• No se han encontrado resultados

EL MODELO DE INNOVACIÓN CURRICULAR EN LA FACULTAD DE GEOGRAFÍA

FORMACIÓN CURRICULAR DE LA FACULTAD DE GEOGRAFÍA 2003.

2.3 EL MODELO DE INNOVACIÓN CURRICULAR EN LA FACULTAD DE GEOGRAFÍA

The objectives of this chapter were to introduce the dataset, to

identify the overall rate of school assignment noncompliance across

student subgroups, and to use the revealed parent decision to make

inferences about how content families are with their neighborhood

schools. Since families do not all comply with school assignments,

these revealed preferences for non-assigned schools are treated in this

chapter as a reflection of the lower bound estimate of parents’

discontent with the school assignment. The results are relevant for

policy-makers both because they provide suggestive evidence about

several correlates with parental dissatisfaction and also because the

result of noncompliance with school assignments is that schools are

more segregated by race and SES than in the absence of the choices.

In total, over 1/3 of urban and black students do not comply with

their assignments and over 45 percent of urban black students do not

attend their assigned schools. These high rates of noncompliance are

substantively meaningful. At least among this sample, it seems quite

clear that many families are not pleased with their assignments, which

motivates them to send their children to a different public school.

It should come as no surprise that districts with explicit choice

options have many students engaging in school choice options. Charter,

magnet, and year-round schools are designed to increase choice options,

and they serve that function. In addition to these high rates of

noncompliance by attending schools of choice, many students attend non-

assigned traditional public school that are non-explicit schools of

choice. In this sample, over 10 percent of students attend a non-

assigned traditional public school. Sample districts were selected for

having longitudinal, historical school attendance maps available and

for enacting a school reassignment policy change during the study.

These inclusion criteria likely do not contribute to these findings

about noncompliance to a non-assigned traditional public school.

Nonetheless, since these non-assignments are often case-by-case

decisions at the discretion of the school district, it would be

valuable to extend this research with a qualitative study to

investigate the specific procedures for requesting different

assignments. In so doing, it will be possible to both determine the

extent to which the results can be extrapolated to other school

districts and states, and to determine whether opportunities to attend

a non-assigned school vary across observably different groups of

students.

The results also demonstrate clear and substantively different

patterns of students attending their non-assigned schools according to

geography. Urban students are least likely to attend their assigned

schools. Only about 55 percent of urban, black students in this sample

actually attended their assigned schools. Most obviously, these

patterns demonstrate that many parents--including nearly half of

parents in some student subgroups--are more content with an alternate

school over their assigned school. Of note, address data provide

residential student locations in the fall, while students’ school of

record are identified in the spring. Thus, it is possible that within-

year student mobility confounds some of the findings, particularly for

highly mobile urban students.

Urban poor and non-poor students are more likely to attend an

explicit school of choice than a non-assigned public school. Magnet

schools and other schools of choice are more commonly located in urban

areas, so these school choices are more easily available to urban

students. Non-poor students are more likely than their poor peers to

attend an explicit school of choice. This finding is driven by the

noncompliance among suburban and rural non-poor families selecting

explicit schools of choice at higher rates than the poor students in

the suburbs and rural areas. Even though parents of suburban and rural

families may have paid a housing premium for those locations, those

families remain able to opt out of their school assignments and into

explicit schools of choice.

Of all student subgroups, suburban poor students are the least

likely group to attend a school of choice. This finding can either

indicate that poor families who are able to live in the suburbs are

pleased with the school options; alternatively, these poor suburban

students might not be as connected to the necessary information and

processes to attend a non-assigned school. The fact that non-poor

suburban students are far more likely (12 versus 8 percent) than poor

suburban students to attend an explicit school of choice likely

suggests that the more advantaged suburban families are better equipped

than the poor suburban parents to act on their school preferences.

The final function of this chapter is to motivate the next two

chapters that study student reassignment. The following chapter will

use the sample of students in this chapter who comply with their

assignments. It will identify which students are reassigned when

districts alter their school attendance zones. The final dissertation

chapter will continue to investigate the reassigned student subset to

identify families’ behavioral responses to reassignment.

Chapter 2: What Types of Students are most