Music City, USA: A Symphony of Values Lance High, Russ ... · Running head: MUSIC CITY, USA: A...

Running head: MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES

Music City, USA: A Symphony of Values

Lance High, Russ Keller, Tammy Parsons

Lipscomb University

Under the Direction of Roger W. Wiemers, Professor

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES ii

This Capstone Project, directed and approved by the candidate’s Juried Review

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES iii

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES iv

Acknowledgments

This capstone team would like to first thank our Heavenly Father for the energy

and ability to complete this capstone project and to our families for their unfailing love

and support throughout this capstone experience. We would also like to thank our

capstone advisor, Dr. Roger Wiemers, also known as “Uncle Raj,” for his patience and

guidance in helping us complete this research study. We also appreciate the support of

additional capstone committee members, Dr. Carole English, Dr. Trace Hebert, and Dr.

Nina Morel.

Sincere appreciation goes to Dr. Patricia Neill, professor at Samford University,

for her permission to model our study and instrument after one that was used in her

dissertation process. Additionally, thanks goes to Alan Coverstone and members of the

MNPS research department for guidance and access to data pertaining to MNPS schools.

We also give thanks to the MNPS schools and parents who participated in this study.

Finally, we would like to thank Lipscomb University for use of its facilities and

resources, faculty members of the doctoral program for preparing us for this adventure,

and other cohort members who have become like family during the course of the past two

years.

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES v

Abstract

When it comes to school choice, parents now have more options than ever. The Wall

Street Journal deemed the year 2011 “The Year of School Choice” because of the many

changes in public school policy across the nation. Working with the Office of Innovation

in Metro Nashville Public Schools, this research team investigated what parents value

most in public schools. Furthermore, the team investigated what factors drove parental

choice of schools. Approximately 700 surveys were sent out to sixth grade parents in

seven selected middle schools located within the Office of Innovation for Metro

Nashville Public Schools. Two hundred sixty-one were returned for quantitative

analysis. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with thirty-two parents, and

transcripts were analyzed for qualitative analysis. Based on findings, parents valued

academics and teachers in their child’s school. Furthermore, the top five factors that

influenced parental choice of school were distance of house from school, reputation,

safety of the school, transportation offered to the school, and teachers who received

highly qualified status. Additionally, it was found that parents who did consider other

public school options selected location as a factor that drove parental choice of school

more than parents who did not consider other public school options. The results of this

research will serve to inform MNPS school leaders and policy-makers in order to help

them in their continual efforts to improve Nashville’s public schools.

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES vi

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION Context….................................................................................................. 1

Problem Statement …................................................................................. 3

Purpose of the Study …............................................................................. 4 Conceptual Framework…………………………………………….… 5

Research Questions …............................................................................. 7 Hypotheses …................................................................................................7 Significance of the Study …......................................................................... 7 Scope and Bounds. ………………………………………………..………. 9

Definitions …............................................................................................... 9

Summary …………………………………………………………………. 10

CHAPTER II – REVIEW OF LITERATURE

What Parents Value in Schools ….............................................................. 12

Leadership …............................................................................................. 14 Teachers…................................................................................................. 15 Students…................................................................................................. 16 Special Programs ….................................................................................... 20 Location …................................................................................................. 21 Academics….............................................................................................. 23 Climate…................................................................................................... 26 Reputation …............................................................................................ 29 Demographic Implications …................................................................... 30

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES vii

Magnet Schools…..................................................................................... 32 School Vouchers......................................................................................... 34 Charter Schools …...................................................................................... 36 Parental Participation in School Choice..................................................... 40 Schools ………………………………...................................................... 45 What Parents Perceive................................................................................. 47 School Reform............................................................................................. 49 Summary of Literature Review................................................................... 51

CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY

Purpose Statement …................................................................................... 52

Research Question...................................................................................... 52

Approvals……. …...................................................................................... 53

Research Design …...................................................................................... 53

Participants…................................................................................................ 55

Procedures ……………............................................................................... 57

Instrumentation …....................................................................................... 60

Creation of Eight Constructs……………………………………………… 62

Analysis of Data …..................................................................................... 62

Quantitative Data ………………………………………………….…….. 62

Qualitative Data………………………………………………….………. 65

Null Hypotheses………………………………………………….……… 66

CHAPTER IV- RESULTS

Analysis of Quantitative Data………………………………….……….... 68

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES viii

Analysis of Null Hypotheses………………………………….……..…… 69

Other Quantitative Results………………………………………….…… 97

Analysis of Qualitative Data………………………………….…..…..….. 105

CHAPTER V- CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Conclusions………………………………………………………..…… 116

Limitations of the Study………………………….……………..…….. 126

Discussion……………………………………………………….……. 129

Suggestions for Further Research………………………….………….. 134

Recommendations ……………………………………………………. 136

Reflections …………………………………………………………… 137

REFERENCES ….............................................................................................. 139 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. Parental Survey (English) ……………………….……. 149

APPENDIX B. Parent Survey (Spanish) ……………………………… 154

APPENDIX C. Informed Consent (English) …………………………. 161

APPENDIX D. Informed Consent (Spanish) …………………….….. 162

APPENDIX E. Focus Group/Interview Questions…………………… 163

APPENDIX F. Client Permission and Access for Research…………… 164

APPENDIX G. MNPS Client Approval and Access for Research …... 171

APPENDIX H. MNPS External Researcher Statements of Assurances……………………………………….…... 172

APPENDIX I. Lipscomb IRB Approval……………………………… 175

APPENDIX J. Permission Letter for Use of Parental Survey…………. 176

APPENDIX K. Human Subject Form Certificate of Completion………….177

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES ix

TABLE OF FIGURES AND TABLES Figures

1. Ethnicities of Parents Responding to Survey………………………. 68

2. Education of Parents Responding to Survey………………………. 69

Tables

1. Categorization of Parental Values from Part II into the Eight Constructs of Parental Values……………………………

63

2. Model Summaries of Stepwise Regressions………………………. 71

3. Stepwise Regressions Results when Each of the Eight Constructs were used as a Dependent Variable with Additional Constructs as Independent Variables……………………………………………

72

4. Descriptive Statistics for What Parents Value in Schools and Whether or Not They Considered Other Public School Options…..

75

5. An Independent Samples t-test for Constructs and Whether Parents Considered Other Public School Options…………………………

76

6. Correlation Table for the Eight Constructs of Parental Values and How Many Children a Parent has Enrolled in School……………..

78

7. Model Summaries of a forward regression for Children in MNPS and Reputation……………………………………………………

78

8. Chi-Square Table for Enrollment in charter, magnet, or zoned school and the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school…………………………………………………………….

80

9. Chi-Square Table for Enrollment in charter, magnet, or zoned school and the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school…………………………………………………………….

81

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES x

10. Chi-Square Table for Enrollment in charter, magnet, or zoned school and the top three factors that influenced parental choice three of school…………………….…………………..……………

83

11. Chi-squared table for whether or not a parent considered another school and the first factor that influenced their school choice…..

84

12. Chi-squared table for whether or not a parent considered another school and the second factor that influenced their school choice…

86

13. Chi-squared table for whether or not a parent considered another school and the third factor that influenced their school choice……

87

14. Chi-Square table for parent education level and Choice 1 factor that influenced parental choice of school………………………………

89


90


92

17. Chi-Square table for ethnicity and Choice 1 factor that influenced parental choice of school………………………………………….

93


95


96

20. Frequency Distribution for Top Five Chosen Values for Choice 1, 2 and 3……………………………………………………………..

99

21. Frequency Distribution for Parents Who Consider Other Schools…

100

22. Chi-Square table for parent ethnicity and if they chose at least one of the top five concerns………………………………………….

101

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES xi

23. Chi-square table for whether or not a parent considered another school and if they chose at least one of the top five concerns………

102

24. Descriptive Statistics related to the Eight Constructs from Part I of Parent Survey…………………………………………………….

103

25. Paired Samples Statistics to Compare the Constructs of Leadership and Academics…………………………………………………..

104

MUSIC CITY, USA: A SYMPHONY OF VALUES 1

Chapter I

Introduction

Context

“I don’t want to go to school” came pouring out of the mouth of the middle school

student as he sat in the assistant principal’s office. Grandmother, with tears in her eyes,

said, “Why can’t I get my grandson to go to school? I don’t want to have to call the

police every morning and make them bring him to school.” From the office of a Metro

Nashville Public Middle School, these words rang out one misty morning in March,

2011. For many parents across the Metro Nashville Public School District, these

negative thoughts have become an all too common occurrence in their house on a weekly

basis. Why are children dreading the thought of going to school? Do parents know there

are other educational options for their student?

No Child Left Behind has been a term that has become quite familiar in schools

across America (Public Education, n.d.). Since its existence as of January 8, 2002, the

focus of No Child Left Behind has been to improve academic achievement of students in

low performing schools around the country. It strives to have every student achieving at

a proficient level as defined by each state by the 2013-2014 school year (Public

Education, n.d.). With only two years left until this goal is to be met, the pressure for

raising achievement across the country is at an all-time high. Several school leaders have

turned to the formation of more “innovative” schools in order to help close the

achievement gap and raise academic achievement for all students. Innovative schools

may include options such as charter and magnet schools. As the number of innovative


schools greatly increases throughout the nation, these schools consistently look for

creative ways to help students become high achievers.

From 2000 to 2010, the number of U.S. students enrolled in a charter school

quadrupled from 0.3 million to 1.6 million; during this same time period, magnet school

enrollment has nearly doubled from 1.2 million to 2.3 million (U.S. Department of

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011). In 2011 alone, twelve states

and the District of Columbia have implemented or expanded school choice options for

children. In addition, forty-six states have policies that permit public school choice, and

forty states and the District of Columbia have laws in place that allow the creation of

charter schools (Burke & Sheffield, 2011). Because of the many changes in public

school policy, 2011 was deemed “The Year of School Choice” by The Wall Street

Journal (Burke, 2011). The introduction of school choice in America’s school systems

has placed competitive pressure on public school systems to find ways to improve so that

the needs of students may be met. If improvement does not occur, schools face the risk

of losing enrollment and, in turn, government funding (Burke, 2011).

Not only can families choose a private school, but many states now offer families

the opportunity to choose the best public school for their children. The National Center

for Education Statistics reports that 73.2% of children attend their assigned public school.

