A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

Background

Minnesota has an array of school choice mechanisms. While some, such as transfer agreements between school boards, have long been available, between 1985 and 1991 the state enacted legislation to increase educational choices for students and to give students and parents direct control over enrollment decisions. New programs include inter-district open enrollment, postsecondary options (whereby high school juniors and seniors can enroll in college courses) and charter schools (locally designed schools operating under contract with a district). Many districts also offer within-district choice options, such as magnet schools.

This study takes a second look at the effects of Minnesota's open enrollment program, first authorized in 1987. The program allows students to apply to enroll in any school district other than the one they reside in. In school year 1990-91, all Minnesota districts were required to allow students to attend school in another district.

A previous U.S. Department of Education study examined the implementation and early effects of the program. The current study focuses on the districts that experienced the greatest amount of student movement in 1990-91 as a result of the open enrollment program. These "high impact" districts either gained or lost 50 or more students, or gained or lost 5 percent or more of their enrollment. For comparison purposes, a set of districts was selected that had little movement in 1990-91 as a result of the program; these districts were matched to a high impact district based on enrollment and proximity. The study also looks at overall trends for school choice programs in the state.

Many dire predictions made in the early years of implementation, such as that there would be little participation by minority students, that students would change schools for frivolous reasons, or that student movement would cause serious financial problems for many districts, do not appear to have been realized. On the contrary, findings from the study show small but generally positive trends and effects of public school choice. Results from the study are presented in two reports.

Minnesota's Public School Choice Options

This report uses data collected annually by the Minnesota Department of Education to examine trends in the use of the state's school choice programs, including open enrollment.

Selected Findings

• In 1991-92 (the latest year for which comparable data are available), 4 percent of Minnesota's students chose the school they attended, up from 3 percent in 1990-91. (This figure excludes Minneapolis and St. Paul, where students are required to choose schools at different grade levels. If the Twin Cities are included, overall participation was 13 percent in 1991-92, up from 11 percent in 1990-91.)

• Use of many school choice options increased substantially between 1990-91 and 1991-92: for open enrollment, a 34 percent increase, for school board agreements, 28 percent, and for postsecondary options, 17 percent.

• Use of school choice programs aimed at students at risk of dropping out of high school also increased noticeably.

• Although within-district choice was the most popular option, students in the Twin Cities (where participation is required) accounted for 95 percent of those using within-district choice. Excluding the Twin Cities, inter-district mechanisms were the most frequently used, with open enrollment first, followed by postsecondary options and school board agreements.

• Available statewide data indicate that minority students and families use school choice at the same rate as white students and families. In 1991-92, 400 more minority students used choice mechanisms than had used them in 1990-91. When looking only at those districts where minority students actually used a specific option, the proportion of minority students using each option increases substantially.

• Use of the various options is somewhat related to district demographic characteristics. For example, open enrollment is more likely to occur in smaller districts, suburban and rural districts, and higher poverty districts. Programs aimed at potential dropouts are more popular in large districts.

Minnesota's Open Enrollment Option: Impacts on School Districts

Findings presented in this report are based on a telephone survey of administrators in high impact and comparison districts.

Selected Findings

• Administrators in high impact districts generally believe academics play an important role in family decisions to use open enrollment, especially at the secondary level. Concerning the primary reason for program use by families of elementary level students, administrators report that proximity issues (e.g., closeness to home, parents' jobs, day care) outweigh academics, but at the secondary level, academic issues prevail in gaining districts. In losing districts, administrators were more likely to cite nonacademic factors (e.g., extracurricular offerings, fresh start) as the primary reason secondary students use the program.

• While high impact districts are roughly similar to Minnesota districts overall on most demographic measures, there were key differences. For example, because the losing districts include most of the state's largest and most urban districts, this group also has higher minority enrollments.

• As was the case with previous studies of school choice in Minnesota, data from Minneapolis and St. Paul on characteristics of students using the program were not comparable to data from other areas. Excluding the Twin Cities, 94 percent of students using the program in high impact districts were white (reflecting the overall state population).

• With regard to the assumption that school choice encourages program improvement by schools and districts seeking to win, win back, or hold on to students, the study findings were mixed. For example, high impact districts, and especially high impact losing districts, put more effort into disseminating information about open enrollment, and losing districts were more likely to take steps specifically aimed at drawing students into a district or discouraging them from leaving. However, open enrollment appears to have little overall effect on district finances, and while respondents pointed to many changes in programs and educational indicators after implementation of open enrollment, most believed these changes were caused by factors other than open enrollment.

• While 95 percent of administrators in gaining districts reported not taking steps aimed at attracting or keeping students, 43 percent of losing districts and 29 percent of comparison districts reported taking steps such as expanding course offerings, making special transportation arrangements, making physical plant improvements, and increasing extracurricular offerings.

• In most cases the program does not appear to have affected academic and student support services (e.g., staffing, course offerings). However, for a small group of districts the program has either allowed them to hire staff and expand programming, or forced them to lay off staff and cancel programs and services.

• An examination of changes in districts' total operating budgets suggests no striking differences between gaining and losing districts with regard to the overall effects of open enrollment on their finances. In many districts, there is considerable student movement in and out via mechanisms other than open enrollment, and these movements may offset the financial effects of the program.

• While administrators reported considerable change over the last five years in selected educational indicators (e.g., student-teacher ratios, number of advanced placement courses offered), most cited factors other than open enrollment as the cause of these changes.

Additional copies of these reports are available from the Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, S.W., Room 3127, Washington, DC 20202-8240i or call (202)401-1958. -###-

Return to Elementary and Secondary Education Page

mail to esed@ed.gov

Last update September 1996 (swz).