On Becoming a District of Choice: Implications for Equity Along the United States–Mexico Border

Abstract

Purpose: Despite the popularity of open enrollment as a school choice mechanism, there is little research on how principals behave in a district-run competitive setting. This study adds to our understanding of how open enrollment policies affect the role of the principal as well as educational equity by examining the roles and behaviors of school principals in an unregulated marketplace of schools. Research Method: This study uses an explanatory sequential mixed methods approach. We first analyze school-level transfer data for school year 2014-2015 and demographic data in order to examine trends such as poverty concentration as well as to identify “winners,” “losers,” and “nonplayers” in the open enrollment marketplace. Since principals are heavily involved in recruitment, student screening, and selection of specialized programs, we interviewed 12 principals to better understand their role in the competitive settings. Findings: We find that some schools have emerged as “winners” in this marketplace, attracting large numbers of transfers without losing many students, while other principals and schools struggle to overcome a negative perception and find a market niche to attract students. Our quantitative analysis indicates a relatively small relationship between open enrollment and increased segregation in the district. District oversight seems to have prevented worsening segregation. However, many principals seek more control on the screening process raising equity concerns if formal regulations are not provided. Implications: These findings have implications for school and district leaders navigating open enrollment plans as a means to increase enrollments and encourage innovation while also maintaining equity.

Social Justice Leadership in Educational Market Contexts

“…First, market proponents assume that the root cause of problems in public education stems from the monopolistic and bureaucratic state-run system, which they say leads to inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and a lack of innovation because monopolistic school systems do not respond to families' demands (Lipman and Hursh 2007;Malin et al 2019). To address this, proponents advance a model in which schools must compete for students rather than be guaranteed students based upon geography (Bagley 2006;Kotok et al 2019;Lubienski et al 2009).…”

“…Educational markets vary widely across districts in terms of policies employed, extent of regulation, and the available choice options (Kotok et al 2019). In some districts, the market is not very competitive because, while policies do allow for families to choose their schools, there are no systematic ways for this to occur.…”

“…Second, families' ability to choose schools within markets tends to be constrained rather than free (Gewirtz et al 1995;Kotok et al 2019) because of challenges such as a lack of access to information and available transportation (Kotok et al 2019). Apple (2004) notes that families with higher socioeconomic status are systematically privileged to be able to exercise choice.…”

“…Of most importance, the increased pressure to compete for students has incentivized many leaders to engage in unjust recruiting and marketing efforts to ensure their school remains open (Kotok et al 2019). While market assumptions assume that schools would respond to this competitive pressure to improve accountability scores by improving academic programs or teaching, research has shown school leaders may be more likely to engage in "creaming," "cream skimming," or "schools' choice" activities, in which leaders employ strategies to encourage certain students to enroll while discouraging others (Jabbar 2015;Sanders et al 2018).…”

“…These strategies might include publishing recruitment materials only in English, making requirements for family volunteer hours for attendance, or using certain school policies to make it easier to "counsel out" students who are detracting from scores (Jennings 2010). These actions are typically meant to discourage families of lower socioeconomic status, as these families are assumed to be "detractors" to accountability ratings (Kotok et al 2019;Sanders et al 2018).…”