This statistic is down from 80% in 1993. In 2007, 16% of students attended a public

school of choice, compared to just 11% in 1993 (Burke & Sheffield, 2011). In regards to

charter school attendance, the Center for Education Reform reports that during the 2009-

2010 school year, 1.5 million children attended charter schools in 39 states and the

District of Columbia. The National Alliance for Pubic Charter Schools (NAPCS) reports


there were 5,277 charter schools in operation during the 2010-2011 school year. In many

of these charter schools, demand is high. Sixty-five percent of the charter schools report

waiting lists, which are up from 58% in 2008 (Burke & Sheffield, 2011). School choice

has become prevalent among families across the nation, and according to statistics, many

are now acting upon these choices. Matthews and Hansen (1995) noted, “If we cannot

give parents and students more choice within our schools, it will only be a matter of time

before they seek choice in other schools” (p.70).

Problem Statement

The National Working Commission on Choice (Harvey, 2003) stated that “when

choice is first introduced, parent preferences are likely to be less clear and predictable

than they might be after parents have had time to make choices and observe the

consequences” (p. 26). Because of the introduction of No Child Left Behind legislation,

public school parents are offered more educational choices than ever before, and

consequently public schools have to compete for student enrollment for the first time in

history. When it comes to school choice, parents are faced with multiple factors in

deciding which school is the best fit for their students (Teske, Fitzpatrick, & Kaplan,

2007). According to Weekes-Bernard (2007), “The problem with choice is two-fold:

first, it assumes the ability (and willingness) of all parents to make these choices on an

equally informed basis; and, second, it assumes that the field in which they make these

choices is an open and level one” (p. i).

Proponents of school choice claim that school choice “leads to competition

among schools, thereby raising school quality for all students” (Rabovsky, 2011, p.87).

Critics assert that school choice only increases the separation of segregation based on


race and class. Goldring and Rowley (2006) point out that choosers vs. non-choosers

vary by demographics, satisfaction with previous schools, parental involvement,

educational priorities, and social networks. Choosers, in this case, refer to any parents

who considered multiple options of public schools for their children. Choosers also tend

to differ by education levels, income and race. From location to curriculum to results on

the state report card, parents sort through all types of information in order to make an

informed decision. For higher-income parents, school choice has almost become an all

too common practice. According to Teske et al. (2007), for high-income parents, school

choice usually resides in their ability to move into areas where great schools are located,

or their ability to purchase a private education for their children. Nevertheless, for

parents who do not have the income or resources to relocate or pay for private education,

and with the recent economic downturn limiting financial options for many parents, the

only viable options that most parents have when it comes to education are the ones

offered through their public school system.

Purpose of the Study

Working with the Office of Innovation in Metro Nashville Public Schools, this

research team seeks to determine which characteristics MNPS middle school parents

value most in public schools. The desire is to find which of those characteristics have the

greatest influence on parents in their determination of the best school for their child.

Furthermore, this study will determine to what extent parents are exploring the options

afforded them by their public school system. The findings of this study will be shared

with members of the Office of Innovation to help inform their decision-making as they

seek to move all schools into “good standing” based on Adequate Yearly Progress


(AYP), which is the measure by which schools are held accountable for student

performance. In addition, this study is intended to help school leaders and policy-makers

understand what parents value most in schools, the factors that drive parental choice of

school, and to what extent parents are taking advantage of school choice in order to help

them make improvements to Metro Nashville Public Schools.

Conceptual Framework

According to the United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and

Improvement (2007), there are ten components that parents should consider in their

search for a school for their child. These components include the following:

High expectations

Busy students

Excellent teachers

Great principals

Vibrant parent-teacher organizations

Children are visible and excited to be at school

Gut reaction that this is the school for your child

Rigorous curriculum

Families feel welcome and concerns acknowledged

Satisfaction with standardized test results and report cards.

Based on the existing literature, the researchers have divided all the characteristics

that a parent might value in a school into eight constructs of parental values. These

constructs include the following:


Leadership – Leadership involves the effectiveness and availability of school

administrators (i.e. principals, department heads, etc.) and school-wide

communication.

Teachers – This construct involves knowledge of teacher qualities, including:

Communication, friendliness, caring, availability, Highly Qualified status, and

competency.

Students – This construct includes size of the student body, student-teacher

ratio, and any knowledge of students who attend a school (i.e. friends and

siblings).

Special Programs – This construct involves specific programs and activities

offered at a school, including athletics, before / after care, tutoring, extended

hours, field trips, related arts, student clubs, and PTO.

Location – This construct includes availability of transportation, how close the

school is to a child’s home (proximity to home), relevant zoned and feeder

schools, and community involvement.

Academics – This construct includes the academic achievement of a school as

revealed in end of year scores (such as AYP and TVAAS) and academic

awards.

Climate – This construct includes any school elements having to do with

safety, cleanliness, age of building, technology, and values.

Reputation – This construct involves the reputation of a school gathered from

word of mouth or second-hand sources; reputation also includes any past

experiences a family has had with a school that may no longer be relevant.


Research Questions

The four primary research questions to be answered in this study are as follows:

What characteristics do parents value most in their child’s school?

Which characteristics have the greatest influence on parental choice of school?

Do relationships exist between the eight constructs of parental values?

To what extent are MNPS parents taking advantage of public school choices?

Hypotheses

Based on existing literature, the researchers formulated the following hypotheses

for the above research questions:

1) There is a statistically significant positive relationship between a

school’s academics and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s students and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s location and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s teachers and what a parent values most in a school.

5) There is a statistically significant positive relationship between parents

considering choice of school and location, which is defined as distance

from house to school.

Significance of the Study

The Office of Innovation is constantly looking for ways to model excellence in all

aspects of education. The Director of the Office of Innovation for Metro Schools wants


his cluster of schools to become a model for the rest of the district as they move toward

“good standing” within the state according to AYP results. With the emphasis on test

results in the state of Tennessee, schools now compete for student enrollment. Because

of the number of options offered, such as theme-based magnet schools, charter schools,

and a plethora of private schools, schools are competing for student enrollment more than

any time in recent history. Therefore, parents’ perception of the public school is of

utmost importance.

It is the researchers’ hope that this study will allow school leaders to be more

strategic in their attempts to make schools more desirable for families. Community

expectations push schools beyond traditional educational practices. Therefore, schools

must be made aware of what is important in the eyes of community members, and they

must take proactive measures to make the necessary changes for the betterment of student

achievement. These proactive measures should lead to overall school improvement as

school leaders begin to dissect certain aspects of their school through the lens of parents.

This will play a particularly important role for all public school educators as they seek to

serve both primary and secondary customers. Hopefully, this study will provide school

leaders at all levels with the knowledge of parental expectations as they constantly strive

to meet and exceed those expectations within their school. Consequently, if one can

determine the reasons families choose certain schools over others, schools might be able

to bridge the academic gap that currently exists between high performing and low

performing schools.


Scope and Bounds

The population for the study came directly from those schools associated with the

Office of Innovation in Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS), including the district’s

charter, magnet, and ten lowest performing schools according to AYP based on the

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP). The mission of the Office of

Innovation is to “transform the lives of students through dynamic instruction in

collaboration with communities to maximize future opportunity for all” (“Office of

Innovation,” 2012, para. 2). The overall goal of the Office of Innovation is to “increase

the number of college ready graduates by preparing students for college, career, and life”

(“Office of Innovation,” 2012, para. 2). Based on a meeting with the director of MNPS’

Office of Innovation, the research team decided to concentrate its efforts solely within the

Office of Innovation and not include any schools outside of the innovation cluster in the

study. In order to provide uniformity and a manageable scope to the study, the research

team decided to limit their research strictly to parents of 6th grade students.

Definitions

Some of the key terms and phrases that pertain to this study are defined as

follows:

Charter schools - Charter schools fit in a niche between private and public

schools. They are funded with public money (except for their facilities) and

they are an alternative to regular public schools systems. Charter schools

receive waivers from public school districts in exchange for promising better

academic results. Charters are usually given for 3-5 years, where an eye is

kept on academic performance. If academic performance lags behind


comparable public schools, then the “charter” is pulled and the school is

closed (Chen, 2007). There are eleven charter schools in Metro Nashville

Public Schools.

Design centers - Design schools are built around thematic programs, such as

Spanish Immersion, Advanced Academics, Language/Literature, Montessori,

Paideia, Global Environmental Awareness, and Health and Medical Sciences.

If a student lives in the zone of the design center, they have the first choice of

enrolling in the school (Public Education, n.d.).

Magnet schools – Magnet schools are public schools offering a specialized

curriculum, often with high academic standards, to a student body

representing a cross section of the community.

The Office of Innovation - The Office of Innovation consists of all of the

charter schools, magnet schools, and the ten lowest performing schools in the

district (“Office of Innovation,” 2012).

Zoned schools - Zoned schools are public schools assigned to a student based

on residency.

Summary

Since No Child Left Behind, the amount of public school choices offered to

parents has greatly increased. Some of the public school choices available to parents

include charter, magnet, and zoned schools. Because of this increase in school choice, it

is important for public school leaders to understand what parents value in schools in order

to implement the necessary changes to improve their schools based on parental desires.

Therefore, working with the Office of Innovation within MNPS, this research team seeks


to determine which characteristics parents value most in public schools and which of

those characteristics have the greatest influence on parents in their determination of the

best school for their child. Furthermore, this study will determine to what extent parents

are exploring the options afforded them by their public school system. The following

four chapters will detail existing literature on the topic of parental choice of schools, the

methodology used in this research study, as well as the results, conclusions, and

recommendations for further study.


Chapter II

Review of Literature

In 2005 and 2007, the U.S. Department of Education published a book to inform

parents of their choices in public education and to give tips for choosing the right school

for their child. Some of the tips given to parents include scheduling an appointment with

a principal, attending an open house or parent–teacher meeting, and avoiding a visit

during the first or last weeks of the semester to get a realistic sense of how the school

operates (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).

Although these tips may help parents choose the best school for their child, there is no

guarantee that they will be satisfied or successful. Therefore, with the overwhelming

number of school choices offered to parents today, the question of “what do parents

value in schools?” is more important than ever and deserving of further exploration. The

following is a review of existing research and literature on this topic.

What Parents Value in Schools

Although the blossoming of school choice is a relatively recent event, researchers

have always been interested in what parents value in education. Schneider, Teske,

Marschall, and Roch (1998) studied the behavior of parents with children enrolled in

public elementary schools in two inner-city school districts in Manhattan, New York.

