Network Exploration of Interdistrict School Choice Over Time in a Mandatory Open Enrollment State

Abstract

Background:

Early studies of district-level outcomes of interdistrict school choice policies found changes in how districts interact with one another and changes in districts’ per-pupil expenditures. More recent studies suggest that wider social and political consequences may result from interdistrict choice policies.

Purpose:

In Colorado, interdistrict school choice participation increased from 4.64% participation in the 2003–2004 fiscal year to almost 10% participation in the 2016–2017 fiscal year, shifting more than $7.79 billion in per-pupil revenue in the process. This suggests a corresponding shift in the social organization of schooling under Colorado’s statewide interdistrict school choice policy.

Research Design:

Quantitative studies on school choice policies typically examine the factors leading to individual choices when choosing schools or the individual outcomes of those choices. This study takes a different approach to quantitative analysis of school choice by employing separable temporal exponential random graph modeling (STERGM), a network analysis method, to examine patterns of student-enrollment ties that are created between school districts when students enroll outside their district of residence.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

School district leaders and policy makers should be cognizant of changes to the organization of education and the fiscal impact of those changes—especially given that findings from this study suggest that these changes may be out of their hands. Findings may have indirect impacts on matters such as mill levy and bond evaluations by way of total program formula calculations and may suggest a hidden destabilization of democratic processes, such as losing the interest of voters who send their students to a school in another district.

Keywords

school choice open enrollment network analysis school districts state policy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdulkadiroğlu

Pathak

P. A.

Schellenberg

Walters

C. R.

(2020). Do parents value school effectiveness? American Economic Review, 110(5), 1502–1539. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20172040

Bennett

Hansel

(2008). Institutional agility: Using the new institutionalism to guide school reform. In Cooper

B. S.

Cibulka

J. G.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 231–245). Routledge.

Burch

(2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. Routledge.

Campi

(2018). The unstable alliance for school choice: Social movements and American neoliberalism. Polity, 50(3), 398–427. https://doi.org/10.1086/698382

Carlson

(2014). School choice and educational stratification. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 269–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12059

Carlson

Lavery

Witte

J. F.

(2011). The determinants of interdistrict open enrollment flows: Evidence from two states. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 76–94.

Christenson

D. P.

Box-Steffensmeier

J. M.

(2016). Why amicus curiae cosigners come and go: A dynamic model of interest group networks. In Cherifi

Gaito

Quattrociocchi

Sala

(Eds.), Complex networks & their applications V (pp. 349–360). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50901-3_28

Chubb

J. E.

Moe

T. M.

(1991). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.

CO Const. art. IX, Section 2 Establishment and Maintenance of Public Schools.

10.

Colorado Department of Education. (2004-2017). Pupil membership [Data files]. https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/rvprioryearpmdata

11.

Colorado School Finance Project. (2004-2017). State profile data. https://cosfp.org/csfp-research/state-profile-data/#gsc.tab=0

12.

Colorado HB 93-1313. Concerning standards-based education in public schools. (HB) 93-1313, (Colo. Stat. 1993–1994).

13.

Colorado Revised Statutes. 22-36-101. Choice of programs and schools within school districts, C.R.S. 22-36-101 (Current through all laws passed during the 2020 legislative session).

14.

Colorado Revised Statutes. 22-54-103. Definitions, C.R.S. 22-54-103 (Current through all laws passed during the 2020 legislative session).

15.

Cookson

P. W.

Jr. (2020). Measuring student socioeconomic status: Toward a comprehensive approach. school finance series. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/measuring-student-socioeconomic-status-report

16.

Diehl

D. K.

(2020). Ties may come and ties may go: The formation and dissolution of funding relationships in the network of foundations giving to charter schools. Philanthropy & Education, 3(2), 27–52. https://doi.org/10.2979/phileduc.3.2.02

17.

Dietrich

E. A.

(2017). Modeling social network change over time: A comparison of methods [Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington]. (Publication No. 10218041). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I (UMI No. 1964414138)

18.

Education Commission of the States. (2018). Open enrollment 50-state report—All data points. 50-state comparison: Open enrollment policies (2018)update). http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquest4NE?rep=OE1805

19.

Fahle

E. M.

Reardon

S. F.

Kalogrides

Weathers

E. S.

Jang

(2020). Racial segregation and school poverty in the United States, 1999–2016. Race and Social Problems, 12(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-019-09277-w

20.

Finnigan

K. S.

Holme

J. J.

(2018). The political geography of inter-district integration. Peabody Journal of Education, 93(4), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2018.1488391

21.

Finnigan

K. S.

Scarbrough

(2013). Defining (and denying) diversity through interdistrict choice. Journal of School Choice, 7(2), 142–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2013.788958

22.

Frankenberg

Siegel-Hawley

Diem

(2017). Segregation by district boundary line: The fragmentation of Memphis area schools. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x17732752

23.

Friedman

(1955). The role of government in education. In Solo

R. A.

(Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 123–144). Rutgers University Press.

24.

Friedman

(2009). Capitalism and freedom. University of Chicago Press.

25.

Ghosh

(2010). Strategic interaction among public school districts: Evidence on spatial interdependence in school inputs. Economics of Education Review, 29(3), 440–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.001

26.

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430 (1968).

27.

Handcock

M. S.

Butts

C. T.

Hunter

D. R.

Goodreau

S. M.

de-Moll

S. B.

Krivitsky

P. N.

Morris

(2015). Temporal exponential random graph models (TERGMs) for dynamic network modeling in Statnet. https://www.insna.org/events/sunbelt-virtual-conference

28.

