Rebecca Kisner, a fellow at the Donnell-Kay Foundation and community outreach coordinator at a high-performing charter school, says school choice – in its current form – only goes so far for Denver’s low-income families.
Over the last two years, enrollment into the Denver public school system has undergone a transformation into a streamlined application process called SchoolChoice.
Screen shot from the DPS school choice informational video.
The SchoolChoice application allows families to choose their top five school choices and assigns them based on capacity, availability, neighborhood preference and other factors. This promise of “choice” comes with serious implications: it sends the message to families that the possibility exists for their child to attend any school in the district. And while geographic boundaries may no longer dictate school enrollment, the boundaries imposed by poverty still limit choice for most low-income families.
The recent University of Colorado Denver’s Buechner Institute of Governance report analyzes the results of the first year of SchoolChoice. According to the UCD report, nearly half of the 12,637 parents responded that the number one reason for choosing their school was location close to home, work or family.
Parents of Hispanic students are almost twice as likely as parents of white students to choose their school based on location, while parents of students who receive free or reduced lunch were 20 percent more likely than their counterparts who don’t qualify for free and reduced price lunch. This reveals that for poor and minority families in Denver participating in SchoolChoice, location is still a prevailing factor over school performance.
With an enrollment system that historically has been based exclusively on geographic proximity, the highest-performing schools are most often located in the highest-income neighborhoods, while the lowest-performing schools are in the poorest neighborhoods. Schools have become a reflection and perpetuation of their community and particularly of the severe socioeconomic segregation that exists across the city.
SchoolChoice has the potential to improve the chances for low-income students to attend high-performing schools by allowing all families to apply to schools other than their neighborhood school. The unfortunate truth is that daily transportation to and from these schools remains a massive obstacle for low-income families to overcome.
What would SchoolChoice have to look like in order to provide universal opportunities for low-income students to receive a quality education? It is critical that all families in Denver know they have a choice in their school and have access to reliable resources that help them make that choice, including information about their chances of acceptance into any given school. It is equally important that these choices are meaningful and realistic.
For families living in poverty, the promise of choice will mean very little if in practice it entails commuting across the city.
To find a high quality neighborhood school in a poor neighborhood is rare. Equal access requires high quality options in poor areas of the city so that low-income children’s futures are not predetermined by their zip code. SchoolChoice provides great opportunity for these students – but this opportunity will never be seized as long as the barriers of poverty prevent families from traveling beyond their neighborhoods to attend a better school.
About the author
Rebecca Kisner is a fellow at the Donnell-Kay Foundation, where her work focuses on school choice, family engagement and alternative education. Kisner is also the community engagement coordinator at Rocky Mountain Prep, where she helps families exercise their choice in finding a high quality school.
“To find a high quality neighborhood school in a poor neighborhood is rare.”
This is only true if you believe that test scores tell us how “good” a school is. Test scores tell us the economics of the population served, nothing more. Test scores break down along economic lines very neatly.
Actually, in our district, which is ALL poor schools, you would find teachers who are dedicated, hardworking, and do amazing work with a very, very difficult and transient population. You would not find poor quality schools. You would find schools that are of an exceptionally high quality, but that don’t have resources, such as sufficient FTE.
So long as writers continue to insert this lie into what they write, I will continue to call them on it. If a lie is told often enough, it becomes the “new truth.” The main problem with reform and reformers is their incredible dishonesty.
So Rebecca, perhaps you’ll answer the questions I always ask reformers but never get answers to:
Can you point out even one “failing” affluent school? Just one will do.
Can you point out even one poor school, other than charters who get special rules the rest of us don’t get, like selecting the student body and “counseling out” the ones they don’t want, that is high-performing? (And actually, even with their special rules, I wouldn’t call STRIVE “high performing.” 50% proficiency on sixth grade reading, for example, doesn’t qualify a school as “high performing” In fact, it cracks me up. My school beats STRIVE Federal and Harvey Park on sixth grade reading, but my school is “low-performing,” The dishonesty and spin never ends).
I have asked these questions many times on this site, and have yet to receive answers. Alex and Van pose different questions, ones they like better, and answer those, but they don’t answer the questions I ASK.
So Rebecca, now I’m asking you.
So Rebecca, what is the solution to the transportation/location issue? Bring Mohammed to the mountain, or the mountain to Mohammed? Is the location concern by Latino parents one that has cultural connections? Does it matter? How do we balance the choice to go to local schools due to strong cultural ties versus the choice to go to a school outside of the community based on academic issues?
“What would SchoolChoice have to look like in order to provide universal opportunities for low-income students to receive a quality education?”
I’d like to suggest a different question: “What do we need to do to build excellent neighborhood schools so all students, including and especially low-income students, receive a quality education?”
The second question is about how to save the ship and everyone in it while the first is tinkering with a few lifeboats.
Parents don’t want school choices just for the heck of it. Virtually all of us are looking for quality schools, close to home.