Using telephone interviews conducted with a random sample of parents, they analyzed

the knowledge and choice behavior of parents whose children attended schools in these

districts. Parents were asked to choose which things they thought were most important in

a school, from a pre-generated list. The eleven attributes they included on the list were:

quality of teachers and staff, a student body that is mostly the same race as their child,


values of the school, a racially diverse student body, safety, economic background of

students, location, high math or reading scores, special programs, discipline code, and

class size (Schneider et al., 1998). This process was repeated four times with each parent

in order to determine the top four attributes they looked for in a school. The results seem

consistent with existing literature:

Across these four queries, teachers were named important by 77% of the

respondents, high scores by 55%, class size 31%, and special programs

25%. Not surprisingly given the inner-city milieu of our study, safety

(70%) and discipline (44%) were also frequently cited. In contrast,

diversity (16%), same race, and economic makeup of student body were

not frequently cited (both less than 5%). Values was chosen by 33% of

the parents and location by 22%. (Schneider et al., 1998, p. 775)

Although most people would assume that, when given a choice, parents choose

good schools for their children, some research points to the contrary. Based on

interviews with 48 urban middle and high school parents prior to choosing a school for

their child, Bell (2005) found that many parents chose failing schools over more

successful ones. Parents gave 102 different reasons for choosing the school their child

ultimately attended. These reasons were coded into six categories: holistic, academic,

social, logistic, administrative, and other. The results indicated that parents valued

holistic reasons most for placing their child in a particular school. Holistic reasons

focused on the child’s overall well-being, including reasons such as they are thriving

where they are and the child isn’t ready for that kind of school. Academic reasons ranked

second on the list (Bell, 2005). Interestingly, Bell’s results also indicated an even split


between parents who chose a failing school for their child (20) and parents who chose a

non-failing school (22). The following is a review of existing literature on what parents

value in schools categorically organized into the eight constructs of parental values.

Leadership

Effective school leadership has been characterized by qualities exhibited by

successful leaders as well as views expressed by teachers. Leadership depends upon

relationships and shared values between leaders and followers (Shannon & Byslma,

2007). The principal plays a critical role in increasing academic achievement and in

improving the school. Schools led by effective principals that exhibit good leadership

skills are more likely to experience school improvement. Research conducted by The

Wallace Foundation shows effective school leaders influence student achievement

through two pathways—the support and development of effective teachers and the

implementation of effective organizational practices (Davis, Darling-Hammond,

LaPointe, & Meyerson, 2005).

Furthermore, according to Leithwood and Riehl (2003), leadership has significant

effects on student learning, second only to the effects of teachers’ instruction and the

quality of curriculum. Large-scale quantitative research studies conclude the effects of

strong leadership on student learning are small but educationally significant. Obviously,

their impact is indirect. Leaders make an impact indirectly by making sure resources are

in place to help promote the school’s mission and vision. In addition, it is the leaders’

responsibility to make sure processes are in place to enable teachers to teach well. The

three categories of practice that have been identified to help build successful leaders


include: 1) setting directions, 2) developing people, and 3) developing the organization

(Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).

Teachers

In What Do Parents Value in Education? An Empirical Investigation of Parents'

Revealed Preferences for Teachers, Jacob and Lefgren (2005) discovered that, on

average, parents strongly prefer teachers whom principals describe as the most popular

with students. According to their findings, “parents strongly prefer teachers that

principals describe as best able to promote student satisfaction, and place relatively less

value on a teacher’s ability to raise standardized math or reading achievement” (Jacob &

Lefgren, 2005, p. 1). Interestingly, this suggests that “softer" teacher attributes may be

quite important to parents.

Schneider et al. (1998) studied the behavior of parents with children enrolled in

New York public elementary schools. From a pre-generated list of eleven attributes,

parents were asked to choose which attributes they thought were the most important in a

school. By far, teachers were listed as the most important factor to consider when

choosing a school. Seventy seven percent of parents interviewed in this study chose

teachers above the other ten attributes of what matters most in a school, including

academic reputation (Schneider et al., 1998, p. 775). Additionally, according to

Bainbridge and Sundre (1992), parents wanted school systems in which teacher salaries

were competitive but not necessarily among the highest. On a scale of one to five, with

five being the highest salary, 62% of parents selected a four. Only approximately 20% of

parents surveyed selected the highest teacher salary category (para. 18).


According to Schneider & Buckley (2002), by examining the statistics from a

school choice website in Washington DC., DCSchoolSearch.com, it was determined that

an interesting discrepancy existed between what parents said and did in regards to their

valuation of the importance of teachers. While many parents said that they were

concerned about high quality teachers, very few parents actually visited the part of the

website that gave information about teacher information and test scores. This highlights

the ever-present possibility that what parents say they value most in education may not

align with their reasons for choosing a school for their child.

Students

According to a study conducted by Bagley, Woods, and Glatter (2001), results

indicated that pupils at the school was the second highest ranking factor in why parents

reject schools, which revealed that a relationship did exist between school choice and

students attending the school. Kleitz, Weiher, Tedin, & Matland (2000) found that when

data were classified according to race, the role of friendship was selected as the top

choice for 51% of low-income families (p. 851). When ranked and not classified

according to groups, friendship was the least important choice for families as a whole.

Rothstein (2002) used the Tiebout choice process, which involved the

examination of characteristics that drove parental choice of school via housing decisions.

His research found little evidence that parents choose schools for characteristics other

than peer groups. According to his findings, the following was true about the importance

of peer groups in regards to school enrollment and the housing market:

Preferred districts need not have particularly effective schools, however,

when peer group enters into parental valuations, as wealthy families can


be “stuck” in ineffective schools by their unwillingness to abandon the

peer group offered. For parental valuations that place substantial weight

on school effectiveness, this becomes less likely as Tiebout choice

increases parents’ exit options. (p. 43)

Other studies pointed to the importance of student demographics in parental

choice of school. Using the website DCSchoolSearch.com, an Internet resource that

provided information about local schools to parents in the District of Columbia,

Schneider & Buckley (2002) researched the preferences of public school parents in

Washington DC. They found a strong bias (30%) toward accessing the demographic

characteristics of student populations of schools. This was in sharp contrast to the

expressed preferences, in which 5% of parents surveyed said that race and economic

background were important characteristics to consider when choosing a school for their

child. Likewise, using a multinomial logistic regression, Burgess, Greaves, Vignoles,

and Wilson (2010) found that families valued school composition preferring schools with

low fractions of children from poor families.

In a study by Kleitz et al. (2000), it was found that families chose charter schools

primarily because of the smaller class size. Researchers have also found many benefits to

smaller class sizes, such as a relationship between small classes and high academic

achievement. However, it is important to note that is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of

the increase in achievement because of the many variables that exist in a classroom.

These variables include the quality of the teacher, the home environment of the students,

the quality of the curriculum, and the leadership of the school ("How important is class


size?" n.d.). However, a number of trends have resulted from lowering class sizes,

including the following:

Gains generally appear when the class size is less than 20 students.

Gains with smaller class sizes are particularly evident in the lower

grades.

Gains are stronger for minorities and immigrants--groups that are

traditionally disadvantaged in public education.

In the upper grades, students who experience smaller class sizes are

less likely to be retained, more likely to stay in school, and more likely

to earn better grades.

Reducing class sizes in elementary schools may be cost effective in the

long run. This is because of the fact that this will increase their

likelihood of graduating from high school. High school graduates earn

more and enjoy significantly better health that high school dropouts

(“How important is class size,” n.d., para. 8).

School/class size is also important in high school. A recent national study that

followed teens through their high school years found that students felt “connected” in

schools with 900 or fewer students (“How important is class size?,” n.d.). To these

students, school size, more than class size, mattered. In another study, Schneider et al.

(1998) found that 31% of parents interviewed stated that class size was one of the top

four attributes they looked for in a school (p.775). In a survey of parents in Alberta,

Canada, Bosetti (2004) found that 22% of parents listed class size as an important factor

when choosing a school (p. 397). Furthermore, in a survey conducted by the Foundation


for Educational Choice, school/class size was ranked fourth as an important factor in

parental choice of school (DiPerna, 2010, p. 30).

In another study, according to Bainbridge and Sundre (1992), parents do not

necessarily look for the biggest and the best when they have a chance to choose their

children’s schools. In addition, they do not necessarily agree on what constitutes the

best. When they asked parents to rate various factors (academic rigor, expenditures, size,

and community) in terms of their importance in selecting a school, based on over 4,000

responses, they unveiled the following results:

Class size matters – sometimes. Although parents of elementary and secondary

students both rated class size at just under two on a one-to-five scale of

importance, it turned out they believed different class sizes are appropriate at

different ages.

Parents want school systems in which teacher salaries are competitive but not

necessarily among the highest. On a scale of one to five, with five being the

highest salary, 62% of parents selected a four. Only approximately 20% selected

the highest salary category.

Family-oriented communities appear to be important to parents. Only 3% of

parents said they were looking for a community where there were fewer school-

age children than average.

Parents avoid very large or very small public school systems. Less than 1%

preferred "very small" systems, and only 1.6% looked for very large systems.

Exemplary school facilities, outstanding guidance and counseling services, and

strong vocational education programs do not appear to be important to many


parents. Most of the parents surveyed said average was good enough in these

areas. But 68% said elementary school accreditation was important or very

important. (para. 11)

Special Programs

In a study conducted by Schneider et al. (1998), public school parents in New

York were asked to choose which attributes they thought were the most important in a

school, from a pre-generated list. Twenty-five percent of parents listed special programs

as one of their top four attributes they looked for in a school for their child (p. 775). In

another study, the California State Parent Teacher Association (PTA) released the results

of a statewide survey of parents and families, intended to measure their top public

education concerns (“PTA Survey,” 2011). The results showed that parents and families

placed the highest educational priority on ensuring that every student had access to a

complete curriculum that included the arts, STEM (science, technology, engineering and

math), smaller class sizes, strengthened teacher and administrator effectiveness, and a

reduced dropout rate. According to the PTA, the surveys indicated the following:

65.2% of parents rated access to a full curriculum that includes the arts for

every student as ‘extremely important.’ This ranked the highest on a list

of potential concerns, above class sizes, more science/technology/

engineering and math (STEM), strengthening teacher effectiveness or

reducing the dropout rate. (“PTA Survey,”2011, para. 3)

These results emphasized the high priority parents placed on access to arts education

within the public school system. Furthermore, Stein, Goldring, and Zottola (2008)

suggested that relationships may also be formed between school and parent when a


particular program was used at schools, such as after school clubs and athletics, because

it was what parent’s desire for their children.

