of the VPSC sites supported at least one parent 

information center to provide parents with information about their choices and to assist them 

in the student application and enrollment process. At one site, several thousand visitors were 

reported during the main enrollment period. However, most sites reported a few hundred to 

several hundred visitors. All the sites reported a significant drop in visitors to the parent 

information centers after the enrollment period was over. 
25

 Many of the VPSC information centers offer counseling and other services in addition 

to information about VPSC choice initiatives. Some centers market other choice options 

available to students, or serve as the central enrollment offices for their districts. In 2004–

05, the VPSC sites continued to conduct workshops and educational activities for parents 

primarily through the parent information centers. These activities included GED and 

computer classes, health education workshops, and classes on supporting students’ 

homework activities. 

 The district staff at the sites identified the following as desirable characteristics for 

parent information centers: 

• Locations accessible to parents and families; 

• Sufficient and safe parking; 

• Nearby public transportation; and 

• Operating hours that include days and evenings. 

 VPSC sites have made ongoing adjustments to the operation of the parent information 

centers as the choice initiatives have continued. At least two sites added parent information 

centers between the 2003–04 and the 2004–05 school years. Another site with several 

parent information centers within the same district reduced the number of centers based on 

use by the community. Yet another site restructured its parent information center, 

reassigning staff to specialty areas dealing with different aspects of the choice initiatives. 

As the sites refine the role of the parent information centers, further analysis is needed to 

determine whether particular models for parent information centers might influence 

participation in choice initiatives. 

VPSC sites made materials available in a variety of languages to communicate with 

families. Over half of the sites had brochures and applications available in English and 

Spanish, and several sites reported using local Spanish-language media outlets 

(newspapers, radio, and television). One site reported that advertising on a local Spanishlanguage radio station was among its most successful outreach efforts. In addition to 

Spanish, other sites reported printing materials in Chinese, Hmong, Lao, Polish, 

Portuguese, Russian, Somali, and Vietnamese. Some sites partnered with other local 

agencies to assist in fielding phone calls from non-English speakers. 

 All VPSC sites had ongoing year-round information outlets such as Web sites, 

newsletters, and advertising. The sites worked to implement their public information 

campaigns well in advance of the application deadlines for their choice initiatives. For the 

most part, the push took place over one to two months before the application period. 

However, sites also shared information about VPSC-funded choice initiatives as much as 

one year prior to the application period. 
26

 In some cases, sites delayed notifying parents of their choice options until the state 

had published the names of schools identified as low-performing, which at best occurs the 

summer before the start of the school year. As a consequence, parents and students at these 

sites were notified of their eligibility only a few weeks before they had to make a decision 

on whether to apply to transfer to another school. Similar problems exist with 

implementing Title I public school choice. During 2004–05, one site obtained a final list of 

schools identified for improvement from the state in December 2004, resulting in students 

not being able to transfer until January 2005.14 The site estimates that the delay decreased 

the number of students participating in the choice initiative by as much as 80 percent.15

 Nevertheless, participating schools believe that parents are aware of their choice 

options (see exhibit 9). Of all schools surveyed, a large proportion indicated their belief 

that most or all parents and families had a good understanding of choice options. This 

response differed, depending on the type of school. At the average site, 63 percent of 

sending schools reported that all or most of parents and families have a good understanding 

of their choice options, as compared to 74 percent of receiving schools and 69 percent of 

schools that are both sending and receiving. However, the results are solely based on the 

school survey and may not represent the views of parents and families. 

Sending schools reported fewer parent notification activities than either receiving 

schools or non-designated schools (see exhibit 10). Among all the schools, the most 

frequent mode of communication reported was through letters to parents and families. 

 High percentages of receiving schools and undesignated schools also reported making 

face-to-face contacts with students and their families, through individual or group 

meetings, enrollment fairs, or open houses. In contrast, sending schools reported little such 

direct contact with parents and families. Overall, receiving schools, as compared to 

sending schools, may have been more motivated to provide choice information to parents in 

order to attract students to their programs. Further research is needed to determine whether 

this lack of effort impacted student participation levels. 

 Capacity-Enhancing Activities 

The schools participating in the VPSC initiatives have undergone a variety of capacityenhancing activities, including: starting new academic programs or subjects; purchasing 

supplies and equipment; and providing professional development to staff. Capacity-

 14 The state had made preliminary lists of schools “identified for improvement” available earlier in the 

year, but the site decided to wait for the final list, not released until December; it has decided to work with the 

preliminary lists in future years. 

15 However, a district may know early in the year that some schools will have to offer choice the next 

school year because the schools are already in improvement status (and would have to make AYP for two 

years in a row to exit). The Department encourages districts to begin notification for choice early when they 

have schools in this situation. 
27

Exhibit 9 

Schools Surveyed on Parents’ and Families’ Understanding 

of Choice Options at VPSC Sites, 2004–05* 

School-reported proportion of parents Average percent per VPSC site

and families having a good 

understanding of their choice options Sending 

schools only

Receiving 

schools only

Schools that are both 

sending and receiving

All 31 24 19 

Most, over 50 percent 31 50 51 

Some, 20–50 percent 29 34 28 

Few, less than 20 percent 32 0 20 

 *N=514 schools for 12 sites enrolling students in the VPSC-funded initiatives in 2004–05. 

 Source: Survey of Schools, 2004–05. 

Exhibit Reads: On average, 31 percent of sending schools (per site) reported that all parents 

and families have a good understanding of their choice options. 

enhancing activities included efforts to both accommodate and attract transferring students at 

receiving schools (see exhibit 10). In addition to improvements to existing schools, sites have 

increased capacity within the system by opening new schools, including charter schools. For 

the most part, the new schools were planned in advance of the VPSC initiative, and they should 

not be considered a product of the initiative itself. One site, however, planned the development 

of several charter schools as a key component of its VPSC design. 

 Capacity-enhancement activities included investments in new educational programs, 

including orientation assistance, as well as supplemental services that included tutoring, 

after-school programming, and summer school. VPSC funds have helped to support 

counselors and outside organizations to provide these services, which sometimes work in 

conjunction with Title I school improvement efforts. At some sites, schools modified the 

length of the school day or calendar year and rearranged school schedules to accommodate 

additional educational opportunities implemented as part of the VPSC initiative. 

 Existing academic programs, as well as other conditions at receiving schools, have 

been important in encouraging enrollment. These VPSC-funded activities notwithstanding, 

schools responding to the school survey indicated their belief that existing academic 

programs were a major factor in students’ decisions to transfer. Similarly, principals, 

teachers, and parents interviewed during site visits to receiving schools overwhelmingly 

responded that the main reason students had decided to transfer to these schools was their 

preexisting reputations for high performance, not necessarily because of any specific 

capacity-enhancing activities completed in connection with the VPSC Program. 
28

Exhibit 10 

Efforts to Notify Parents of Their Choice Options, 2004–05* 

 Average percent per VPSC site**

Response category 

Sending 

schools only

Receiving 

schools only

Schools that are 

both sending and 

receiving

Individual, face-to-face meetings 

 with school officials 25 51 69 

Group meetings with school officials 18 51 62 

Enrollment fairs or similar events 32 54 69 

Open houses at receiving schools 18 75 61 

Letter mailed to parents and families 55 62 68 

Letter sent home with students 14 64 61 

Announcements in community 

 newspapers and other media 32 62 59 

Contacts made by district’s parent 

 information center(s) 37 51 40 

*N=555 schools for 12 sites enrolling students in the VPSC-funded initiatives in 2004–05. 

**Individual program sites can appear under more than one category. Average percent 

calculated based on number of sites engaging in the type of activity. 

Source: Survey of Schools, 2004–05. 

Exhibit Reads: On average, 25 percent of sending schools (per site) reported having 

individual, face-to-face meetings between parents and school officials related to choice 

options.

 Students also may have been attracted by schools’ physical facilities or perceived safety. 

The VPSC legislation expressly prohibits the use of program funds for construction, but sites 

could use funds from other sources to make physical improvements. At one VPSC site, the 

main receiving school had a combination of new academic activities supported by VPSC funds 

and a new building and classrooms put into place by the school district. At another site, the 

planned receiving schools are charter schools with a similar combination of features. 

Capacity-enhancing services reach both transferring and existing students at 

receiving schools. The new funds have produced improvements that benefit all students at 

receiving schools, including professional development for teachers, science and computer 

equipment, supplies, and additional school staff. In one case, however, the site targeted 

services directly to transferring students by supporting school-based specialists to work 

with them in addition to implementing a new schoolwide curriculum. 
29

Exhibit 11 

Schools Involved in Capacity-Enhancing Activities 

at VPSC Sites* 

Average percent per VPSC site 

Type of Capacity-Enhancement Sending 

schools only

Receiving 

schools only

Schools that are 

both sending and 

receiving

Becoming a charter school NA 17 7 

Starting new magnet programs, 

 academies, or small learning 

 communities 

21 83 23 

Starting other new academic 

 programs or subjects 24 60 23 

Making other changes in school 

 administration (e.g., 

 changing school hours) 

26 22 13 

*N=555 schools for 12 sites enrolling students in the VPSC-funded initiatives in 2004–05. 