Ah, but if we equitably funded schools (and poor schools would get a lot more than affluent schools) then we couldn’t make an (admittedly lame) case for closing them or converting them. If poor schools had even a fraction of the resources of an affluent school, our scores might rise and if our scores rise, there goes the flim-flam game, right out the window. It’s very, very important to reform that we identify these low income schools as “failing” even though they aren’t, because then we can turn them into charters, and a lot of reformers are licking their lips over that.
So be careful there, Jenny. You’re making sense. We can’t have THAT.
And Rebecca, I’m still waiting. I’m sure you’ve checked this thread. Why won’t you answer me?
Rebecca Kisner reveals her ignorance or possibly her prejudices with the terminology she used in her statement:
“Parents of Hispanic students are almost twice as likely as parents of white students”
What race are “Hispanic” students? What race are “white” students? And, if these were the categories used in the study, then shame on UCD. And, if so, it renders this study, that could be very important, invalid. Was there a self-identifying question for parents? For example, “Are you Hispanic or White?” I suspect, and I could be wrong, that there is an “assumption” that “everyone” knows what Kisner is talking about.
Mary – Yes, I believe academic achievement is the most important part of what makes a school “high quality.” If you believe that all test scores show us are the economics of the population served, do you also believe that low-income children are incapable of achieving at the same level as (or better than) their non-poor peers? I hope not. I am glad that most educators don’t agree with your disturbing implication that demographics are destiny.
If you’re interested in increased funding for low-income students, I suggest you follow Senator Mike Johnston’s school finance bill (http://www.ednewscolorado.org/2013/02/18/56217-school-funding-plan-almost-ready-to-go).
Mark – Thanks for your questions. In speaking to the Latino families I work with, their location concern is more closely linked to poverty and a lack of access to transportation than it is to a cultural connection to a neighborhood school. Surely that depends on the family, but I think it’s important that low-income families have the realistic option of attending an academically high-performing school if they so choose. For the Latino families I work with, this would not be a reality without transportation. If you’re interested in hearing more about how Latino families choose schools, Stand for Children is presenting their qualitative report on this very topic (http://stand.org/colorado/action/fulfilling-promise-choice/download-report) next Thursday, February 28.
Jenny – I think your question, “What do we need to do to build excellent neighborhood schools so all students, including and especially low-income students, receive a quality education?”, is equally important. Having a choice in your child’s education should include the choice to attend an excellent neighborhood school. As a parent, what would you do if that choice didn’t exist? Until all neighborhoods have excellent school options, transportation shouldn’t be a barrier to excellent schools.
Joanne – The race categories used in the UCD study were taken directly from the DPS SchoolChoice form. Parents self-identify when they complete the application.
Joanne Roll says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 20, 2013 at 12:20 pm
@Rebecca Kisner, my apologies. I was absolutely wrong to suggest that your use of those terms were a reflection on your own ignorance or possibily prejudices. I was the one who was ignorant.
I am the one who assumed that DPS would be using categories such as African-American, Anglo, Hispanic, etc. But when I looked at the study, he categories in the study were: Black, Hispanic, White, and Other. I have not been able to find a DPS Choice form but I will.
The above was posted here at 12:20 and then for some reason, it was not posted. I think it very important to post my apology to Kisner and correction.
Joanne Roll says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 20, 2013 at 12:20 pm
@Rebecca Kisner, my apologies. I was absolutely wrong to suggest that your use of those terms were a reflection on your own ignorance or possibily prejudices. I was the one who was ignorant.
I am the one who assumed that DPS would be using categories such as African-American, Anglo, Hispanic, etc. But when I looked at the study, he categories in the study were: Black, Hispanic, White, and Other. I have not been able to find a DPS Choice form but I will.
This is the third time that I have posted this comment. I don’t know why, after moderation, it has not been posted.
Rebecca, nice try (not really). Here’s what REAL EDUCATORS believe: Poor children come to school with a dearth of vocabulary. In fact, some kids hit kindergarten with only a couple hundred words. Compare that to a child from the solid middle class, often with a vocabulary in the thousands of words. Kids with vocabularies have something on which to “hook” new knowledge. Those without vocabulary are far, far behind from the very first day of kindergarten.
What about kids who hit kindergarten speaking only Spanish? Does it somehow surprise you that these kids are behind? Is there something mysterious about this? Is there some reason that you believe that almost an entire district of second language learners would not be behind?
Do you believe that kids who live in motels or cars have the same chance at academic success as the kids in Cherry Creek? No one’s saying these kids aren’t SMART but we are saying they’re disadvantaged. (As a matter of fact, a bilingual kid is smarter than a monolingual kid–but if they attend school in an under-resourced district, they’re not going to have the same scores). It takes much more work, and much more in the way of resources to bring these kids up to where they need to be. However, all we do is cut the funding to poor schools, when these are the schools who should receive many times more than their affluent counterparts. Since we fund by property taxes, that will never happen.
You know all of this, though. I think you’re dishonest, but I don’t think you’re stupid.
