Volume 4, Number 6 June 2002

INSIDE THIS ISSUE E-Rate Update Rural Nebraskans Support Their Schools New Reports Provide Education Data Vermont School Choice Experiment May Negatively Affect Rural Schools and Communities Census Shows Gaps Between Rural, Urban Matters of Fact About RPM RPM Archives

Vermont School Choice Experiment May Negatively Affect Rural Schools and Communities

Most research on the effects of school open-enrollment programs is concentrated on urban and inner-city schools. Now, a recent study of a five-year experimental open-enrollment program in Rutland County, Vermont provides insight on how such programs might negatively impact small and rural schools.

Starting in 1997, the seven high schools in Rutland County, Vermont started a pilot open-enrollment program that allowed up to 10 students in each school to transfer to another high school of their choice. No money was exchanged between the schools, with the exception of excess special education costs which were borne by the home district. If there were more students wanting to transfer into or out of a particular school, a lottery was used to select participating students. Under the program, students or their parents were responsible for arranging transportation.

Four years into the program, the superintendents of schools in the Rutland Regional School Choice Collaborative conducted an evaluation of the program. Surveys were sent to all 63 students enrolled in the voucher program and 60 were completed and returned. These open-ended questionnaires asked about reasons for choosing, positive and negative features, co-curricular participation and transportation. In addition, guidance counselors provided grade point averages both before and after choosing. School level data were collected on key factors such as achievement scores, poverty and income.

Among the findings were:

• 76% of the students that participated in the program migrated from small schools to larger schools, suggesting that small high schools in Vermont could be significantly and negatively impacted particularly if money followed the student.
• 67% of the participating students moved toward a school in the center of the region rather than laterally or out to a more distant school, suggesting that the long-term viability of rural school and community connections could suffer.
• Neither participating students nor the receiving schools showed significant academic improvement under the program. Choosing students had average grades between a low B or high C, and they remained at this level in the choosing school. Further, the relationship between school test scores and the most popularly chosen schools was weak.
• The leading reason students chose to attend another school was related to social connections and friends, not academic concerns.
• The ability of students to participate in the Vermont school choice program was affected by the student's access to an automobile or a parent willing and able to provide transportation. This factor could lead to further centralization of schools when parents work in the central area.

In sum, the study concluded that gains associated with the choice experiment have, after four complete years, proven illusive. Beyond students being satisfied with their decision, no gains in academics or in other areas were attributable to the program. The study concludes that such school choice programs have the potential to negatively affect the viability of many small, rural schools and communities.

Information about the study and where to obtain copies: William J. Mathis and Deborah Etzler. Academic, Socioeconomic and Transportation Correlates in a Rural Public School Voucher System, Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Education Finance Association. Electronic or text copies of the full report are available by calling or emailing Sid Glassner, Executive Director, Vermont Society for the Study of Education, (802) 247-3488 or e-mail at essmont@sover.net.