Individual program sites can appear under more than one type of activity. 

Source: Survey of Schools, 2004–05. 

Exhibit Reads: Among the schools participating in the VPSC Program’s initiatives, on 

average, 17 percent of the receiving schools (per site) reported becoming a charter school. 

 Though sites focused capacity-enhancing activities at receiving schools, school survey 

respondents also reported new educational programs at sending schools (see also exhibit 

11). Frequently, these schools were identified as “low-performing” and initiated new 

educational programs to comply with their Title I school improvement plan. The initiation 

of these programs may in some instances have encouraged students to remain at their 

original schools rather than transferring to receiving schools. 

Additional differences were found among sending schools, receiving schools, and 

undesignated schools in the degree of professional development provided to teachers as 

part of the VPSC-funded initiative.16 The schools surveyed reported that teachers at the 

sending-only schools were less likely to receive professional development about the 

transfer process than other participating schools (see exhibit 12). While only 24 percent of 

the sending-only schools reported receiving such professional development, more than 33 

percent of the receiving-only schools and 30 percent of undesignated schools benefited 

from training specifically related to the school choice transfer process. 

 16 Undesignated schools are eligible to receive and send transferring students. 
30

Exhibit 12 

Teacher Professional Development* 

 Average percent per VPSC site

Survey response category 

Sending schools 

only

Receiving schools 

only

Schools that are both 

sending and receiving

Teachers received extra staff or 

professional development in 

relation to the transfer 

process

24 33 30 

*N=428 schools for 11 of the 12 sites actually enrolling students in the VPSC-funded initiatives 

in 2004–05. 

Source: Survey of Schools, 2004–05. 

Exhibit Reads: On average, 24 percent of sending schools (per site) 

reported that their teachers received extra professional development related 

to the transfer process. 

The capacity-enhancing activities were not necessarily accompanied by an increase 

in the number of seats or classrooms at these schools. None of the sites reported hiring 

more staff or taking other steps simply to expand the number of seats and to accommodate 

higher enrollments at a school. Chapter 4 of this report will show that the number of 

applicants exceeded the number of students who were eventually able to enroll in the VPSC 

choice initiatives. Why all applicants could not be served, and whether a lack of available 

seats at receiving schools constrained enrollment, are topics of continuing investigation in 

the present evaluation. 

Only some of the new education programs may be scientifically based. In their 

capacity-enhancing activities, sites did not examine or rely on scientifically based evidence 

to guide their selection or design of education programs. Some of the new programs have 

included nationally recognized educational programs with a record of improving student 

performance (e.g., International Baccalaureate and Breakthrough to Literacy). Moreover, 

at least one site had developed a curriculum that subsequently received external recognition 

as an exemplary educational model: After only two years of implementation, the site’s 

environmental studies program was nominated by the state for an environmental protection 

agency award. However, evidence about the scientific basis of sites’ other adoptions was 

unavailable, and collecting new data was beyond the scope of this evaluation. 
31

4. EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND EXCELLENCE

 Over the first three years of implementation, student participation and the rate of 

enrollment have increased across sites, and there are signs that the VPSC Program will 

continue to accommodate even more students in upcoming years. Sites have made less 

progress, however, on specific program priorities. 

Enrollment Trends 

 The VPSC sites have expanded considerably during the first three years of 

implementation, to serve an ever-increasing number of students. The exact number of 

participants, however, varies according to the definition of “participation.” The evaluation 

tracks the following three possible definitions to measure participation: 

1) Eligible Students: All students who may participate in a VPSC 

initiative; 

2) Applicants: The set of eligible students who apply to attend a 

public school other than their assigned school through a VPSC 

initiative; and 

3) Enrollees: Those students who successfully apply and enroll at a 

school or program of their choice as a result of a VPSC initiative. 

 All of these students can be considered participants in the VPSC Program, depending 

on how broadly participation is defined. The most generous definition would count all 

eligible students as participants.17 Narrower definitions would limit participants to include 

only applicants, or even further, to include only enrollees. The national evaluation tracks 

and reports all three groups of students. 

The numbers of eligible students, applicants, and enrollees in the VPSC Program 

all have increased during the first three years of the program, but overall enrollment 

rates continue to remain low. Both the number of VPSC sites enrolling students each year 

(5, 10, and 12 sites respectively for the first three years), and the capacity within sites to 

accommodate greater transfers have increased over time. In this sense, the VPSC Program 

continued to scale-up during its first three years. The total number of students enrolled in 

 17 The logic favoring a count of eligible students as participants, even if not applying to transfer to 

another school, is that these students indeed exercised a choice by deciding to stay at their original school. 

Advocates of school choice sometimes use this argument. The inherent assumption is that students who did 

not transfer knowingly made a choice to stay at their original schools. However, no serious attempts have 

been made to verify if students in fact knew they had a choice. 
32

the VPSC Program rose from 1,087 students in 2002–03 to 7,445 students18 in 2003–04, 

and to 16,163 students in 2004–05 (see exhibit 13). 

Exhibit 13 

Eligible, Applying, and Enrolling Students 

During the First Three Years of the VPSC Program 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Eligible Applying Enrolling

Enrollment 

School Year

No. of 

sites 

enrolling 

students

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students*

No. of sites 

reporting

No. of 

students

2002–03 5 4 219,690 5 1,391 5 **1,087 

2003–04 10 10 **755,387 10 **15,721 10 **7,445 

2004–05 12 11 862,396 11 28,388 11 16,163 

 *Applicant count is based on the number of applications received by the sites. 

 **Estimates of participant numbers differ from earlier reports. Adjustments to the earlier estimates are 

 based on new information from the sites, as of August 2005. 

Exhibit Reads: Four VPSC sites reported a total of 219,690 eligible students during 

2002–03. 

 At the same time, this rise in enrollment represents a conservative estimate, because 

the twelfth VPSC site did not report enrollment data, and the thirteenth site (needing more 

time to get new charter schools approved and started) implemented its initiative in 2005–

06, after data collection for this report ended. 

Despite consistent growth as a whole, the rate of participation varied greatly from one 

VPSC site to the next. As discussed previously, some VPSC sites defined eligibility loosely, 

to encompass a much larger population of students than their initiative could reasonably 

accommodate, while others chose a more narrow definition. The number of eligible students 

at each site ranged from 1,842 to 318,231 students (see exhibit 14). The variability resulted 

not only from the size of the site’s VPSC award, but also from the degree to which the site’s 

VPSC-funded activities were embedded within a larger choice initiative. In the latter case, 

the site defined eligibility in terms of its larger public school choice program, which 

substantially increased the number of eligible students. 

 18 The 2003–04 figure was originally reported as 3,981 students in last year’s national evaluation report. 

The new figure represents an updating and adjustment mainly because, at the time of that report, one of the 

sites had reported its eligible and applicant but not its enrollment figures. The site has since provided the 

enrollment figure for 2003–04. 
33

Exhibit 14 

Site-by-Site Variations in the Numbers of Students Participating 

in the VPSC Program’s Choice Initiatives, 2004–05 

Number of students Percent

VPSC Program 

sites Eligible Applying Enrolling

Enrolling 

of eligible

Enrolling of 

applying

Applying of 

eligible

 A 108,845 3,884 2,755 2.5 70.9 3.6

 B 29,531 1,037* 1,037 3.5 100.0 3.5

 C 1,842 1,842 1,842 100.0 100.0 100.0

D 318,231 198* 198 0.1 100.0 0.1

 E 4,849 741* 741 15.3 100.0 15.3

 F 300,000 4,831 878 0.3 18.2 1.6

 G 5,224 149 34 0.7 22.8 2.9

 H 4,073 167 48 1.2 28.7 4.1

 I 10,452 608 111 1.1 18.4 5.8

 J 51,000 5,007 4,249 8.3 84.9 9.8

 K 28,349 9,924 4,270 15.1 43.0 35.0

 L Site is unable to estimate VPSC-specific enrollment at this time** 

 M No participating students in 2004–05 

Total number of 

students

 862,396 28,388 16,163 

Number of sites 

reporting

 11 11 11 

 *Site had enrollment in 2004–05 but did not report the number of applicants. The present 

analyses assumed the number was at least equal to the number of enrollees. 

**The site has enrollment in a number of different choice options and is developing databases to 

track all choice students. The site is currently unable to provide data specific to participation in 

the VPSC Program’s choice. 