Location

Rational choice theory suggests that parents make decisions from clear value

preferences, and that they can be relied upon to pursue the best interests of their children

when it comes to choosing a school (Bosetti, 2004). According to Smrekar & Goldring

(1999), parents will rely on their personal values and subjective desired goals of

education to make decisions regarding their children's education, as well as collect

information from those in their social and professional networks. Unfortunately, parents

who do not have access to relevant and valuable information regarding options of school

choice are greatly limited in their capacity to make informed choices (Smrekar &

Goldring, 1999). In order to determine the logic, values, and concerns that drive parental

decision-making in the selection of an elementary school for their children, Bosetti

(2004) surveyed 1,500 parents of students in 11 private, 8 public, and 10 alternative

elementary schools in Alberta, Canada. He argued that parents invest a mixture of

rationalities when selecting schools. Parents were given 22 factors to choose from

regarding reasons for choosing the school they did for their child, and were invited to add

any factors not listed. According to his findings:

Fifty percent of public school parents indicated 'Proximity to Their Home'

as the most important factor in choosing a school followed by Academic

Reputation (28%), The Teachers (24%), The Principal (22%), and

Teaching Style (21%). The top three reasons for choosing a school for

alternative school parents were tightly clustered around Strong Academic


Reputation (34%), Teaching Style (34%), and Special Programmes (31%),

followed by Shared Values and Beliefs (23%), and Smaller Class Size

(22%). (Bosetti, 2004, p. 397)

Considering that 47% of public school parents surveyed in this study sent their children

to their designated school without seeking information, it seems logical that the key

concern for them in choosing a school for their child was proximity to their home.

In another study conducted by Teske et al. (2007), based on their interviews of

parents from Washington, D.C.; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and Denver, Colorado, location

and convenience ranked as the third highest factor in what parents looked at when

selecting a school for their student (p. 28). Similarly, according to Kleitz et al. (2000),

when 1100 parents were given choices of educational quality, class size, safety, friends,

and location, the majority of parents found that the convenience of the school was the

most important because of their lack of transportation (p. 851). The National Working

Commission on Choice (Harvey, 2003) noted, “If families are to arrange their own

transportation, children in poor families might not get full access to the available

opportunities” (p. 32). However, this is not consistent with all research on this subject.

According to the research conducted by the Foundation for Educational Choice, location

ranked last out of the seven attributes of what parents look for in schools (DiPerna, 2010,

p. 30).

Although there has been a fair amount of attention paid to why parents choose one

school over another for their child, the topic of why parents reject schools has been

largely ignored. Bagley et al (2001) set out to determine the factors that impact parental

rejection of schools. The reasons why parents reject schools seems particularly relevant


in today’s climate of charter, magnet, and alternative schools in which parents have more

choices than ever when it comes to their child’s education. Their results indicated that

transport/distance topped the list of reasons for parental rejection, followed by pupils at

the school, school environment, staff, and head teacher. Interestingly, school reputation

and bullying were at the bottom of the list (Bagley et al., 2001).

Academics

The Foundation for Educational Choice conducted a survey of voters in Alabama,

Arkansas, Kansas, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York. These states were chosen

because they had not been exposed to school choice programs in action, and the charter

and virtual school phenomenon was virtually non-existent (DiPerna, 2010). Voters were

asked, what is the most important school attribute (or characteristic) to consider when

selecting a regular public, charter, virtual, private, or home-school program? The choices

were the following: location, religious or philosophical mission, extracurricular activities,

school size/class size, test scores/performance, structure/discipline, and

standards/curriculum. One in four voters said the top attribute in selecting a school for

their child was standards/curriculum, which ranked as number one. Test

scores/performance came in second place among the factors surveyed (DiPerna, 2010, p.

30). In another study, based on their interviews with school parents from Washington,

D.C., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and Denver, Colorado, Teske et al. (2007) found that the

number one factor parents looked at when selecting a school for their student was

academics followed closely by curriculum (p. 28). In another study, using a unique

dataset combining survey information on parental choices plus a rich set of socio-

economic characteristics, Burgess et al. (2010) found that families do indeed value


academic performance in schools. Furthermore, their results suggested that preferences

did not vary greatly between different socio-economic groups.

During the 1980s there were two parent choice studies which both found

coursework to out rank convenience as to why parents choose schools (Williams,

Hancher, & Hunter, 1983; Darling-Hammond & Kirby, 1985). When surveyed, parents

indicated that academics were a top priority in their choice of a charter school. Sixty-

three percent of parents reported that academic quality was the most important reason for

choosing the charter school in which their child was enrolled (Stein, Goldring, &

Cravens, 2010, p. 2). This is consistent with other survey research, which indicates that

parents tend to report that academic quality of schools is at the top of their list of

important characteristics (Smrekar, 2009). According to Stein et al. (2010), across

grades, a majority of parents reported that academic factors were the driving force behind

their choice of school. Furthermore, parents who believed the academic quality of their

child’s former school to be average or below average were more likely to report

academics as a “top priority.” These findings suggest that academic considerations are a

strong component of parents’ stated preferences for choosing a charter school (p. 2).

In reality, however, academics do not always drive decision-making when parents

change their children’s schools. According to Stein et al. (2010), there was no clear

pattern of students moving from lower performing schools to higher performing schools.

Although there were some students who did move from a lower performing school to a

higher performing school, there appeared to be an equal number of students who moved

from a higher performing school to a lower performing school. When researchers from

the National Center on School Choice collected survey data from 2,493 parents with


children enrolled in 15 Indianapolis charter schools in the spring of 2007, only one third

of students on average, who had left traditional public schools that had not made AYP,

were enrolled in a charter school that had passed AYP (Stein et al., 2010, p. 2). So

although parents may say that academic quality is their primary consideration in choosing

a school, the data doesn’t support their claims.

In another study, it was found that parents do not look for the highest performing

schools for their children. They were more likely to look for a school that was

academically ranked somewhere in the upper-middle range. According to Bainbridge

and Sundre (1992), a majority of parents (53%) said they wanted a school system in the

second highest range (from the 60th percentile to the 80th percentile) on composite scores

on scholastic exams. Interestingly, almost seven out of ten (69%) of the parents surveyed

said the best school for their child was one ranked average to above average in pupil

performance on standardized tests (para. 16).

Partially because of No Child Left Behind legislation in 2002, there is a greater

emphasis on high stakes testing in public education than ever before. However, there is

more at stake than loss of federal funding for those schools that do not “make the grade.”

The public release of school performance results can often impact school enrollment.

Henderson (2009) set out to determine the role that school accountability ratings played

in parental choice of school. Specifically, Henderson looked at the impact that school

report cards have on school exit ratios. Drawing samples from Florida’s public schools,

Henderson (2009) determined that there was no statistically significant correlation

between schools that earned low scores on their accountability report card and the


number of students who withdrew from the school. This does not necessarily mean that

parents ignore school report cards entirely. According to Henderson (2009),

It may be the case that parents decide to leave one school without regard

to quality as measured by school grades (e.g. residential relocation, peer

group change, etc.), but then use the grades to make decisions about which

schools to enroll their children in after the initial decision to make a move

is made. (p. 26)

However, even if this were the case, while school grades may be used to make the

decision about which school to enter, once the decision has been made it is not the

primary reason for withdrawal.

Climate

According to Vaughan (2011), school facilities have a “profound impact on their

occupants and the functions of the building, namely teaching and learning” (para. 2).

Light, color, and even navigational aspects of the building can impact children at various

levels. For middle school aged children, students need a building that provides easy

navigation that builds confidence without sacrificing safety and security. High school

buildings, by contrast, need to be comfortable, safe, secure, and healthful (Vaughan,

2011).

Although the physical environment is important, many parents generally do not

find enough time to visit, yet alone evaluate, their child’s school building. According to

the United States Department of Education in 1999, 40% of our schools report

unsatisfactory environmental conditions (Lyons, 2001). The average age of school

buildings today is 42 years old, and they aren’t built to support today’s 21st century


teaching methods including the use of technology. Furthermore, with the number of

students in buildings increasing, the older buildings were not built to handle the capacity.

Therefore, many students experience crowded classrooms, poor communication systems,

limited technology, and inadequate security (Lyons, 2001). In addition, many older

schools are not able to meet requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Therefore, many students who have disabilities may not be able to attend their

neighborhood school.

With today’s teaching skills including cooperative groups, space is needed to

move around and meet with groups. Older buildings were built more for the lecture style

of teaching. The difference to a child receiving an education in a 42-year-old building

and one in a brand new building can be like the difference between writing in the sand

and surfing the Internet (Lyons, 2001). Study after study concludes that there is a direct

relationship between the physical characteristics of a building and educational outcomes.

A classroom is the most important room in school buildings, because that’s where

students spend most of their time. The American Association of School Administrators

reported the following:

Students are more likely to prosper when their environment is conducive

to learning. Architecture can be designed to support greater safety and

security. Environmentally responsive heating, air conditioning and

ventilating systems, for example, either in a new or renovated school,

provide a more comfortable learning environment. Such well-designed

systems send a powerful message to kids about the importance their

community places on education. (Withrow, Long, & Marx, 1999, p.14)


According to Sergiovanni (1991), climate is a “form of organizational energy

who’s telling effects on the school depend on how this energy is channeled and directed”

(p. 3). School climate is concerned with the process and style of a school’s

organizational life rather than the specifics. According to Sergiovanni (1991), there are

four levels of school atmosphere/culture. The first level incorporates all of the tangible

happenings around the school, including what people say, how people behave, and how

things look to visitors. The second level is all about perspectives. Perspectives refer to

the shared rules and norms to which people respond, the commonalities that exist among

solutions to similar problems, how people define the various situations they face, and

what the boundaries are of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. The third level is

values, and the fourth level is that of assumptions (Sergiovanni, 1991).

A survey conducted by The Foundation for Educational Choice found that

structure and discipline were ranked by parents as the second most important attribute

(19%) when choosing a school for their child (DiPerna, 2010, p. 30). Furthermore, in a

study by Kleitz et al. (2000), 1100 Texas families were surveyed. Hispanic families were

found to consider safety more important than did black or white families. The study also

found that safety was found to be more important to families who classified themselves

as low or moderate income (p. 850). The research also pointed out that black and

Hispanic families were more likely to attend schools with a greater chance for discipline

issues, which could explain the desire for a safer schooling environment. Research by

Lee, Croninger, and Smith (1996) found that safety was more of a concern for minority

and lower income parents than middle class, white households.


The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program assists low-income families in

attending private schools. Evaluations of these schools showed that school safety was

reported by 17% of those surveyed as the most important reason for attending a private

school (Watkins & Lips, 2009). Furthermore, according to Schneider et al. (1998), when

parents were asked to choose which things they thought were most important in a school,

from a pre-generated list of eleven attributes, safety was chosen by 70% of parents and

discipline was chosen by 44% of parents interviewed (p. 775).

