1 choice, charters, and change. 2 how choice policies are affecting michigans education system
DESCRIPTION
3 The story in numbers –Where are charter schools located? –Who takes advantage of interdistrict choice? Limited impact on public schools Evidence of innovation How is the education system changing?TRANSCRIPT
1
CHOICE, CHARTERS, AND CHANGE
2
How Choice Policies Are Affecting Michigan’s Education
System
3
• The story in numbers– Where are charter schools located?– Who takes advantage of interdistrict choice?
• Limited impact on public schools• Evidence of innovation• How is the education system changing?
4
Number of Charter Schools and Pupils in Michigan, 1995-99
SchoolYear
Number ofSchools
Number ofStudents
% of AllMichiganK-12 students
Estimated StateSpending (000)
1995-96 43 5,500 0.3 $31,091
1996-97 79 12,047 0.8 $72,600
1997-98 105 20,477 1.3 $119,500
1998-99 138 30,000 1.9 $183,00
5
Aggregate Participation in Michigan’s Interdistrict Choice Program
1996-97 1997-98Number of interdistrict choicestudents
8,285 10,825
Percentage of state K-12 enrollment 0.5 0.7
Percentage of districts acceptingnonresident students
36.8 45.2
Percentage of transactions involvingless than 5 students
65.4 60.2
Percentage of transactions involvinggreater than 20 students
6.2 9.5
Note: A “transaction” is the transfer of students from one district toanother through interdistrict choice.
6
Charter School Location by Community Type, 1997-98
CommunityType
Number ofschooldistricts
Numberof charterschools
Percent ofdistricts withat least onecharter school
Charter schoolenrollment as %of host districtenrollment
Locationquotient
Central City 23 44 57 2.8 2.10
High –income 28 5 11 0.5 0.41
Other MSA 295 40 10 0.9 0.74
Outside MSA 209 16 7 0.8 0.66
TOTAL 555 105 11 1.3 1.00
7
Charter School Location by Host District Racial Composition, 1997-98
Percent BlackEnrollment
Number ofschooldistricts
Number ofcharterschools
Charter schoolenrollment as %of host districtenrollment
Locationquotient
< 1.0% 348 25 0.7 0.52
1 to 5 % 127 19 0.6 0.49
5 to 33 % 51 13 1.1 0.87
> 33 % 28 48 3.4 2.64
TOTAL 554 105 1.3 1.00
8
Charter School Location by Host District MEAP Test Performance, 1997-98
% satisfactory7th grade mathMEAP
Number ofschool districts
Number ofcharter schools
Charter schoolenrollment as %of host districtenrollment
Locationquotient
0 to 30% 19 8 2.3 1.77
30 to 60% 187 49 1.8 1.38
60 to 80% 269 41 1.0 0.77
80 to 100% 65 7 0.6 0.45
TOTAL 540 105 1.3 1.00
9
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
Percent of districts participating
School districtscharacteristic
Number ofdistricts
1996-97 1997-98
Location/type *
Central city 23 34.8 43.5
High-income 28 25.0 32.1
Other MSA 295 33.9 40.7
Outside MSA 209 42.6 53.6
10
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
Percent of districts participatingSchool districtscharacteristic
Number ofdistricts
1996-97 1997-98
% black enrollment
0 to 1% 348 38.5 48.0
1 to 5% 127 30.7 37.0
5 to 33% 51 39.2 49.0
33 to 100% 28 39.3 42.9
11
Percent of districts participatingSchool districtscharacteristic
Number ofdistricts
1996-97 1997-98
% change enrollment1993-98 * *
< -2% 177 44.6 54.8
-2 to 2% 72 44.4 48.6
2 to 10% 173 31.2 38.7
> 10% 132 29.5 39.4
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
12
Percent of districts participatingSchool districtscharacteristic
Number ofdistricts
1996-97 1997-98
% satisfactory 7th
math MEAP
0 to 30% 19 42.1 42.1
30 to 60% 187 40.1 50.3
60 to 80% 269 35.3 41.3
80 to 100% 65 29.2 47.7
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
13
Percent of districts participating
School districtscharacteristic
Number ofdistricts
1996-97 1997-98
Median householdincome * *
Less than $36,000 102 47.1 59.8
$36,000 to $54,000 234 41.0 50.8
$54,000 to $76,000 144 29.9 37.5
Greater than $76,000 74 23.0 23.0
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
14
Percent of districts participating
School districts characteristic Number ofDistricts
1996-97 1997-98
Median household income,excluding districts outside MSAs *
Less than $36,000 32 38.2 41.3
$36,000 to $54,000 119 40.8 50.7
$54,000 to $76,000 126 30.4 39.4
Greater than $76,000 69 25.0 25.0
State 554 36.8 45.2
*Group means are significantly different at 95% confidence level Group means display linearity at the 95% confidence level
School District Participation in Interdistrict Choice by District Characteristic
15
Educating district minus resident district(mean value of difference for students transfers)
District Characteristic Statewide Excluding Detroit Transfers entailing>20 students
Math 7th grade % satisfactory 5.1 6.9 7.6
Reading 7th grade % satisfactory 3.2 5.1 4.5
Graduation Rate 9.4 6.6 14.0
Drop-out Rate -3.6 -2.2 -5.4
Pupil-teacher Ratio 0.3 -0.1 0.5
Expenditures per pupil -$230 -$315 -$334
Mean teacher salary $1,692 $300 $2,841
District enrollment -15,571 -1,562 -24,359
% change enrollment1993-98
2.7 3.6
% free/reduced lunch -9.8 -10.9 -15.0
Median Income $6,335 $6,726 $9,947
% black students -12.2 -8.4 -18.6
Valid N (listwise) 9,850 8,930 6,151
Difference in Characteristics of Educating versus Resident Districts for Interdistrict Choice Students
16
Limited Impact At School Level
• Limited market penetration• Low “signal to noise” ratio
– Student turbulence– Other policy initiatives
• Preference versus performance• Administrative and financial insulation
– Fiscal centralization– Restricted administrative autonomy
17
Limited Impact At School Level cont.
• Greater impact at district level– Evidence of innovation– Increased attention to marketing– Responsiveness to parents
• No systematic differences across districts
18
Evidence of Innovation
• Still early--more talk than action• Competitive response is now emerging
– Lansing• all-day kindergarten• Star Institute• Wexford Community School• CLASS and collaboration
19
Evidence of Innovation cont.
• Detroit– proposal for “alternative” charter schools
• Kent County– Superintendents’ Task Force
• Intermediate School Districts– entrepreneurialism and economies of scale– encouragement for cooperation and innovation
20
How is the Education System Changing?
• Social sorting• Market segmentation• Emergence of management companies
– Edison Project– New Heritage Academies– Others
• Impact on other actors– Private and religious schools– Independent charter schools
21
Emerging Issues• Limited market penetration
– Remove current restrictions on choice– Provide start-up funding for charter schools
• Insufficient regulation and accountability– Oversight by MDE and chartering agents– Monitor access and equity
• special education• free and reduced lunch
• Legislative rules matter