 Exhibit Reads: VPSC site A reported having 108,845 eligible students in 2004–05. 

The number of eligible students in the VPSC Program is more than 30 times the 

number of applicants and 50 times the number of enrollees, making eligibility the high end 

estimate of the range of participation in the program. As of 2004–05, 862,396 students were 

eligible to participate in public school choice through the VPSC Program. In some cases, 

individual sites defined a large pool of students as eligible, even though the initiative could only 

accommodate much smaller numbers of enrollees. For instance, at one VPSC site, even though 

only a few schools were able to receive transferring students, the initiative defined all students 

in the entire district as eligible to apply to attend these schools. Similarly, another site 
34

developed a statewide initiative to serve no more than 450 students, though in principle all of 

the state’s students in kindergarten through eighth grade were eligible to apply. 

From the pool of eligible students, 28,388 applied to schools of choice in 2004–05, and 

less than 60 percent eventually enrolled at these schools. The total number of applicants in 

2004–05 rose 80.6 percent over the previous year, due to the expansion of preexisting VPSC 

initiatives, as well as the increase in the number of sites operating these initiatives. 

 Although four of the 11 sites enrolled 100 percent of all their applicants (exhibit 14), the 

other seven sites had to develop selection procedures for handling student applications. Five 

sites used a lottery system to select students from the pool of applicants. Two sites used 

another method to prioritize applicants. In this method, the sites prioritized all applying 

students according to their eligibility for Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program and in 

reverse order of their state achievement test scores (lowest scoring receive highest priority). 

The sites then selected students in this priority order until all openings were filled. 

 On the surface, both selection procedures may present promising opportunities for 

comparing choice and non-choice enrollees. The enrollees either had been designated 

randomly (the lotteries) or through a regression discontinuity design (the priority order 

procedure). Therefore, the evaluation team is continuing to investigate the selection 

procedures at the seven sites and plans to report on this and any analyses conducted of these 

sites in the evaluation’s final report. 

 Of particular relevance, thus far, is the finding that lotteries have not usually 

represented true random draws. Priorities built into many of the selection procedures had a 

non-randomizing effect. Furthermore, the lotteries have differed, to suit local needs. Important 

variations include: 1) whether students can only apply to a single school or can list several 

schools as options on their application; and 2) whether the district or individual schools retain 

records of the lottery and enrollees. 

The VPSC Program had 16,163 students enrolled at schools of choice in 2004–05, a 

117 percent increase over the previous year. The estimate includes only students 

transferring for the first time in 2004–05, and does not count students who transferred in 

earlier years and who may continue to be enrolled at schools of their choice. Calculating 

the cumulative total depends in part on how many enrollees from a prior year decided to 

return to their original school or enrolled at yet a different school. Due to such attrition, the 

cumulative enrollment lies somewhere between 16,163 and 24,695 students (the first-time 

enrollees in 2004–05 compared to the total number for all years added together). 

 As partial clues, two sites have estimated attrition or “dropout” rates over the full 

three-year period of the VPSC Program (from 2002–03 to 2004–05), reporting rates that 

range between 30 and 50 percent. Several other sites have estimated their repeat 

enrollments from 2003–04 to 2004–05, and report continuation rates from 50 to 95 percent. 

However, it is difficult to determine how to count students that leave schools of choice. 
35

Some students may have decided to enroll at new schools through the choice initiative, 

while others returned to their assigned school and may be considered true “drop-outs.” Yet, 

many students may have left the district entirely, not necessarily having anything to do with 

their choice experiences. An accurate estimate for cumulative enrollment would need to 

distinguish among these alternatives while also tracking those students that continue to 

attend schools of choice through the VPSC Program. 

Over the VPSC Program’s first three years, there were increases in the rates of 

participation, measured by three ratios, the number of: 1) enrolling-to-applying 

students; 2) applying-to-eligible students; and 3) enrolling-to-eligible students (see 

exhibit 15). The proportion of applying students who enrolled increased from 47.4 percent 

in 2003–04 to 56.9 percent in 2004–05. Similarly, the proportion of eligible students who 

applied increased from 2.1 percent to 3.3 percent during the same period. However, the 

enrollment-to-eligible ratio showed the greatest rate of increase from 0.5 percent in 2002–

03 and one percent in 2003–04, to 1.9 percent in 2004–05. 

Exhibit 15 

Participation Rates in the VPSC Program 

(Fall 2002 to Summer 2005) 

Proportion of participation (percent)

Year of 

implementation

Enrolling 

to 

applying

Applying 

to 

eligible

Enrolling 

to 

eligible

2002–03 N.A.* N.A.* 0.5

2003–04 47.4 2.1 1.0

2004–05 56.9 3.3 1.9 

*In 2002–03, because sites were anxious to implement quickly, they did 

not provide sufficient information on the number of applicants. 

Exhibit Reads: The proportion of applying students who enroll in the VPSC 

Program’s choice initiatives increased from 47.4 percent in 2003–04 to 56.9 

percent in 2004–05. 

 This last rate is similar to those experienced at the outset of other public school choice 

initiatives, including those implemented under the Title I accountability provisions in the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. For instance, one study estimated that one percent of the 

eligible students transferred in 2002–03 and two percent in 2003–04 under the public 

school choice provisions of NCLB (Center on Education Policy, 2004). Similarly, the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office (2004) estimated that 1 percent of eligible students 

transferred in 2003–04 nationwide. Kim and Sunderman (2004) offer one possible 

explanation for the low rates. They found that many students whose applications were 
36

granted decided to stay in the neighborhood school because receiving schools might have 

been only marginally better than the failing schools. In some situations, the receiving 

schools were already on the state list for poor performance, although, not yet officially 

listed as low-performing. 

The VPSC Program’s three-year progress shows signs that the program will 

continue to scale-up in its remaining years (see exhibit 16). First, the number of sites 

enrolling students has increased every year (from five sites in the first year, to ten in the 

second, to 12 in the third, and with the 13th site having initiated public school choice in 

2005–06). Second, the amount of VPSC funds spent during the first three years fell short 

of the annual average available for the five-year period (calculated by dividing the total 

program funds by the five-year period). Finally, the rate of expenditures per enrolled 

student has declined in each of the first three years as start-up costs diminished, allowing 

sites to redirect the remaining funds toward site expansion (e.g., increasing the number of 

schools in the initiative). 

Exhibit 16 

Continuing Scale-Up of the VPSC Program, 

Based on the Program’s Existing and Anticipated Expenditure Rate 

Program year

Total VPSC Program (all sites) 2002–03 2003–04 2004–05* 2005–06 2006–07

Total expenditures ($m) 11.5 24.1 27.6 28.2 28.2 

 (Estimated Remaining) 

No. of enrolling students** 1,087 7,445 16,163 

Expenditures per student ($000) 10.6 3.2 1.7 

*Total expenditures for 2004–05 contains some projections of expenditures by the sites, because the 

reports were submitted in June 2005 for a fiscal year ending in October 2005. 

** Estimates of participant number differ from earlier reports. Adjustments to the earlier estimates are 

based on new information from the sites, as of August 2004. 

Source: VPSC Program Sites’ Grant Performance Reports, “Cover Sheet (ED 524B)” and “Section B: 

Budget information (OMB No. 1890-007),” July 2005. 

Exhibit Reads: During 2002–03, VPSC sites expended a total of $11.5 million in grant funds, 

an estimated $10,600 per student. 

 Annual shifts in the identity of low-performing schools also may create fresh groups 

of eligible students. Demand for public school choice could thus remain constant, if not 

increase, for the life of the initiative. Hence, sites that have linked choice options to school 

performance may experience an increase in the number of participants in their VPSC 

initiative over the next two years, as these sites continue to scale-up. 
37

Progress on Program Priorities 

 Though sites have successfully expanded the variety of choices available to students 

over the last three years, they have made less progress in other key priorities, discussed in 

the remainder of this section. Three of the priorities derive from the VPSC Program’s 

authorizing legislation: 

• Providing the widest variety of choices to all students in participating 

schools; 

• Promoting the transfer of students in low-performing schools to higherperforming schools; and 

• Developing partnerships seeking to implement interdistrict approaches. 

A fourth priority, discussed elsewhere in the legislation, required that the sites use VPSC 

funds to support student transportation services or costs. This requirement reflected the 

assumption that students would be more willing to travel farther from home and consider 

schools from a larger area than if the students had to pay the cost of transportation 

themselves. 

The VPSC Program has been associated with a wide variety of choices among 

educational programs. Progress has been substantial in the first of the four priorities. 