Reputation

Schneider et al. (1997) noted in their research that word of mouth and talking to

others are common ways parents learn about schools. Their research showed that word

of mouth increased as incomes and level of education increased. The increased levels of

education and income led to greater networking ability. By surveying 1,269 parents

across four districts, it was also discovered that church-goers and females talk more about

schools with others than other factions of the population, and the network of people to

discuss schools gets larger with the more formal schooling one achieves (Schneider et al.,

1997). In surveying schools in Minnesota, Martinez and Thomas (1994) found that much

information regarding school choice comes from friends and relatives with some finding

information from TV, radio, and newspaper advertisements. One evaluator of choice

programs in Minnesota commented that many parents did not know about the choices

that they had (Martinez & Thomas, 1994).

Existing literature consistently points to the fact that low-income parents have

limited networks and resources. According to his findings, Teske (2011) concluded,

“Limited social networks and limited access to official information from schools and


districts means lower-income parents are also less likely to know or fully understand their

choices and how to access them (p.1). Nevertheless, according to Weekes-Bernard

(2007), regardless of how ‘connected’ a parent is, reputation plays an equally important

role in school choice. Based on interviews and focus groups with parents of 6th grade

Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students in London, England, she concluded the

following:

‘Good’ and ‘bad’ schooling for the aspirant parents we spoke to related

initially to pupil attainment levels and the ‘cold’ knowledge signified by

school prospectuses, OFSTED reports and ratings in local school

performance tables. However, school reputations – the visual witnessing

of pupil behavior, or the collating of press reports which refer to isolated

incidents – play as great a role in the overall knowledge aspirant parents

gather about an individual school as that gathered by connected parents.

(Weekes-Bernard, 2007, p. 28)

Demographic Implications

Over the course of the last century, the divide between the haves and the have-

nots has continued to grow. Miamidian (2011) pointed out a strong generalization that

“whiter, wealthier schools do a better job of teaching students than schools serving,

darker, lower-income students” (p. 67). When it comes to school choice, parents are

faced with multiple factors in deciding which school is the best fit for their students

(Teske et al., 2007). Proponents of school choice claim that school choice “leads to

competition among schools, thereby raising school quality for all students” (as cited in

Rabovsky, 2011, p. 87). Critics assert that school choice only increases the separation of


segregation based on race and class. From location to curriculum to results on the state

report card, parents sort through all types of information in order to make an informed

decision. For higher-income parents, school choice has almost become an all too

common practice for them. According to Teske et al. (2007), high-income parents’

school choice resided in the notion that these parents had the ability to move into areas

where great schools are located, or they could afford to purchase a private education for

their children. But what do low-income parents do when it comes to school choice? Are

the lower-income parents at a disadvantage in regards to school choice? Are they less

informed about the decisions that are available to them?

In order to research these questions, Teske et al., (2007) conducted over 800

telephone interviews with parents across three cities—Washington, D.C.; Milwaukee,

Wisconsin; and Denver, Colorado. Questions included items such as: What was the

most important factor in choosing your child’s school?, What resources did you use to

conduct your research?, and About how many schools did you consider when selecting a

school for your child? (Teske et al., 2007). The results from the phone interviews noted

differences between a high-income and low-income parent in regards to school choice.

The lowest-income parents (those below $20,000 in income) engaged in somewhat less

information gathering, reported somewhat lower levels of satisfaction in their child’s

school, and said they would benefit most from a school counselor or other professional

source in regards to making the best decision for their child. Many of these low-income

parents felt like they had smaller and less useful social networks from which to gather

information (Teske et al., 2007). It was found that low-income parents put more stock in

the “soft data,” such as word of mouth more than the “hard data,” such as test scores.


Overall, it was noted that high-income parents scout out many top-performing schools,

while low-income parents only look at an average of two schools per child (Teske et al.,

2007). Nevertheless, Stein, et al. (2008) found that lower socio-economic status (SES)

families had greater perceptions that schools were trying to involve them than those of

higher SES families.

Magnet Schools

In research by Flicek (2007), intra-district open enrollment was studied as it

applied to poverty, classification of schools, and achievement results. It is important to

note that transportation was provided throughout the district for those students

participating in open-enrollment. With a sample of 5,577 students, students were

classified as far attenders or near attenders, which is defined by how far away the

student’s chosen school was from their actual home. Within the sample, 38.7% of

students attended the school closest to their address and 51.3% of students attended one

of the two closest schools to their address; these were considered the near attenders.

However, when compared to those who attended magnet schools, 75.6% of students were

far attenders, traveling further than the two schools closest to them (Flicek, 2007, p. 10).

The magnet schools had been reorganized to offer specialty areas such as particular

programs, mixed aged groups, thematic lessons, and emphasized core content area

knowledge. Using Chi-Square results, near and far attenders did not differ significantly

based on free lunch; therefore, free lunch students were also able to take advantage of

open enrollment. In Title I schools, where 45% of students are on free or reduced lunch,

an equal number of near and far attenders were on free lunch, so there was no impact on

the socioeconomic status of the school with open enrollment. When comparing magnet


school attendance, with 75% of students being far attenders, the number of free and

reduced lunch students attending the magnet school decreased with the far attenders

increasing the socioeconomic status of the student body (Flicek, 2007, p. 10).

Focusing on academics, when reading and math scores were compared using

means and standard deviations, Flicek (2007) found that the highest mean scores were

magnet schools, then neighborhood, and then Title I schools. When far attenders enrolled

in neighborhood schools, the overall achievement decreased. In contrast far attenders

tended to increase math achievement for magnet schools. When comparing actual

student growth, magnet schools actually had the lowest growth in all groups. Flicek

(2007) noted,

If the valued outcome for parents in choosing a school for far attenders

who attended magnet schools was increased achievement growth, then

parents of these students would have been better served by choosing either

Title 1 or neighborhood schools rather than choosing magnet schools.

(p. 30)

The study concluded by noting that it was not able to support the notion that parents will

choose schools that are a good match for their child from the perspective of academic

productivity. However, there may be many other outcomes (i.e., social, emotional, and

affective outcomes) that parents value and that are being served by the choices they are

making.

In a study conducted by Goldring and Hausman (1999), 953 surveys were

collected from 5th grade parents of both magnet and non-magnet parents in St. Louis,

Missouri. Of the sample, 67% of whites and 40% of minority parents chose magnet


schools. Higher income parents, with income greater than $50,000, chose magnet

schools. Only 30% of the low-income parents chose a magnet school. Overall, the

research suggested that low-income minority parents do not choose magnet schools

(Goldring & Hausman, 1999).

School Vouchers

One of the most well-known forms of school choice is a school voucher system.

School vouchers allow parents to use public funds to send their children to a school of

their choice--public or private (Forster, 2009). Researchers have found empirical

evidence supporting school choice. Forster (2011) noticed an increase in academic

achievement, parental satisfaction, and student safety when school choice was present.

Forster also found that school choice increases the likelihood of a child graduating from

high school. Not a single study conducted found a negative effect of school choice on

student academic achievement. Milwaukee voucher students were more likely to

graduate high school, had higher levels of college enrollment, were less likely to drop out

of school, and had greater levels of academic attainment than their public school

counterparts (Forster, 2011). In addition, parental satisfaction is greater with schools of

choice. Forster’s research uncovered the following results:

Parents in the voucher group were far more likely to rate their school an

“A” than parents in the public school group (53% v. 26%). They were

also far more likely to be “very satisfied” with their schools across a

variety of variables; for example, 54% of voucher parents were “very

satisfied” with their schools’ teaching, compared with 27% in the public

school group. (Forster, 2011, p. 11)


Vouchers can actually help public schools in regards to finances. When students

leave a public school to use their voucher, not all of the money travels with the student.

Therefore, public schools are left with more money to help educate the students left in the

building. School voucher programs also end up costing less. According to Forster

(2009), from 1990 to 2006, the nation’s school choice programs saved a total of $422

million for local school districts and $22 million for state budgets. School vouchers put

the power into the hands of the parents. If a school is not performing well, they can

simply take their services elsewhere, instead of having to move to a different

neighborhood--which can be costly. In a study conducted by Forster and Greene in 2002,

schools composed of students all eligible for vouchers could be expected to outperform

schools with only half of the students eligible in only four years by fifteen percentile

points (Forster, 2009). The six states surveyed by The Foundation for Educational

Choice do not presently have a school voucher system in place. However, when

surveyed, parents strongly favored the ability to use a school voucher to send their child

to a school of their choice. In Mississippi alone, 74% of voters surveyed were in favor of

the implementation of a school voucher program in their state (DiPerna, 2010, p. 30). A

total of 17 empirical studies have been conducted to measure the impact of school

vouchers on academic achievement in public schools. Of those studies, 16 of them found

that vouchers improved public schools, and one found that it had no visible impact.

Therefore, no studies found that vouchers negatively impacted public schools (Forster,

2009).

In 1990, Milwaukee, Wisconsin established the Milwaukee Parental Choice

Program (MPCP), which allowed parents the opportunity to choose from one the largest


systems of school choice. Initially, lower income families were given vouchers of up to

$2,500 to send their child to a private school. Nevertheless, very few schools participated

in the program. Following a lawsuit to allow any private school to join the MPCP, nearly

15,000 of Milwaukee’s students were accepting vouchers to attend nearly 120 private

schools within 15 years. Prior to religious private schools being able to participate in

vouchers, many families were receiving scholarships from the organization, Parents

Advancing Values in Education (PAVE) (Peterson, 2007). The PAVE organization

focuses on educating children from low-income families by preparing them for higher

education and the workforce. According to this non-profit organization, successful

schools have shown strength in governance and leadership, financial operations, proven

systems that measure and support academic excellence, and strategic partnerships with

parents and community organizations (Peterson, 2007).

Charter Schools

The concept of charter schools dates back to the 1970s. New England educator

Ray Budde often receives credit for the idea of charter schools (Chen, 2007). He

suggested that teachers be given autonomy or “charters” to explore new educational

approaches in the community. In Minnesota, educators developed charter schools with

three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for results. In 1991, Minnesota

was the first state to pass charter school law in the United States. According to Chen

(2007), thanks to the success of charter schools across America, charter schools are now

the fastest growing educational reform available for school districts.

Charter schools fit in a niche between public and private schools. They are

funded with public money (except facilities) and serve as an alternative to traditional


public schools. Charter schools are free from many of the regulations that might apply to

traditional public schools (Chen, 2007). In charter schools, it is all about choice. Parents

have a choice to send their children to these schools. Teachers and administrators have a

choice to teach in an environment where decisions can be made and implemented without

red tape. They tend to be smaller than traditional public schools with a median

enrollment of 242 compared to 539 (para. 8).