And I am CERTAIN that test scores fall along economic lines. If you don’t see that, then I quite frankly wonder what it is you’re doing over there at old DK,
And–you still haven’t answered my questions. Where is the “failing” affluent school I asked for? Where is the “high performing” school (that doesn’t get charter favors)?
Why can’t I get any reformers to answer these questions? Why do all of you answer questions that you like better?
Correction–where is the high performing POOR school that doesn’t get charter favors?
Mary–
I often disagree with what you say, but I want to say something that you seem to comment over and over again. Those in education reform are not automatically in favor of low performing schools becoming charters. I’ve been in ed reform for several years and believe in a way of making sure all kids succeed that doesn’t mean turning all schools into charters. IN FACT, I’m typically against charter as a method to improve a school, given how often these charters fail. And given how much they burn teachers out. It’s not great for teachers and it’s not a slam dunk for students either.
And while Rebecca takes a simple path to note that school choice is affected by student location and demographics, I have no doubt that the data is actually there–she’s just not writing it in a blog post that’s limited in scope. Why call her dishonest unless you’ve actually seen and analyzed the data yourself? And if you’ve done that, why don’t you do more than comment about her ignorance and stop attacking her personally?
No one is answering your questions because they don’t really make sense and they aren’t really relevant to the posts. This post was about school choice and transportation– an intersection of two issues facing DPS students.
Something to note about using test scores to gauge quality. TCAP only measures reading and math, so we have no way of using this data to determine the effectiveness of a school art, social studies, foreign language, technology, or any other subject area. I wouldn’t want my child to go to a school without an art program. This would make many so called high performing charters an unacceptable option.
Also McGraw Hill, who makes the CSAP, is being sued by the US Government and the state of Colorado for misrepresenting data collected by S&P, a subsidiary, that led to the financial crisis. I worry that so many people involved in the collapse of economy recently and the largest ever decrease in minority wealth are also involved in the “Ed Reform” movement. These people profit of the testing industry and therefore off of our families and communities. They have lots to gain by continuing the punitive testing regime and based on their lack of ethical behavior in the past I find it hard to believe that the for profit testing industry is really who we should trust we it comes to making educational choices.
Another thing, before we provide district resources to transport students to charters we should probably settle the debate about whether charters are public or private. I don’t think many people would consider Waste Management or Corrections Corporation of America public companies just because they receive public money. A judge in Texas recently said he wasn’t so sure that charters were public. Here is a link, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/02/judges-look-at-whether-charter-schools-are-public/
I’m getting back to this at 9 pm, because as an actual teacher, who works with actual kids in an actual school, rather than sitting at a keyboard at a nice comfortable desk and writing pablum, I had parent teacher conferences tonight (which were AWESOME, by the way).
“And while Rebecca takes a simple path to note that school choice is affected by student location and demographics, I have no doubt that the data is actually there–she’s just not writing it in a blog post that’s limited in scope. Why call her dishonest unless you’ve actually seen and analyzed the data yourself? And if you’ve done that, why don’t you do more than comment about her ignorance and stop attacking her personally?”
“Simple path.” I love it. It’s simple, all right. I call her, and almost all reformers, dishonest because of the lie that’s inserted in this piece and many others–that it’s rare to find a quality school in a poor neighborhood. That is so much hooey. Test scores show socioeconomic status and NOTHING ELSE AT ALL. If that weren’t true, then we would be able to find and point out a low performing affluent school. I only asked for one. If it weren’t true, then we would be able to point out a high scoring poor school (that doesn’t get charter school special advantages–and then frankly still doesn’t do all that great).
That, Lizzy, is why I keep asking the question. If what Rebecca asserts is true, then why doesn’t she supply the names of these schools? Why don’t you? None of you answers my questions because none of you CAN. They make sense all right–and I’m going to keep asking them, and I’m going to keep calling reformers on their shameless dishonesty. Every one of you knows perfectly well that test scores fall along economic lines, in every city and in every state. Every one of you. But you keep inserting the lie into everything you say and everything you write. So long as that continues, I’m going to continue, as well. In the end, will the truth prevail? Frankly, I doubt it. I don’t think we can fight the money that’s behind this movement. But you’ll at least know that some of us see you for what you are.
I think it’s horrible that reform attacks low income communities this way, and call it helping. It’s positively Orwellian.
Still waiting for my questions to be answered, but what the hey. I’m sure I’ll be able to ask them again in another thread.
DPS BOE needs to change its transportation policy so that it matches the changes in choice. Success Express needs to expand, and/or modify to work with RTD shuttles or circulators! This should have been part of the whole SchoolChoice changes!!!
And yet DPS BOE decided that since some parents were upset that their schools were not receiving transportation, Hamilton’s IPM choice students will no longer receive transportation. What? If DPS is going to make a big deal about Choice, then they need to provide the resources for children to get to their Choice school no matter where they live in the city….at least at the elementary/middle school levels.
And if DPS is serious about choice they also have to be serious about culturally relevant ways of talking and sharing about choice and understand better what communities want out of the schools in their neighborhood, allow community participation in those choices and overall in schools successes.