Except for adding new seats, sites have engaged in considerable “capacity-enhancing 

activities,” especially at receiving schools (see earlier exhibit 11, chapter 3). These 

activities have led to the implementation of new educational programs at those schools. In 

addition, sites already were supporting a wide variety of choices before the introduction of 

their VPSC-funded initiatives (see earlier exhibit 2, chapter 2). Together, the variety of 

educational programs within the VPSC-funded initiatives and among other non-VPSC 

initiatives has meant that students can choose from a large and diverse number of academic 

programs. 

 The outreach materials describing these choices at most of the sites reveal a wide 

variety of program options. At one urban site, students can choose to participate in any of 

five different choice initiatives, only one of which is the VPSC-funded choice initiative. 

Each initiative involves schools in different neighborhoods, including schools in the 

surrounding suburban neighborhoods. 

Transfers from low- to higher-performing schools are likely to have comprised only 

a portion of the students enrolled in the VPSC initiatives. First, fewer than half of the 

VPSC sites have created choice arrangements with predesignated sending and receiving 

schools, and of these, only four have limited their enrollment to transfers from low- to 
38

higher-performing schools. However, only three of the four reported enrollment in 2004–

05. The fourth site began enrolling students in 2005–06 (see row A, exhibit 17). 

Exhibit 17 

Student Transfers from Low- to Higher-Performing Schools, 2004–05 

*Of the 13 VPSC sites, 11 reported enrollment in 2004–05. One site with enrollment was unable to 

estimate VPSC-specific participants at this time and the remaining site was not yet enrolling students 

Exhibit reads: The choice implementation at three sites targeted students transferring from lowto higher-performing schools. The sites had a total enrollment of 886 students, all of whom were 

transfers from low- to higher-performing schools. 

 

Transfers from low- to higherperforming schools 

Sites’ choice implementation 

No. of 

sites* 

Total 

enrollment No. Percent 

A. Only targeted students transferring from 

low- to higher-performing schools 3 886 886 100% 

B. Supported various enrollments, and tracked 

the students transferring from low- to 

higher-performing schools 

 3 8,717 444 5% 

C. Supported various enrollments, but did not 

track students transferring from low- to 

higher-performing schools 

 5 6,560 sites did not track transfers from 

low- to higher-performing schools 

Total 11 16,163 1,330 

(minimum) 

unknown 

 Second, the other eight sites permitted a wider variety of transfers or had VPSC 

enrollments that involved no transfers. However, only some of these latter sites tracked the 

transfers from low- to higher-performing schools (see row B, exhibit 17), while others did 

not do such tracking (see row C, exhibit 17). (In one case, a site received a waiver from the 

Department to omit such tracking because all of the site’s enrollees were low-performing 

students, but they were not necessarily transferring from low- to higher-performing 

schools.) As a result, the known transfers from low- to higher-performing schools are 

small, but the actual proportion is likely to be greater. 

 The sites (in row B) that did track transfers reported only 5 percent of their students 

transferring from low- to higher-performing schools. Overall, the confirmed transfers 

(from rows A and B) represent only 1,330 of 9,603 or 13.8 percent of the total transfers. 

However, the final portion could be larger or smaller, depending on the nature of the 

transfers at the (row C) sites that did not track or document the pattern of their transfers. 
39

 One possible explanation for this overall pattern might be illustrated by the nature of 

the VPSC-funded initiative at two sites. Both sites used their VPSC funds together with 

funds from other sources to support broader, districtwide public school choice initiatives. 

By creating a broader approach, the sites extended the coverage of their initiatives to the 

full array of their schools and hence provided a wider variety of choices than a VPSCfunded initiative alone might have provided. 

 At the same time, these districts had proportionately few low-performing schools, 

districtwide. With students able to choose among any school in the system, the bulk of the 

enrollees were highly likely to come from schools not identified for improvement. As a 

result, these large districtwide initiatives reported low percentages of students transferring 

from low-performing to higher-performing schools. Comprising over 50 percent of the 

total VPSC choice enrollment in 2004–05, these two sites dominated the VPSC Program 

and brought the overall rate for such transfers downward.19 

Only four of the 13 sites have used VPSC funds to provide interdistrict options, 

which allow students to transfer to schools outside their home district. Regarding this 

third program priority, most of the VPSC sites have limited their choice initiatives to 

within-district options. Moreover, three of the four sites that have interdistrict options put 

them into place before the VPSC Program started. Another VPSC site that originally 

intended to develop interdistrict arrangements did not do so after finding that parents and 

students had minimal interest in such opportunities. 

 The VPSC Program gave priority to interdistrict arrangements under the assumption 

that they provide students in low-performing schools with greater opportunities to attend 

higher-performing schools. However, the VPSC Program’s experiences have shown that 

such options can exist in the absence of interdistrict arrangements. In particular, seven of 

the VPSC-funded sites are large urban districts that have diversely performing schools 

within their own district boundaries. One of these districts deliberately divided the district 

into pie-shaped sub-zones. Each zone tended to have higher-performing schools at its 

periphery and lower-performing schools at its center. The district’s choice arrangement 

promoted transfers within (but not between) zones. 

Relative to enrollment, transportation costs did not increase proportionately as 

might have been expected. As stated previously, the legislation required all sites to 

allocate a portion of VPSC funds to support transportation services or costs, to increase the 

number of choices available to students. While nine sites reported using funds for 

transportation, overall these costs did not necessarily increase. A possible explanation is 

 19 As an additional comparison, another choice initiative, existing contemporaneously with the VPSC 

Program, has been taking place in the D.C. Public Schools. Although this other initiative emphasizes the use 

of vouchers for students to attend private schools and does not involve public school choice, the D.C. 

initiative is nevertheless districtwide and takes place in a district with many schools reputed to be poorly 

performing. Nevertheless, this initiative reported that only 5.8 percent of the students awarded scholarships in 

the spring of 2004 (for enrollment in 2004–05) came from low-performing schools (see Wolf et al., 2005). 
40

that many students already were attending distant schools, and choice now allowed these 

students to select schools closer to home. Under such circumstances, sites experienced 

minimal or reduced transportation costs. 

 For example, one VPSC site identified schools in which enrollment had declined in 

part because some neighborhood children were attending more distant schools due to the 

perception of the poor quality of the neighborhood schools. The site designated these 

under-enrolled schools as “receiving schools” and improved their education programs, to 

encourage children to attend their neighborhood school. As another example, two of the 

VPSC sites had recently emerged from court-ordered school busing, from which students 

had been assigned to more distant schools as part of the original desegregation order. The 

VPSC-funded initiative gave affected students the choice of enrolling at neighborhood 

schools. 

 In cases in which sites did not require additional funds for transportation, the sites 

received waivers from the Department that exempted them from the original requirement. 

The lesson from these and other examples in the VPSC Program is that transportation costs 

need not increase and may even decrease with the implementation of public school choice, 

depending upon preexisting enrollment patterns and the design of the choice initiative itself 

(see exhibit 18). 

Progress in Collecting Data to Examine 

 Student Achievement Trends 

 As a major evaluation activity, the VPSC Program’s authorizing legislation calls for 

the national evaluation to determine “the effect of the [choice] programs on the academic 

achievement” of participating students, especially those who transfer from Title I AYP 

schools to higher-performing schools—as well as “on the overall quality of participating 

schools and districts.”20 

 Fulfilling this requirement calls for data at two levels: individual student records (an 

individual level) and aggregate grade and school-level performance (a systems level). The 

two levels reflect the dual policy aspirations of the legislation and of public school choice 

initiatives. Such initiatives not only benefit individual students but also improve whole 

systems, because of expected marketplace forces whereby schools either improve their 

performance, to compete for student enrollment, or risk undesirable sanctions—such as 

reconstruction and eventual closure. 

 Even with the availability of the data at both levels, a critical caveat remains: The 

design of the VPSC Program does not permit the determination of the actual “effect” of the 

program. Many other conditions influencing student achievement coexist with the VPSC-

 20 See The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, Title V, Part B, Sec. 5246(b)(3). 
41

Exhibit 18 

Changes in Transportation Costs at VPSC Sites

Changes in 

transportation costs Illustrative conditions in VPSC initiatives 

Costs INCREASE (and are 

part of the VPSC 

Program’s expenditures)

• Initiative designates receiving schools that are farther away 

from students’ homes than the sending schools; 

• Initiative gives students opportunity to transfer to schools in 

other districts; or 

• Initiative creates increased interest and capacity to attend nonneighborhood schools.

Sites may experience 

NO CHANGE in costs

• Initiative is districtwide, and students traveling greater 

distances may be offset by those traveling lesser distances;

or 

• Initiative involves within-school choices only, so students 

remain enrolled at original site.