Charters are issued to schools for a time period of 3-5 years and must be renewed

(if approved). According to Chen (2007), “A charter is a performance contract that

provides details about that school’s mission, program, goals, students served, methods of

assessment, and ways to measure success – a business plan so to speak” (para. 9).

Charter school administration is held to the charter; they must follow it closely. In

addition, they are under constant pressure from the state and local school boards to

perform well. If they do not perform well academically, their charter can be revoked

after the 3-5 year time period, and these schools can be closed.

The huge advantage of charter schools is all about choice. Numerous educational

opportunities are available for students and parents who choose to attend charter schools.

According to Chen (2007), students who do not attend charter schools also benefit from

its existence. Charter schools have forced traditional public schools to step up their

academic performance in order to compete for a student body. If managed properly,

charter schools can serve as laboratories for new educational innovation and

experimentation. Furthermore, if successful, these new ideas can trickle down to other,

more traditional public schools. Opponents of charter schools do not care that the

schools are being run as businesses as well as educational institutions (Chen, 2007).


Many opponents believe charter schools can segregate students among racial and

socioeconomic lines. Finally, many believe charter schools fail to educate the disabled

and limited English students properly.

In 2011, Governor Bill Haslam altered the charter school law in Tennessee. He

removed the cap for the number of charter schools in the state of Tennessee, and now

every single student is eligible to attend a charter school of his or her choice. No longer

do students have to attend a failing school and/or qualify for free and reduced lunch.

This new amendment has allowed charter schools in Tennessee to blossom over the past

year (Morrow, 2011).

Hoxby (2004) noted in her study, comparing achievement in charter and regular

public schools, that parent motivation to enroll in charter schools may be because of

parental high hopes for their children or because their children are performing poorly in

their zoned neighborhood school. In research conducted by Smith and Wohlstetter

(2009), the traditional model of parent involvement in schools was studied as it applies to

urban charter schools. The researchers used Epstein’s model of school, family, and

community partnerships to classify the parent involvement. The model has been

influential in the creation and implementation of parent involvement programs in many

school districts (Smith & Wohlstetter, 2009). Methodology included reviewing charter

legislation in 41 states and the District of Columbia, as well as conducting interviews

with charter leaders and charter authorizers. The authorizers interviewed in the study

approved new charters and maintained and evaluated current charters.

Findings from the study indicated that parents of charter schools fell into all six

categories of Epstein’s model, which included the following:


Category 1, basic obligations of families, encouraged parents to bring their

children to school on time, but the schools provided ELL classes and

parenting class to assist parents in supporting their children.

Category 2, basic obligations of the schools, resulted in willingness of

making home visits and providing school material and meetings into the

parents’ native languages.

Category 3, involvement in school, found parents participating in school

field trips, in the office, and helping in classrooms.

Category 4, involvement in learning activities at home, required parents to

interact academically with their child at home, whether reading, doing

homework, or assisting with enrichment.

Category 5, involvement in decision-making, governance, and advocacy,

asked for parental input via surveys, serving on boards, and (or) focus

groups.

Category 6, collaboration and exchanges with community organizations,

offered opportunities to provide services or train parents of students.

(Smith & Wohlstetter, 2009, p. 6)

Epstein’s typology reminded schools of the importance of the roles parents should play in

their child’s schooling. Researchers Smith and Wohlstetter (2009) suggested a difference

in parental involvement versus engagement. Because of the challenges parents often

faced, such as single parent homes, lack of education, and poverty, it would be important

for schools to provide ways for parents to support their children from home rather than

requiring parents to come to the school and engage.


Hoxby (2004) used the NAEP to compare proficiency levels of students in charter

schools and regular public schools. In making a comparison, the researcher used

matching schools, where the demographics of the charter school were comparable to the

demographics of the regular public school and were also found to be within a close

proximity to each other. Hoxby (2004) found that as a whole, students attending charter

schools in the United States were on average “4.6% more likely to be proficient in their

states’ reading examination and 2.3% more likely to be proficient on their state’s math

examination compared to matched regular public schools” (p.12). Nevertheless, there

was shown to be an even greater effect in areas where there were a majority of Hispanic

students with 7.9% more likely to be proficient in reading and 4.1% more proficient in

math (Hoxby, 2004, p. 12). When making state-to-state comparisons, states that have

charter schools in existence for earlier grades have greater proficiency in language and

mathematics. For example, states with charters from 9 to 11 years old were found to

have 10.1% greater proficiency in reading (Hoxby, 2004, p. 12). Furthermore, Hoxby

(2004) noted that charter schools are more likely to improve achievement when they

operate in areas where families are more disadvantaged and are less able to choose their

school.

Parental Participation in School Choice

Aside from examining reasons for parental choice, there is need to determine to

what extent parents are taking advantage of the public school choices afforded to them.

How informed are parents about the school choices that exist within their community?

According to Schneider et al. (1998), most low-income parents have little information

about the choices they have in public schools. However, by examining market-based


patterns and trends, they argue that competitive markets do not need all consumers to be

informed. Therefore, competitive pressures can result even if a relatively small subset of

consumers engages in an informed and self-interested search.

According to the NHES report, awareness of public school choice varied by the

school type in which students were enrolled, race/ethnicity, locale, and region (Grady &

Bielick, 2010). A greater percentage of students in assigned public schools (42%) had

parents who reported that public choice was available than did parents of students in

private schools (38%). A smaller percentage of Asian students had parents who were

aware that public choice was available than did White, Black, or Hispanic students (41%

vs. 48%, 54%, and 52%, respectively). A higher percentage of students residing in cities

had parents who thought public school choice was available (58%) compared with

students residing in suburbs (43%), towns (49%), and rural locales (49%). Regionally,

higher percentages of students from the West (59%) and the Midwest (58%) had parents

who thought that public school choice was available than did students in either the

Northeast (36%) or the South (45%) (Grady & Bielick, 2010).

Although it is important to determine the percentage of parents who are aware of

the choices they have in public school, it is equally important to determine the percentage

of parents who actually considered enrolling their children in another school. According

to Grady and Bielick (2010), 32% of parents surveyed considered enrolling their children

in a school other than the one they were attending in 2007. Of Black parents surveyed,

43% considered enrolling their children in other schools, which was higher than the 30%

for White parents, 28% for Hispanic parents, and 34% for Asian parents. In terms of

disability, a greater percentage of students with a disability than without a disability (37%


vs. 30%, respectively) had parents who considered other schools for them. In regards to

socio-economics, thirty-three percent of non-poor students, a greater percentage than that

of near-poor students (29%), had parents who considered other schools for them (Grady

& Bielick, 2010, p. 23). “Poor students are defined as those with household incomes

below 100% of the poverty threshold; near-poor students as those with household

incomes from 100 through 199% of the poverty threshold; and non-poor students as those

with household incomes at or above 200% of the poverty threshold” (Grady & Bielick,

2010, p. iv). Finally, according to the NHES report, which surveyed between 45,000 to

60,000 households, the higher the level of parents’ education, the more likely they were

to consider sending their children to other schools (Grady & Bielick, 2010).

In a study conducted by Goldring and Hausman (1999) in the St. Louis public

school system, inner city parents (71% of the sample population) sought information to

weigh alternatives to their attendance–zone schools. Twenty-nine percent of the sample

population did not seek any information and did not participate in the decision making

process (Goldring & Hausman, 1999). Furthermore, they found that there were marked

differences in race and socioeconomic status among parents who chose magnet and non-

magnet schools, as well as differences between those who chose and those who did not.

According to their results, Goldring and Hausman (1999) found that 67% of white

parents sampled chose magnet schools, as compared to 40% of minority parents. Their

findings suggested that a system of choice was utilized by upper class parents to enroll

their children in magnet schools. However, it also showed a system of choice in which

minority parents from low and middle class backgrounds weighed alternatives and

decided to enroll their children in non-magnet schools, possibly reflecting values placed


on educating their children with members of their own race (Goldring and Hausman,

1999).

According to Bell (2005), after surveying 48 urban parents about the extent of

their research for choice of school, 33 said that they conducted a search and 15 said they

did not. The 15 parents who did not conduct a search were not lazy or disinterested, for

they talked extensively about their decision-making. They chose not to conduct searches

for a range of reasons:

Nine of the 15 parents reported that no other schools offered what they

wanted. These parents knew the local schooling market from prior

searches conducted for older siblings, felt confident that the school in the

customary attendance pattern was exactly what they wanted, and were

sure that other schools would not be able to offer what the customary

school did. Three of the 15 said that the customary school was a good

school with a good reputation, so they were willing to try it. The

remaining three parents reported that they were comfortable with the

customary school and would reassess their decision after the next school

year. (Bell, 2005, p. 14)

Although the choice process effectively ended in the predetermination stage for one third

of parents, approximately two thirds of parents did search for a school. This study also

examined the means by which parents received their information before making a choice

of school for their child. With a few exceptions, parents placed a great deal of

importance on the value of information gathered through their networks, in particular,


their networks made up of other parents. Of 48 parents surveyed, all but three used their

social networks to learn about schools (Bell, 2005).

Stein et al. (2008) noted that the simple act of having a choice in school may lead

to a stronger positive relationship between schools and families. Relationships may also

be formed between school and parent when a particular program is used at schools

because it is what parents desire for their children. They pointed out that relationships

are not formed just at the school level; it often takes relationships forming with teachers

to build parental involvement in the school. Findings indicated that as enrollment

increases, schools are less likely to ask parents to get involved in the schools. Larger

school size may lessen the opportunity “to provide more individualized educational

experiences for parents and students” (Stein et al., 2008, p.18). Findings also suggested

that as achievement scores increase, “parents perceive less ‘reaching out’ from schools

and teachers” (Stein et al., 2008, p. 20). In the voter survey conducted by the Foundation

for Educational Choice, it was noted that a large gaping disconnect was present between

voters’ preferred school type and actual enrollment patterns (DiPerna, 2010, p. 15).

Across all six states surveyed, nearly an equal number of voters said they would prefer a

private school (39%) as much as a regular public school (38%).

According to their report for the National Household Education Surveys program

(NHES) in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Education's National Center for

Education Statistics (NCES), Grady and Bielick (2010) found that between 2003 and

2007, the percentage of students in chosen public schools who attended their parents'

first-choice school increased from 83% to 88%. In 2007, about 50% of students had

parents who reported that public school choice was available, and 32% had parents who


considered other schools. In addition, regardless of whether the school attended was

chosen or assigned, 27% had parents who reported that they moved to a neighborhood for

the school. Furthermore, in both 2003 and 2007, parents were asked about their

perception of the availability of public school choice in their district, whether they

considered schools other than the one in which their children were currently enrolled, if

the school in which their children were enrolled was their first choice, and if they had

moved to a neighborhood so their children could attend a particular school. For almost

all subpopulations, there was no measurable difference when comparing 2003 to 2007

(Grady & Bielick, 2010, p. 25).