Handcock

M. S.

Hunter

Butts

Goodreau

Krivitsky

Morris

(2018). ergm: Fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks (The Statnet Project. R package version 3.9.4). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ergm

29.

Hanushek

E. A.

Kain

J. F.

Rivkin

S. G.

Branch

G. F.

(2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 823–848. https://doi.org/10.3386/w11252

30.

Henig

J. R.

(1995). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton University Press.

31.

Hirschman

A. O.

(1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard University Press.

32.

Holme

J. J.

Finnigan

K. S.

(2013). School diversity, school district fragmentation, and metropolitan policy. Teachers College Record, 115(11), 1–29. https://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=17205

33.

Holme

J. J.

Richards

M. P.

(2009). School choice and stratification in a regional context: Examining the role of inter-district choice. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 150–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810120

34.

Hunter

D. R.

Handcock

M. S.

Butts

C. T.

Goodreau

S. M.

Morris

(2008). ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v024.i03

35.

Kantor

Lowe

(2013). Educationalizing the welfare state and privatizing education. In Carter

P. L.

Welner

K. G.

(Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 25–39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.003.0003

36.

Kossinets

(2006). Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks, 28(3), 247–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2005.07.002

37.

Krivitsky

P. N.

(2019, Sept 25). [statnet_help] Valued network for TERGM. statnet_help: Technical support for “statnet” an R Package for the Statistical Analysis of Networks [Listserv]. Retrieved from: https://mailman13.u.washington.edu/mailman/htdig/statnet_help/2019/000039.html

38.

Krivitsky

P. N.

Goodreau

S. M.

(2016, March 29). Stergm-separable Temporal ergms for modeling discrete relational dynamics with statnet. https://mran.microsoft.com/snapshot/2017-02-20/web/packages/tergm/vignettes/STERGM.pdf

39.

Krivitsky

P. N.

Handcock

M. S.

(2014). A separable model for dynamic networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 76(1), 29–46.

40.

Krivitsky

P. N.

Morris

Handcock

M. S.

Butts

C. T.

Hunter

D. R.

Goodreau Klumb

C. S. M.

de-Moll

S. B.

(2021, June 29). Temporal exponential random graph models (TERGMs) for dynamic network modeling in statnet. https://rpubs.com/statnet/tergmdraft

41.

Lacireno-Paquet

Brantley

(2008). Who chooses schools, and why? National Education Policy Center. https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/who-chooses-schools-and-why

42.

Lafer

(2018). Breaking point: The cost of charter schools for public school districts. In the Public Interest. https://www.inthepublicinterest.org/wp-content/uploads/ITPI_Breaking_Point_May2018FINAL.pdf

43.

Lusher

Koskinen

Robins

(Eds.). (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511894701

44.

Mamas

Bjorklund

Jr Daly

A. J.

Moukarzel

(2020). Friendship and support networks among students with disabilities in middle school. International Journal of Educational Research, 103, 101608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101608

45.

Newman

(2018). Networks. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206650.001.0001

46.

Phillippo

(2019). A contest without winners: How students experience competitive school choice. University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctvdmwx5g

47.

Powers

J. M.

Topper

A. M.

(2019). Density, market share, market concentration, and proximity: Comparing measures of competition in the public school sector. Journal of School Choice, 13, 380–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2019.1593812

48.

Powers

J. M.

Topper

A. M.

Potterton

A. U.

(2017). Interdistrict mobility and charter schools in Arizona: Understanding the dynamics of public school choice. Journal of Public Management & Social Policy, 25(3), 56–87. https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/jpmsp/vol25/iss3/1

49.

Rincke

(2006). Competition in the public school sector: Evidence on strategic interaction among U.S. school districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 59(3), 352–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2005.12.003

50.

Robins

(2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social scientists. SAGE.

51.

Roda

Wells

A. S.

(2012). School choice policies and racial segregation: Where White parents’ good intentions, anxiety, and privilege collide. American Journal of Education, 119(2), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1086/668753

52.

Scott

(2017). Social network analysis (4th ed.). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716597

53.

Scott

J. T.

Holme

J. J.

(2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 250–297. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x16681001

54.

Scott

J. T.

Lubienski

C. A.

DeBray-Pelot

E. H.

(2008). The ideological and political landscape of school choice interest groups in the post-Zelman era. In Cooper

B. S.

Cibulka

J. G.

Fusarelli

L. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 246–262). Routledge.

55.

Scott

J. T.

Wells

A. S.

(2013). A more perfect union: Reconciling school choice policy with equality of opportunity goals. In Carter

P. L.

Welner

K. G.

(Eds.), Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to give every child an even chance (pp. 217–227). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199982981.003.0009

56.

Shanker

(1988, March 31). National press club speech. https://reuther.wayne.edu/files/64.43.pdf

57.

Sirer

M. I.

Maroulis

Guimera

Wilensky

Amaral

L. A. N.

(2015). The currents beneath the “rising tide” of school choice: An analysis of student enrollment flows in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 34(2), 358–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21826

58.

Suitts

(2019, June 4). Segregationists, libertarians, and the modern “school choice” movement. Southern Spaces. https://southernspaces.org/2019/segregationists-libertarians-and-modern-school-choice-movement

59.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge University Press.

60.

Yoon

E. S.

Lubienski

(2017). How do marginalized families engage in school choice in inequitable urban landscapes? A critical geographic approach. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(42). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2655