Costs DECREASE (relieving 

the VPSC Program from 

having such expenditures)

• Initiative involves a portion of the district, and students 

previously attending more distant schools may return to 

schools in this portion; 

• Initiative permits students previously bused under 

desegregation to return to closer schools; or 

• Initiative permits students to transfer from a school to an 

educational environment closer to home.

Effect on transportation costs 

is yet UNKNOWN

• Initiative has not yet been fully designed or implemented.

 Source: Site visit databases and Grant Performance Reports, COSMOS Corp., 2005. 

funded initiative. At best, the analysis of student achievement data represents an analysis 

of “preprogram” and then “concurrent” trends. The preprogram trends reflect student 

achievement during a multi-year period prior to the start of the VPSC Program’s initiatives. 

The preprogram trends can later be compared with concurrent trends, which reflect student 

achievement during the multiyear period of the VPSC-funded initiatives.21

 21 Throughout the analysis, observations pertain to changes in scores. Such a focus is not synonymous 

with a focus on changes in actual achievement. For instance, improvements in state assessment scores can 

reflect either improving student achievement or weakened criteria in the scoring of criterion-referenced 

assessments. Many state assessments are based on criterion-referenced tests. Despite this shortcoming, no 

other ways of assessing student achievement are as readily available, for schools and districts across the 

country, as the state assessment tests.
42

Individual-Level Student Achievement Data 

At the individual level, the VPSC sites have collected individual records of students 

enrolled in the choice initiatives, but additional clarifications are needed before analysis 

can occur. Every VPSC Program site is contributing to this effort. The ultimate goal is for 

all of the sites to collect individual-level data covering students enrolled in the VPSCfunded initiative as well as a comparable group of students who did not enroll. For 

instance, if the choice initiative was oversubscribed, demographically matched students 

who applied but who were not selected for enrollment at a school of choice would be the 

most comparable group of non-transfers. Alternatively, students eligible to apply but not 

submitting an application, matched for demographic characteristics, also could serve as a 

comparison group. 

 At the same time, choice initiatives are complicated, leading to the need for additional 

clarification in the student records. The needed clarifications at this time are as follows. 

Sites’ student records submitted to the national evaluation team do not directly 

coincide with the number of enrollees reported elsewhere by the sites. Every VPSC site 

active in enrolling students in a VPSC-supported initiative by 2004–05 has submitted 

individual student records to the national evaluation team. These submissions indicate that 

sites are making serious efforts to assess the performance of the students in their initiatives. 

As of September 2005, the submitted records did not cover the most recent school year 

(2004–05). However, they did cover one or more of the prior years. Since September 

2005, three of the sites have submitted updates, and others should be forthcoming on a 

regular basis. 

 The sites’ submissions employ, not unexpectedly, different electronic and database 

formats, also containing different types of information about each student. Reviewing these 

different formats and preparing them for cross-site analysis has required extensive efforts 

on the part of the national evaluation team. A basic check was used to confirm that the 

headcount of records matched the number of students presumed to be enrolled in the site’s 

choice initiative. 

 The headcounts thus far indicate that, for most of the VPSC sites, the total number of 

submitted records does not coincide with the total number of enrollees reported elsewhere 

by the sites (see exhibit 19)—e.g., either in their annual grant performance reports 

submitted to the Department or in their reports at the national evaluation’s site visits.22 In 

some cases, the discrepancies are small, but in most cases the differences are substantially 

greater than 5 percent. The headcounts also do not appear to include the records of any 

 22 These other reports have formed the basis for all of the three-year estimates reported earlier. Because 

the grant performance reports in particular are official documents submitted to the Department in relation to a 

site’s accountability for its grant award, the information in these reports has been assumed to be more 

accurate than any tallies from the individual records submitted to the national evaluation team. 
43

Exhibit 19 

Number of Student Records Submitted by the Sites, 

Compared to Enrollment Officially Reported By the Sites 

VPSC 

Program 

site Year 

Officially 

reported 

enrollment 

No. of 

records 

sent by 

site 

VPSC 

Program 

site Year 

Officially 

reported 

enrollment 

No. of 

records 

sent by 

site 

2002–03 450 115 I 2002–03 0 0 

2003–04 450 270 2003–04 162 162 

A 

2004–05 198 a 2004–05 2,755 a 

2002–03 0 258 J 2002–03 19 12 

2003–04 720 177 2003–04 31 62 

B 

2004–05 1,842 a 2004–05 48 b 

C Student transfers 

will not start until 2005–06 

K 

2002–03 0 0 

2002–03 0 0 2003–04 3,844 3,844 

2003–04 1,076 b 2004–05 4,249 a 

D 

2004–05 878 b L 2001–02 0 23,198 

2002–03 501 a 2002–03 0 67,091 

2003–04 191 a 2003–04 759 a 

E 

2004–05 741 a 2004–05 1,037 a 

2001–02 0 3,989 M 2002–03 80 67 

2002–03 37 36 2003–04 157 149 

2003–04 55 55 2004–05 34 a 

F 

2004–05 111 a

G Site cannot yet 

identify participating students 

2002–03 0 0 

2003–04 0 b 

H 

2004–05 4,270 b 

a

 Data are being compiled by the site. 

b

 Datasets received from the sites in September 2005; 

records not yet analyzed.

 

Exhibit Reads: VPSC Program Site A 

reported an enrollment of 450 students in 

2002–03, and submitted 115 records.
44

comparison group of students—e.g., students who might have applied to enroll but who 

remained at their original school and therefore were not enrollees in a VPSC-funded 

initiative. 

 The existing records need additional details to be used to analyze student 

achievement scores. Inspection of the individual data items within each record also reveals 

the need for additional details. Especially absent has been the identity of the student’s 

school, along with the year of such matriculation. Because sites have kept track of the 

schools participating in their VPSC initiatives, the identification of the school as part of 

each student’s record would in part confirm the student’s enrollment in the VPSC initiative. 

 Though not identifying the school, the records from most sites do include information 

about a student’s grade level. 

 Similarly, the information in the students’ records does not include the actual calendar 

year for such data as the student’s grade level or, if present in the record, the state 

achievement scores associated with the record. Having the year of testing is especially 

important in those situations where students may only be tested in alternate years, to 

distinguish scores for the preprogram year (the year just before the student enrolled in a 

VPSC initiative) from scores that might be a year older. 

 As a further complication, for many of the initiatives in the VPSC Program, students 

may have started to enroll in the initiative while still in their prekindergarten, kindergarten, 

or first grades. For these students, no preenrollment test scores are available because no 

testing on state achievement tests occurred. 

 Until sites have clarified the headcounts and these additional details as part of the 

submitted records, further analysis of the student records seems premature. 

To tighten future reporting, the VPSC Program sites might consider expanding and 

improving their databases for tracking their enrollees. The most desired remedy would be 

for sites to strengthen their own, VPSC-specific databases, using information downloaded 

from district files but not relying entirely on such files. 

 The core element in these databases would be an individual record for every student 

enrolled in the VPSC initiative for a given academic year—information not necessarily 

present in existing district records and that the VPSC Program sites therefore need to track 

on their own. The sites would verify such enrollment by confirming—a short time after the 

start of the academic year—that the student was indeed attending an eligible VPSCsupported receiving school or a school located in a geographic zone associated with the 
45

VPSC initiative.23 Ideally, sites also would have collected application data from these 

students before they were able to enroll at the VPSC-supported school, and the site would 

have had this prior information as part of the individual student’s record. 

 Sites would then augment this individual record further, downloading data from 

existing district files, showing, if possible: a) that the same student had enrolled at a 

different school in the prior academic year; and b) the student’s pertinent demographic and 

academic data for as many years as was available in the district records.24 Using a reliable 

and accurate ID system, the site would then track the same student’s enrollment at the same 

or different schools in subsequent years, continuing to download the relevant test and 

academic data. 

 The ongoing database could then help sites to establish an annual headcount of all 

students enrolled in the VPSC initiative. The headcount would now go beyond tallies of 

the first-year enrollees, calculating continuation and dropout rates as well as trends in 

students’ academic performance. 

 All of this record-keeping would pertain to a single annual cohort of VPSC enrollees. 

The site would repeat the entire procedure each year, creating a new batch of individual 

records for every new cohort of students applying to and then becoming enrolled in the 

VPSC initiative. Within the same cohort, over time, the site would calculate changes in 

academic achievement. The sites could then calculate the cumulative headcount and other 

characteristics of all of the VPSC enrollees, across all cohorts, by combining its records 

from all of the cohorts. 

 Interpreting the achievement levels or trends over time requires some type of 

comparison group—i.e., students in the same grades that did not enroll in the choice 

initiatives at any of the VPSC sites. Sites could define comparison students in a number of 

ways. 