Because of the vast expansion of school choices in recent years, many school

districts have recruited marketing agencies to help advertise the options that parents have.

According to Teske (2011), Duval County, Florida, hired an outside marketing firm to

produce various catalogues and brochures outlining the magnet options. Using catch

phrases such as Magnet Mania to describe a magnet school information fair and Scream

your Theme as an overall slogan for the school system, Duval County took strategic and

aggressive efforts to improve quality and equity of information about their magnet school

choices for parents. There are also websites that have been created, such as

www.buildingchoice.org, to provide school districts with practical tools to help inform

parents and market schools (Teske, 2011). This is the type of strategic thinking that can

help school districts disseminate information about school choice.

How School Choice Affects Academics

Choice and competition have been at the center of recent policy debates on how to

improve educational standards; the UK is no exception to this. Gibbons, Machin, and


Silva (2006) set out to determine the effects of parental choice and school competition on

pupil progress during primary education. Their study focused on an area around and

including London, which encompassed 200,000 pupils in 2,400 primary schools.

According to their findings, there is indeed a positive correlation between the competition

that a school faces from other schools and the rate at which pupils at that school progress.

In contrast, the number of choices that parents have at their home address is unrelated to

their children’s rate of progress. According to their research, students with many primary

school options close to home do no better than students who have few local school

options available (Gibbons et al., 2006). Therefore, either families are not exercising the

choices that they currently have or they are making choices that do not offer any

academic benefits.

School choice programs are gaining support as potential ways to introduce market

forces into public education by forcing schools to more efficiently produce higher quality

education for all students. In fact, a key component of NCLB is the requirement that

students at failing schools be given the option to choose to attend another non-failing

school. The goal is to allow lower-income students to benefit academically from

attending higher-performing schools in other neighborhoods and to increase pressure on

failing schools to improve through the (limited) introduction of market forces (Hastings,

Van Weelden, & Weinstein, 2007). However, the extent to which market forces

successfully lead to improved educational outcomes for all socio-economic groups

depends greatly on parents’ choice behavior. There is mounting evidence that many

parents, particularly in lower-income communities, do not choose schools for academic


achievement. Understanding the underlying cause of this preference disparity is crucial

for the development of successful school choice programs.

Using a field experiment, Hastings et al. (2007) found evidence that providing

simplified information on school-level academic achievement greatly increases revealed

preferences for academic achievement. Furthermore, receiving simplified information on

test scores led to an increase in choice participation as well as an increase in the average

test scores of the chosen schools. Therefore, by simply lowering information costs,

policy makers may enable families to be more informed, better able to act on their true

preferences, and fully benefit from school choice, which can in turn help improve the

equity and quality in education.

What Parents Perceive

In a study by Miamidian (2011), approximately 600 participants in the

Pennsylvania school system were selected to examine perception of quality education and

the school choices they ultimately made with subcategories of the study focused on

perception of school quality, relationships between number of school choices and

economic status, specific factors selected by specific groups, and school choice and

diversity. Findings indicated that families from different SES backgrounds had different

perceptions of school quality with white families being more progressive and families of

color being more traditional. It was also found that perception of student academic

attainment was tied to a student’s socioeconomic status. The categories of magnet and

charter were addressed in the telephone survey and it was that found families of magnet

school students tended to have less education than those who chose not to attend a


magnet school. Additionally, families of color tended to choose charter schools more

often than their counterparts (Miamidian, 2011).

Aside from exploring patterns of parental choice in public schools, it is important

to examine parental perceptions of public versus private schools. The findings from a

study by Northcentral University researcher Gabrina Charles (2011) on parental

perceptions of public and private schools indicated that private school parents had a more

positive perception of school quality than public school parents. Furthermore, this study

found that private school parents rated the support for student learning, safe and orderly

environment, and parent-school relationship higher than public school parents.

Miamidian (2011) found that “families with more traditional orientation towards school

quality are significantly more likely to choose private schooling for their children” (p.

62). By understanding these perspectives, administrators could determine ways to

address parents’ concerns and enable them to get accurate information concerning school

quality (Charles, 2011).

Rosenbloom (2009) interviewed those students who, although qualified, were not

selected to attend their choice school. His research focused on how those students

understood and experienced school choice. Following a group of thirty students

throughout their four-year high school experiences, interviews were transcribed and

coded. Themes included students feeling “duped” and finding it difficult to get out of a

school once they were admitted. Students who were not selected felt as if they were

attending a bad school, because of the perceptions of low expectations and poor

behavioral management in the neighborhood schools.


School Reform

In order for Tennessee to take its place among the ranks of the higher performing

states, it may need to follow the lead of other states that have recently instituted radical

school reform. One of the most notable examples has been Florida. In 1998, Governor

Jeb Bush set out with a plethora of ideas for implementing education reform in the state

of Florida. The National Assessment of Educational Process (NAEP) reported that in

1998 alone, 47% of Florida’s fourth graders scored below basic in reading, but by 2009

73% of the fourth graders scored basic or above (Ladner, 2011, p. 1). In addition,

Florida’s Hispanic students now have the second highest reading scores in the country.

In 2009, Florida’s average Hispanic student scored higher than the average score for all

Tennessee students on NAEP’s fourth grade reading test. “A decade of bold reforms led

to dramatic achievement gains in Florida, while academic improvements in Tennessee

were held back by a lack of strong policy changes” (Ladner, 2011, p. 1). Florida’s fourth

graders showed a 20 point gain in 2009 in the subject of reading on the NAEP exam;

Tennessee’s only showed a 5 point gain.

In just a decade, Florida’s students went from being about a half grade level

behind Tennessee’s students to performing two grade levels above Tennessee’s students.

In addition, Florida students who qualified for free and reduced lunch scored 8 points

below the average for Tennessee’s students who qualified in 1998. In 2009, Florida’s

low-income students scored 12 points above Tennessee’s students who qualified for free

and reduce lunch (Ladner, 2011, p. 1). When comparing Florida’s free and reduced lunch

students to all of Tennessee’s students, they scored 22 points behind Tennessee’s students


in 1998. By 2009, the free and reduced lunch population of Florida tied all of

Tennessee’s students.

Making these huge improvements resulted in of a number of academic reforms.

Those improvements included:

All Florida schools receiving a letter grade in evaluation of academic

performance and student learning gains

Introduction of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program, which

allowed 28,000 low-income families to attend the school of the families’

choice—both private and public

The McKay Scholarship for Students with Disabilities, which provided the

opportunity for 21,000 students with special needs to attend the private or

public school of their choice

More than 80,000 students in Florida taking at least one online course,

making it the largest virtual school program in the nation

The active charter school system had over 375 charter schools statewide

serving 131,000 students

Children in third grade who could not read were not promoted to the next

grade but asked to repeat the grade to show mastery with mid-year

promotion being an option

Instituting a new alternative teacher licensing initiative which resulted in

over half of new teachers teaching on alternative licenses (Ladner, 2011,

p. 7-8).


These reforms came with great resistance from teacher unions but were passed in

spite of the negative feedback. One of the biggest issues was retention of third graders.

However, research conducted by the Manhattan Institute showed that students who were

retained showed more academic gains than their peers who were promoted for social

reasons. Those promoted for social reasons fell further behind over time. The retained

students learned how to read; the others continued to digress. Schools which received

failing grades were not shamed; rather, the entire communities rallied behind them

providing funding for academic improvements, tutors, and volunteers (Ladner, 2011).

Summary of Literature Review

For the past ten years the research surrounding various aspects of school choice

has greatly increased. This trend is likely to continue because of the overwhelming

popularity of charter schools. All across the country, limitations and restrictions on

alternative forms of public education are being lifted, allowing more school choice for

public school parents than ever. Therefore, it is extremely important for school leaders

and policy-makers to know what parents value in schools and what drives their choice of

school for their children. Furthermore, many parents are not taking advantage of school

choice. According to Schneider et al. (1997), by changing the incentives of parents to

gather information, public school choice can allow parents to get more of what they want

for their children from schools, and at the same time it can allow them to pressure the

schools into being more efficient producers of these attributes of education. The question

remains, however, what attributes do parents most want to see in their child’s school?

According to the existing literature, academics, students, location, and teachers are the

most commonly cited characteristics that parents value most in a school for their child.


Chapter III

Methodology

According to Schneider, Teske, Marschall, and Roch (1998), on average low-

income parents have very little accurate information about objective conditions in

schools. However, even in the absence of such objective knowledge there is evidence of

a matching process in which children are enrolled in schools that are aligned with what

their parents value in education. This matching process illustrates the importance of

determining exactly what characteristics of education parents value most. When it comes

to school choice, there are more options for public school parents than ever. Therefore,

parents are faced with multiple factors in deciding which school is the best fit for their

child (Teske, Fitzpatrick, & Kaplan, 2007).

Purpose Statement

Working with the Office of Innovation in Metro Nashville Public Schools, this

research team seeks to determine which characteristics MNPS middle school parents

value most in public schools. The desire is to find which of those characteristics have the

greatest influence on parents in their determination of the best school for their child.

Furthermore, this study will determine to what extent parents are exploring the options

afforded them by their public school system.

Research Questions

The primary research questions for this study were as follows:

What characteristics do parents value most in their child’s school?

Which characteristics have the greatest influence on parental choice of

school?


Do relationships exist between the eight constructs of parental values?


Approvals

Before this study could be conducted, the research team submitted a research

proposal to the IRB committee at Lipscomb University for approval. On November 23,

2011, the research team received approval from Lipscomb’s IRB committee (Appendix

I). Furthermore, the research team completed the National Institutes of Health course on

Protecting Human Research Participants and received certificates of completion

(Appendix K). Finally, before any research could be conducted within MNPS, the

research team received approval on January 4, 2012 from the Executive Director of the

Department of Assessment and Evaluation for MNPS (Appendix G).

Research Design

Thorough execution of this research topic required a mixed methods approach,

resulting in a quantitative study with qualitative measures. A survey research design for

this project was used in order to provide characteristics of different groups within a

population. Because of the in-depth nature of components such as race and socio-

economic status, it was important to implement a design that would help distinguish

between these different groups. The research design also contained aspects of descriptive

and correlation research, because this study was concerned with the current state of

parental choice of schools and the interaction of eight constructs, which served as

overarching categories under which many specific qualifiers were placed. The following

constructs were derived from the preliminary research and existing literature:


Leadership – Leadership involves the effectiveness and availability of

school administrators (i.e. principals, department heads, etc.) and

school-wide communication.