 The grossest comparison would be to district or even statewide averages. A more 

telling comparison would be with other students from the same original schools as those of 

the VPSC-supported enrollees but who themselves chose to stay at the same school and not 

to enroll in the VPSC initiative. An even closer comparison might be with the students at 

the same original school who also had applied to enroll in the VPSC initiative but who 

could not enroll because of oversubscription. 

 23 To avoid threats to maintaining the anonymity of the students, a site would need to establish “school 

codes,” so that only a central source would vouch for the participation of the school in the VPSC initiative, 

but the identity of the school would remain otherwise unknown. 

24 The academic data could include students’ grades and not just scores on standardized achievement 

tests. The availability of the grades would help overcome a problem with the test data—that they may not be 

available for the year before enrollment in a VPSC initiative because many school systems only test students 

every other year and because first-grade participants might not have any prior testing record. 
46

 Whichever the comparison group, the sites would create another group of individual 

student records, in much the same fashion as for those enrolled in the VPSC-funded 

initiative. The comparison group also would consist of cohorts, with each cohort of 

students tracked over time and with their academic and demographic information 

downloaded from the routine district records. 

 

 Systems-Level Student Achievement Data 

At the systems level, the national evaluation is comparing student achievement at 

the VPSC sites with state performance and with performance by matched comparison 

sites. The systems level tracking of student achievement relies on aggregate grade- and 

school-level records, not on individual student records. The data consist of scores on state 

assessment tests, for all grades and academic subjects that have been tested. Although the 

data cover every academic subject tested, the national evaluation has focused only on the 

achievement scores in reading and in mathematics. 

 Because VPSC Program implementation started in 2002–03, the preprogram trends 

tentatively cover 1998–99 to 2001–02, with 2001–02 serving as the preprogram year.25 

The planned analyses will cover two levels—the VPSC sites’ entire district or set of 

districts, and the sites’ targeted schools, if any (e.g., sending and receiving schools).

 

25 Later analyses will delineate more precisely the preprogram years for the various VPSC Program sites. 

For instance, although preprogram years were 1998–99 to 2001–02 for the VPSC sites that started their 

student enrollment in 2002–03, the years were 2000–01 to 2002–03 for those starting in 2003–04, and the 

years will be staggered even further with the sites starting in later years. Refining the definition of the 

preprogram years will occur once all sites have started their actual implementation.
47

5. INTERIM CONCLUSIONS 

 The current report covers the first three years of implementation, focusing primarily 

on identifying the characteristics of the VPSC Program and the extent to which the program 

has made progress in expanding choice opportunities for students. After three years of 

implementation, there is evidence that the VPSC Program has been contributing to an 

increase in the number of schools and students participating in public school choice 

initiatives. Less progress, however, has been made on the legislative priority of 

encouraging transfers from low- to higher-performing schools and in providing out-ofdistrict choice options for students. At this mid-program stage, “conclusions” about the 

program also are tentative. 

Preliminary Findings 

 What are the characteristics of the VPSC Program’s grantees? 

 The VPSC Program awarded a total of 13 grants in 2002 to three types of 

organizations: nine school districts, three state education agencies, and one nonprofit (charter 

school) organization. The initiatives differed widely from each other in design and scope, 

though all focused on two core activities: 1) reaching out to parents and the community; and 

2) building capacity at schools to attract and accommodate choice transfers. Both activities 

appear more prevalent in schools slotted to receive transferring students than in schools that 

were designated as sending-only. The majority of the students in all of the participating 

schools were nonwhite and eligible for the Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program. 

However, the sending-only schools had the largest of these majorities (71 percent nonwhite 

and 69 percent Free and Reduced-Price Lunch program participants) as well as the highest 

proportion of Title I schools (63 percent). 

Sites also varied by how they defined choice zones and managed the flow of students 

among participating schools. These plans can be categorized into four types of choice 

arrangements: predesignated specific sending and receiving schools; geographic areas 

where students can choose any school, and schools may thus be sending and receiving 

simultaneously; within-school options, in which no transfers occur; and a mixture of the 

first three types. Sites have more or less control over the movement of students between 

schools depending on the type of arrangement they adopt. Because choice zones allow 

students to transfer to any school within a select area, they limit sites’ ability to direct the 

flow of students from low- to higher-performing schools. 

The VPSC-funded initiatives have largely existed independent of the Title I choice 

initiatives at the same sites, except for two sites where the initiatives have been 

synonymous. Overall, even when sites support public school choice initiatives using VPSC 
48

funds exclusively, they have other unrelated choice programs operating at the same time. 

These options include magnet programs, charter schools, and a variety of other choice 

options offered by the district or state. 

 How and to what extent does the VPSC Program promote 

 educational equity and excellence? 

 The legislation gives priority to programs that provide the greatest choice to students, 

by allowing students to transfer to a wide variety of schools and increasing the capacity of 

those schools to accommodate new students. At the same time, the program has the 

priority of encouraging transfers of students from low- to higher-performing schools and 

providing opportunities for students to transfer to another school outside of their assigned 

district. In some respects, these goals may be contradictory. Arrangements that permit 

students to select any school within a geographic zone may provide a greater number of 

choices but have fewer percentages of students moving from low- to higher-performing 

schools or attending schools in neighboring districts. In contrast, districts can better 

promote transfers from low-performing to higher-performing schools by limiting choice 

options and designating specific sending and receiving schools. 

 There is evidence that the VPSC Program has made progress on the first priority to 

provide the widest variety of choice. Over the first three years of implementation, sites 

have expanded the assortment of choice options in participating schools and offer a large 

and diverse number of academic programs to transferring students. Total enrollment in the 

VPSC Program rose from 1,087 students in 2002–03 and 7,445 students in 2003–04, to 

16,163 students in 2004–05. Similarly, the enrollment-to-eligible rate increased from 0.5 

percent in 2002–03 and 1.0 percent in 2003–04, to 1.9 percent in 2004–05. Despite 

consistent growth as a whole, the rate of participation varied greatly from one VPSC site to 

the next, ranging from less than 1 to 100 percent. This variability is explained in part by how 

sites defined eligibility and whether the VPSC-funded initiative was embedded within a 

much larger choice program. 

 Less evidence is available regarding progress on the second program priority— 

increasing the number of students transferring from low- to higher-performing schools. 

Only a small number of sites specifically targeted such transfers. Other sites had a wider 

array of transfers and did not necessarily document the proportion moving from low- to 

higher-performing schools. 

 Regarding the third program priority—promoting interdistrict transfers—only four of 

the 13 VPSC sites provided interdistrict options, allowing students to transfer to schools 

outside their home district. One site that intended to develop interdistrict agreements 

abandoned this plan after finding a lack of interest in such opportunities among parents and 

students. 
49

 The legislation also required grantees to reserve a portion of the VPSC funds to cover 

the cost of transporting students to their new school. The evaluation, however, did not find 

evidence that these costs always increased relative to enrollment, as the VPSC initiatives 

permitted many students, already attending distant schools, to select schools closer to 

home. 

 

 

Useful Choice Practices

 A major motive underlying the creation of the VPSC Program was the hope that the 

sites’ experiences might develop useful choice practices to help states and districts across 

the country wanting to initiate or strengthen their own public school choice options and 

procedures. Even at this early stage, several potentially useful practices have emerged 

from the program. 

The breadth of VPSC Program’s experiences will potentially be useful to other districts 

in the future. The program covers a variety of choice arrangements. Although the program 

has only 13 sites, they cover a full range of communities and educational situations (e.g., large 

urban districts compared to small rural districts compared to districts with heterogeneous 

groups of schools compared to statewide initiatives). The breadth of the VPSC Program’s 

experiences is likely to serve the diverse conditions found in districts across the country. 

 As one of the most helpful experiences, the program is showing how four different 

choice arrangements can work. The experiences with these varied arrangements, along 

with eventual data about their experiences, will create a solid body of knowledge. Other 

districts can draw from these experiences in the future. 

 To make knowledge about the four arrangements as useful as possible, the present 

evaluation’s final report will update the experiences with each type of arrangement, along 

with the VPSC Program’s other experiences, at the end of the 2006–07 school year. 

 The examination will cover the enrollment and other participation associated with 

each type of arrangement, as well as how each type addresses the important priorities of 

choice initiatives (providing the widest variety of choices to all students in participating 

schools; promoting the transfer of students in low-performing schools to higher-performing 

schools; developing interdistrict partnerships; and making funds available to support 

transportation services). As a related inquiry, the analysis also will study the possible 

relationships among these priorities, and in particular, any potential complimentarity or 

conflict among them. 

 

The various sites also are initiating and further refining specific choice-related 

practices potentially useful for other districts. These potentially useful practices cover: 

the design of choice initiatives; parent involvement in choice arrangements; and capacity-
50

enhancing activities to augment or strengthen schools’ educational programs (see exhibit 

20). 

Exhibit 20 

Potentially Useful Choice Practices from the VPSC Program 

Designing Choice Initiatives

Working Outside the System: Creating a “community movement” and mobilizing families to be 

aware of the performance of their schools, leading to the promotion of new choices—e.g., the creation of 

charter schools. 

Maximizing Choice Options Within Small Geographic Areas: Defining subdistrict “zones” to 

include the most heterogeneous group of schools possible, so students can have wide choice but minimize 

transportation costs. 

Empowering Schools to “Own” a Choice Initiative: Developing a formal process for soliciting 

schools’ participation, to encourage them to take greater ownership over a choice initiative. 

Parent Involvement

Gaining “Input” from Families: Using large-scale surveys, media campaigns, and public forums to 

raise public awareness and participation in the choice initiative. 

Operating Parent Information Centers: Designing and staffing multiple parent information centers 

to serve a large community. 

Designing User-Friendly Communication about Choice Options: Creating easily searchable 

electronic or hardcopy materials, presenting students and their families with different kinds of choice 

options. 

Capacity-Enhancing Activities

Defining an Array of Educational Programs to Promote Student Diversity: Attending to the 

offerings at different schools to assure that the programs attract diverse student populations. 

Developing Formal Community Partnerships: Forming agreements with over 30 local institutions 

including local universities, businesses, and nonprofit agencies, to provide support for new educational 

programs at schools in the choice initiative. 

Expanding Distant Learning at “Off-Campus” Locations: Developing a K–8 curriculum for offcampus, online learning that is aligned with state standards and state assessments.

 As an example of a potentially useful strategy for increasing parent notification, one 

VPSC site has developed a user-friendly, online database. Parents and students can tap this 

database and electronically search for information about their choice options. Because 

many districts have a large variety of choice options, the amount of information available 
51

to parents and students may be overwhelming. By organizing this information online, the 

site has made it easier for parents and students to quickly learn about their choice options. 

 Rather than providing information electronically, another VPSC site has distributed 

hardcopies of materials to notify parents of the variety of choice options available. Over 

the course of implementation, the site converted its materials from a program-specific 

format (e.g., separate brochures covering magnet schools, charter schools, the VPSCfunded initiative, and other choice initiatives at the site) to a school-specific format (e.g., 

separate brochures for each school, describing all of the choice options available at the 

school), after they found that parents usually had an idea about the schools they might 

consider. The latter format has allowed parents to quickly collect information about the 

programs offered at these schools, rather than have to search through materials about all 

programs, some of which were not relevant to their interests. 

 As one example of a promising approach to enhance school capacity, another of the 

VPSC sites has developed a broad-based set of partnerships with local businesses, community 

groups, and institutions of higher education (IHE). These partners all have contributed to the 

capacity-enhancement process, helping the district to strengthen new educational programs. 

Moreover, the partnership, developed as a result of the VPSC Program, has successfully 

garnered additional funds to expand educational programs even further. 

 Part of the national evaluation’s work will be to document and disseminate these and 

other useful strategies and practices. In this manner, the VPSC Program’s experiences can 

ultimately help to strengthen public school choice initiatives across the country. 

53

REFERENCES 

Archbald, Douglas A., “School Choice, Magnet Schools, and the Liberation Model: An 

Empirical Study,” Sociology of Education, October 2004, 77:283-310. 

Belfield, Clive R., and Henry M. Levin, “The Effects of Competition between Schools on 

Educational Outcomes: A Review for the United States,” Review of Educational 

Research, Summer 2002, 72:279-341. 

Benigno, Pamela, “Colorado Public School Open Enrollment Policies: Not Very Open,” 

Independence Institute, Golden, Colo., Nov. 28, 2000. 

Betts, Julian R., “The Economic Theory of School Choice,” in Julian R. Betts and Tom 

Loveless (eds.), Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and Efficiency in Education 

Policy, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 14-39. 

Betts, Julian R., and Tom Loveless (eds.), Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and 

Efficiency in Education Policy, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005. 

Boyd, William Lowe, Debra Hare, and Joe Nathan, What Really Happened? Minnesota’s 

Experience with Statewide Public School Choice Programs, University of Minnesota, 

Minneapolis, Minn., May 2002. 

Center on Education Policy, From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 2 of the No Child 

Left Behind Act, Author, Washington, D.C., January 2004. 

Christenson, Bruce, et al., Evaluation of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program, 1998 

Grantees, U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Washington, D.C., 2003. 

Chubb, John E., and Terry M. Moe, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools, The 

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1990. 

Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor, “Segregation and 

Resegregation in North Carolina’s Public School Classrooms,” North Carolina Law 

Review, 2003, 16:3-27. 

Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. 

Inc., Hillsdale, N.J., 1988. 

Cookson, Peter W., Jr., and Sonali M. Shroff, “Recent Experience with Urban School 

Choice Plans,” ERIC/CUE Digest, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education, No. 

127, October 1997. 
54

COSMOS Corporation, The Urban Superintendency: Understanding the Work, Sharing 

the Knowledge, Volumes I and II, American Association of School Administrators, 

Arlington, Va., March 29, 2004. 

Cullen, Julie B., Brian Jacob, and Steven Levitt, “The Effect on School Choice on Student 

Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries,” Journal of Public Economics, 

2005, 89:729-760. 

Education Commission of the States, “School Choice: State Actions,” ECS State Notes, 

Denver, Colo., 2001. 

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, P.L. 107-110, 107th Congress, 2nd Session, 

Jan. 8, 2002. (see also, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 129, July 5, 2002). 

Figlio, David, and Cecilia Rouse, “Do Accountability and Voucher Threats Improve Low 

Performing Schools?” Journal of Public Economics, 2006, 90:239-255. 

Finnigan, Kara, et al., Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report, 

Policy and Program Service, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C., 2004. 

Fuller, Bruce, and Richard Elmore (eds.), Who Chooses? Who Loses? Culture, Institutions, 

and the Unequal Effects of School Choice, Teachers College Press, New York, N.Y., 

1996. 

Gardner, John, How School Choice Helps the Milwaukee Public Schools, American 

Education Reform Council, Milwaukee, Wisc., January 2002. 

Gill, Brian, “School Choice and Integration,” in Julian R. Betts and Tom Loveless (eds.), 

Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and Efficiency in Education Policy, 

Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 130-145. 

Goldhaber, Dan, et al., “How School Choice Affects Students Who Do Not Choose,” in 

Julian R. Betts and Tom Loveless (eds.), Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and 

Efficiency in Education Policy, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, 

pp. 101-129. 

Greene, Jay P., An Evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice 

Program, Civic Report February 2001, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New 

York, N.Y., February 2001. 

Greene, Jay P., 2001 Education Freedom Index, Civic Report No. 24, Center for Civic 

Innovation, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, New York, N.Y., January 2002. 
55

Hamilton, Laura S., and Kacey Guin, “Understanding How Families Choose Schools,” in 

Julian R. Betts and Tom Loveless (eds.), Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and 

Efficiency in Education Policy, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, 

pp. 40-60. 

Hastings, Justin S., Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger, Parental Preferences and 

School Competition: Evidence from a Public School Choice Program, National 

Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. w11805, Cambridge, Mass., Nov. 

2005. 

Hastings, Justin S., Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger, Preferences and 

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in a Public School Choice Lottery, National Bureau 

of Economic Research, Working Paper No. w12145, Cambridge, Mass., April 2006. 

Henig, Jeffrey R., and Stephen D. Sugarman, “The Nature and Extent of School Choice,” in 

Stephen D. Sugarman and Frank R. Kemerer (eds.), School Choice and Social 

Controversy: Politics, Policy, and Law, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, 

D.C., 1999, pp. 13-35. 

Heritage Foundation, Center for Education Reform, and the Education Commission of the 

States, School Choice and Charter School Programs: 2001, Washington, D.C., 2001. 

Hill, Paul T., Lawrence C. Pierce, and James W. Guthrie, Reinventing Public Education: 

How Contracting Can Transform America’s Schools, University of Chicago Press, 

Chicago, Ill., 1997. 

Hoxby, Caroline M., “Introduction,” in Caroline M. Hoxby (ed.), The Economic Analysis of 

School Choice, University of Chicago Press, Chicago Ill., 2002. 

Hoxby, Caroline M., School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice be a 

Tide that Lifts All Boats?), paper presented at NBER Conference on the Economics of 

School Choice, Cheeca Lodge, Islamorada, Fla., Feb. 23-24, 2001. 

Lee, Valerie E., and David T. Burkam, Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background 

Differences in Achievement as Children Begin School, Economic Policy Institute, 

Washington, D.C., 2002. 

Lipsey, Mark W., and David B. Wilson, “The Efficacy of Psychological, Educational, and 

Behavioral Treatment: Confirmation from Meta-Analysis,” American Psychologist, 

1993, 48:1181-1209. 

Loveless, Tom, How Well Are American Students Learning? With Sections on Arithmetic, 

High School Culture, and Charter Schools, Brown Center on Education Policy, 

Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., September 2002, 1(3). 
56

Kim, Jimmy, and Gail L. Sunderman, Does NCLB Provide Good Choices for Students in 

Low-Performing Schools? Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, Cambridge, 

Mass., February 2004. 

Miron, Gary, and Christopher Nelson, What’s Public about Charter Schools? Lessons 

Learned about Choice and Accountability, Corwin Press, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 

2002. 

Moe, Terry M., “The Politics of the Status Quo,” in Paul Peterson (ed.), Our Schools and 

Our Future... Are We still at Risk? Hoover Institution Press, Palo Alto, Calif., 2003, 

pp. 177-210. 

National Working Commission on Choice in K–12 Education, School Choice: Doing It the 

Right Way Makes a Difference, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 2004. 

Nechyba, Thomas, “What Can Be (and Has Been) Learnt from General Equilibrium 

Simulation Models of School Finance?” National Tax Journal, 2003, LVI:387-414. 

Nechyba, Thomas, and Michael Heise, “School Finance Reform: Introducing the Choice 

Factor,” in Diane Ravitch and Joseph P. Viteritti, (eds.), City Schools: Lessons from 

New York, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md., 2000, pp. 367-392. 

Peterkin, Robert S., “Choice and Change in Public Schools,” in David Boaz (ed.), 

Liberating Schools: Education in the Inner City, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 

1991, pp. 173-179. 

Powers, Jeanne M., and Peter W. Cookson, Jr., “The Politics of School Choice Research: 

Fact, Fiction, and Statistics,” Educational Policy, January and March 1999, 13:104-

122. 

Ravitch, Diane, and Joseph P. Viteritti (eds.), New Schools for a New Century: The 

Redesign of Urban Education, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn., 1997. 

Reback, Randall, “House Prices and the Provision of Public Services: Capitalization Under 

School Choice Programs,” Journal of Urban Economics, 2005, 57:275-301. 

Ross, Karen E., “Charter Schools and Integration: The Experience in Michigan,” in Julian 

R. Betts and Tom Loveless (eds.), Getting Choice Right: Ensuring Equity and 

Efficiency in Education Policy, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 2005, 

pp. 146-175. 

Scott, Janelle T. (ed.), School Choice and Diversity: What the Evidence Says, Teachers 

College Press, New York, N.Y., 2005. 
57

Teske, Paul, et al., “Public School Choice: A Status Report,” in Diane Ravitch and Joseph 

P. Viteritti (eds.), City Schools: Lessons from New York, Johns Hopkins University 

Press, Baltimore, Md., 2000, pp. 313-338. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, “National School Lunch Program,” Nutrition Program 

Facts, Washington, D.C., December 2004. 

U.S. Department of Education, No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Annual Report to 

Congress, Washington, D.C., February 2005. Posted at: 

http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/nclbrpts.html. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Public 

School Choice: Draft Non-Regulatory Guidance, Washington, D.C., Feb. 6, 2004. 

Posted at: http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf. 

 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, No Child Left Behind Act: Education Needs to 

Provide Additional Technical Assistance and Conduct Implementation Studies for 

School Choice Provision, Report No. 05-7, Washington, D.C., December, 2004. 

Willie, Charles V., Ralph Edwards, and Michael J. Alves, Student Diversity, Choice, and 

School Improvement, Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Conn., 2002. 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, “Public School Open Enrollment,” Madison, 

Wisc., 1999. 

Wolf, Patrick, Babette Gutmann, Nada Eissa, Michael Puma, and Marsha Silverberg, 

Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: First Year Report on 

Participation, U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Washington, D.C., 2005. 

Yin, Robert K., “Rival Explanations as an Alternative to ‘Reforms As Experiments’,” in 

Leonard Bickman (ed.), Validity and Social Experimentation: Donald Campbell’s 

Legacy, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2000, pp. 239-266. 

Yin, Robert K., R. James Schmidt, and Frank Besag, “Aggregating Student Achievement 

Trends Across States With Different Tests: Using Standardized Slopes as Effect 

Sizes,” Peabody Journal of Education, 2006, 81(2):47-61. 

59

APPENDIX 

OMB Clearance #1875-0224 

Expiration Date: 10-31-09 

COSMOS Corporation 

Phone: 301-215-9100 

Fax: 301-215-6969

School Survey, 2006-07

School Survey: 2006-07 

COVER SHEET 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS 

National Evaluation of the Voluntary Public School Choice Program

 

Date: 

Respondent:

Title:

Phone:

School Name:

District:

State:

 

FOR NATIONAL EVALUATION USE

 ID Number: _________________ 

 Date Received: ______________ 

1
OMB Clearance #1875-0224 

Expiration Date: 10-31-09 

COSMOS Corporation 

Phone: 301-215-9100 

Fax: 301-215-6969

School Survey, 2006-07

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS 

1. School’s Name, Address, and Grade Levels: 

Name: 

Address: 

 Grade Levels (circle lowest and highest): pre-K K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 

2. The following data were calculated based on student enrollment from which school semester? 

 (check ONE only): 

for Spring 2006 

 for Fall 2006 

 for Spring 2007 

Other date (specify the date) 

 

 Total No. of Students: __________ (no.) 

American Indian or Alaska Native: (%) 

Asian: (%) 

Black or African American: (%) 

Hispanic: (%) 

Native Hawaiian or other Pac. Isld.: (%) 

White: (%) 

Other: (%) 

Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch:

 

(%) 

With IEP: (%) 

With Limited English Proficiency: (%) 

Migrant: (%) 

3. Does this School receive Title I assistance? ___Yes (schoolwide) ___Yes (targeted) ___No

 If yes, has the school been identified as failing to make Adequate Yearly Progress, based on 

student achievement scores for the: 

for the 2006-2007 school year 

 for the 2005-2006 school year 

 for the 2004-2005 school year

 none of the above 

 

2 
OMB Clearance #1875-0224 

Expiration Date: 10-31-09 

COSMOS Corporation 

Phone: 301-215-9100 

Fax: 301-215-6969

School Survey, 2006-07

4. School Choice Options for Students at this School: 

 (check ALL that apply): 

a. students within the district may transfer to this school 

b. students outside the district may transfer to this school 

c. students may transfer from this school to other schools within the district 

d. students may transfer from this school to other schools outside the district 

e. Other – e.g., open enrollment (please explain): 

 

f. there are no school choice options (If you answered “f”, please stop; do not 

respond to the remaining survey items.) 

(if you checked items a, b, c, or d): 

 For 2006-07, about how many students have transferred ? 

g. (number of students transferring to this school) 

h. (number of students transferring from this school) 

 

i. Did teachers receive any extra staff or professional development, 

 in relation to the transfer process? ___Yes ___No

j. If yes, what were the main topics of the staff or professional development? 

 (topic 1) 

 (topic 2) 

5. Notifying Parents about School Choice Options: 

 What actions did the school take to notify parents/families of their choice options? 

 (check ALL that apply) 

a. individual, face-to-face meetings with school officials 

b. group meetings with school officials 

c. enrollment fairs or similar events for parents to learn about choice options 

d. open houses at receiving schools 

e. letter mailed to parents/families 

f. letter sent home with students 

g. announcements in community newspapers or other media 

h. contacts made by the district’s parent information center(s) 

i. other (please explain): 

 

j. How many languages, other than English, have been used in these notification procedures?

___ (no.) 

3 
OMB Clearance #1875-0224 

Expiration Date: 10-31-09 

COSMOS Corporation 

Phone: 301-215-9100 

Fax: 301-215-6969

School Survey, 2006-07

6. In your opinion, what proportion of the parents/families had a good understanding of their 

choice options last year? (check ONE only) 

a. all parents/families 

b. most parents/families (e.g., over 50 percent) 

c. some parents/families (e.g., between 20-50 percent) 

d. few parents/families (e.g., less than 20 percent) 

If you checked 6b, 6c, or 6d, what is the most important thing you can 

recommend, to 

improve parents/families’ understanding of their choice options? 

7. Has your school started new programs (e.g., magnets, academies, small learning communities, 

new academic subjects) to be more attractive, either to reduce the number of students transferring 

out or to increase the number transferring in? (check ALL that apply) 

a. becoming a charter school 

b. starting new magnets, academies, or small learning communities 

c. starting other new academic programs or subjects 

 making other changes in school administration (e.g., changing school 

hours) 

d. 

e. 

 other 

f. no new programs 

Briefly describe the new programs and the main changes in school operation and 

administration. 

4