Teachers – This construct involves knowledge of teacher qualities,

including the following: Communication, friendliness, caring,

availability, and competency.

Students – This construct includes size of the student body, student-

teacher ratio, and any knowledge of students who attend a school (i.e.

friends and siblings).

Special Programs – This construct involves specific programs and

activities offered at a school, including athletics, before / after care,

tutoring, extended hours, field trips, related arts, student clubs, and

PTO.

Location – This construct includes availability of transportation, how

close the school is to a child’s home (proximity to home), relevant

zoned and feeder schools, and community involvement.

Academics – This construct includes the academic achievement of a

school as revealed in end of year scores (such as AYP and TVAAS)

and academic awards.

Climate – This construct included any school elements having to do

with safety, cleanliness, age of building, technology, and values.

Reputation – This construct involves the reputation of a school

gathered from word of mouth or second-hand sources; reputation also


includes any past experiences a family has had with a school that may

no longer be relevant.

This study examined both qualitative and quantitative elements to determine what

parents value most in schools, and, consequently, which factors have the greatest

influence on parental choice of schools. Qualitative elements included short responses

on a parental survey (Appendices A and B). Furthermore, other qualitative elements

were derived from conversational themes that developed within the focus group session

and interviews. Quantitative elements in this study included the following:

Likert scale rankings from the parental survey

Statistics based on parental demographics, including race and level of

education

Number of public school choices parents considered

Number of children enrolled in MNPS schools

Rankings of the top three characteristics that influenced school choice

Participants

The Office of Innovation in MNPS began out of the need for all students in the

district to achieve basic proficiency. As of the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year,

only one-half of the schools in the district were in good standing according to AYP

results, with many being in Restructuring 2 or Reconstitution phases. According to

NCLB, these phases denote schools that potentially require a dramatic change in

governance by altering who makes decisions and how (Coverstone, 2011). In an effort to

turn around schools and support “dramatic academic achievement and value-added gains

for students,” the Office of Innovation sought to gain independence from the district by


seeking flexibility in the areas of authority, accountability, capacity, and autonomy

(Coverstone, 2011, p. 11). Permission was granted by the school board to step outside of

the guidelines set for schools that may have already achieved AYP. This allowed the

Office of Innovation to make decisions which pertained specifically to the lowest-

performing, turnaround schools.

The Office of Innovation was located within MNPS. MNPS’ demographics, as

reported in the 2011 Annual Report, included the following:

Approximately 77,000 students

71% classified as economically disadvantaged

47% African American, 33% Caucasian, 16% Hispanic, and 4% Asian

14% English Language Learners

Second largest school district in the state

61% of teachers had Master’s Degree or higher

99.75% of teachers were Highly Qualified in at least one subject area

(MNPS, 2012, para 1).

There were nine schools contained within the Office of Innovation who served 6th grade

students. These included charter, magnet, and zoned schools. The population surveyed

in this study included one charter, one magnet, and five zoned schools located within

MNPS. The demographics for the sample population of this study included the

following:

Seven Office of Innovation schools (one charter, one magnet, and five

zoned)

261 survey participants


32 individuals interviewed

38% African American, 15% Caucasian, 27% Hispanic, 16% Other,

4% no response

Data pertaining to the seven schools were gathered by a data specialist in the

district. This data included demographic information, including number of students and

languages spoken. Of the seven schools that participated in this study, the two primary

languages of students attending were English and Spanish. Therefore, surveys, consent

forms, focus groups, and interviews were made available in both English and Spanish.

Participation was voluntary for the completion of the survey, focus groups, and

interviews. By completing the contact information in the final section of the survey,

participants in the focus groups and interviews acknowledged their willingness to

participate. Prior to participating in focus groups and interviews, all parents signed

consent forms (Appendix C and D).

Procedures

Researchers established liaisons within each of the seven selected middle schools

within the Office of Innovation and delivered parent surveys to them. Each school

liaison distributed either an English or Spanish survey to all sixth grade students within

their building. Approximately 700 surveys were distributed. In order to increase the

likelihood of a survey being returned, students were given a piece of candy when the

survey was returned. This candy was provided to the school liaisons by the research

team. Parents were given a one to two week window to complete the survey. At the

completion of the one to two week window, the researchers collected the surveys from


participating schools. As researchers began to analyze the data, parents who had

expressed an interest in participating in a focus group were contacted.

In preparation for the focus groups, the researchers decided that it was best to

separate the focus groups into two sessions, English and Spanish. Researchers made

phone and email contact with English-speaking parents who had volunteered to

participate in a focus group. Ten participants were confirmed for a focus group that

included snacks and a drawing for a $50 Target gift card. This focus group was

scheduled at one of the schools located in the Office of Innovation for MNPS.

Participants were given directions to the school, and a reminder email was sent the day

prior to the focus group.

On the night of the first focus group, two out of the ten confirmed participants

showed up to the school. After consent forms were signed and snacks were consumed,

the researchers began the interview with the two participants—one male and one female

representing two different schools in the Office of Innovation for MNPS. At the

conclusion of the evening, it was decided to give both participants a $50 Target gift card

since they were the only ones who attended. The entire session was recorded with digital

recorders.

The next week, Spanish-speaking parents that volunteered to participate in focus

groups were contacted through phone calls, emails, and text messages. Eleven

participants were confirmed for a focus group that included snacks and a drawing for a

$50 Target gift card. This focus group was scheduled at a school with a high Hispanic

population, located within the Office of Innovation. Participants were given directions to


the school, and a reminder email was sent the day prior to the focus group; text messages

were also sent out the day of the focus group to confirm participation.

On the night of the focus group, one out of the eleven confirmed participants

showed up to the school. After consent forms were signed and snacks were consumed,

the researchers began the interview with the one participant, a female representing

another school in the Office of Innovation. At the conclusion of the evening, the

participant was given the $50 Target gift card. The entire session was recorded with

digital recorders.

Based on the lack of participation in the first two attempted focus groups, it was

determined that an additional focus group would be scheduled to accommodate more

parents. Both English and Spanish speaking parents were contacted, and eleven

participants were confirmed for a third focus group. As an attempt to increase

participation, dinner was served and the time of the focus group pushed back an hour to

accommodate working parents. Participants were given directions to the school, and a

reminder email was sent the day prior to the focus group; phone calls were also placed on

the day of the focus group to confirm participation. On the night of the focus group, only

one confirmed participant showed up to the school. After consent forms were signed and

dinner was served, the researchers began the interview with the female from the host

school. The entire session was recorded with digital recorders.

Because of low participation in focus groups, researchers contacted administration

from two other schools within the Office of Innovation for permission to attend school-

wide events in order to interview parents. Permission was granted by the administration

at both schools to hold interviews. Two of the researchers were present at one school


(with the addition of a Spanish translator), and the other researcher was present at the

other school. At both schools, the 20 parents who volunteered to be interviewed signed

consent forms and were placed in a drawing to win a $50 Wal-Mart gift card. One of

these interviews took the form of a five person focus group. The interviews and focus

group were recorded with digital recorders. Additionally, phone calls were made to

Spanish speaking parents of sixth graders in one of the participating schools. Eight

participated in one-on-one phone interviews. With the aid of a Spanish translator, the

interviews were recorded with a digital recorder. Ultimately, thirty-two English and

Spanish speaking parents were interviewed.

Instrumentation

The research team received written permission to modify and administer an

existing survey (Appendix J). The original instrument was developed by Dr. Patricia

Ragsdale Neill, an education professor at Samford University. Dr. Neill used this

instrument in her doctoral dissertation at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville

(UTK). In order to ensure validity and reliability, Dr. Neill administered a pilot study

prior to sending out the bulk of her surveys. Furthermore, a Tukey’s test was run to

ensure that there was no multiplicative interaction among the survey items. The

University of Tennessee’s IRB committee determined her instrument was reliable for use

in the dissertation process and approved her survey (P. Neill, personal communication,

March 7, 2012).

Modifications by the researchers were made to Dr. Neill’s original survey

questions in order to fit the unique characteristics of the Office of Innovation and findings

within the review of literature. The survey was divided into four sections. In section


one, parents were asked to use a Likert scale to individually rank a list of forty-five

statements highlighting different characteristics of what parents may value in a school.

Listed beneath each statement was the following Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree,

2=disagree, 3=neutral, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree, N/A=not applicable. Parents were also

given the opportunity to list any factor(s) that may have not been listed in the original

forty-five statements. Six statements were included in Part I of the parental survey to test

reverse polarity of parental responses.

In section two, parents were asked to respond to the following questions:

Is your child attending their zoned school?

Did you consider any other MNPS schools for your child?

How many other schools did you consider?

Parents were also asked to rank the top three factors that had an influence on school

choice for their child from a list of factors that mirrored the forty-five statements in

section one. Section three contained questions pertaining to demographics, including the

following:

How many children do you have currently enrolled in MNPS schools?

What is the current grade level of the child this survey pertains to?

What is the parent’s highest level of education?

What best describes your child’s current school (charter, magnet, zoned)?

How would you best describe your ethnicity?

In section four, parents had the opportunity to volunteer their time as a participant in a

focus group where ideas surrounding parental values and school choice would be


explored more in depth. Focus group and interview questions were generated by the

research team based on existing literature and parental survey results (Appendix E).

Creation of Eight Constructs

Based on the existing literature, the research team composed a list of possible

factors that might drive parental choice of school. These factors were included in Part II

of the parental survey (Appendix A and B). From this list of factors, the researchers

placed them into eight broad categories of values that are referred to in this study as the

eight constructs of parental values. The eight constructs are as follows: leadership,

teachers, students, special programs, location, academics, climate, and reputation. Table

1 shows the categorization of the factors in Part II of the parental survey into the eight

constructs of parental values.

Analysis of Data

Out of the approximately 700 surveys administered to parents of 6th grade

students in the MNPS Office of Innovation, the research team received 261 surveys back

from parents. The research team used voluntary contact information provided on the

returned surveys to schedule interviews and focus groups. Because of the mixed methods

approach in this study, the researchers analyzed both quantitative and qualitative data.

The following is a description of the methods used to analyze the data for this study.

Quantitative Data. The researchers used SPSS 19 software for statistical

analysis. In each test of significance, an alpha level of .05 was set. In order to determine

the relationship between one predicted, or dependent variable, and a selection of

predictors, or independent variables, a stepwise regression was generated. A Compare

Means approach was implemented to generate a mean value for each participant in each


of the individual constructs. The purpose was to determine if significant correlations

existed between the eight constructs of parental values. A data table was constructed to

determine which of the eight constructs were found to consistently be in relationship with

each other.

Table 1 Categorization of Parental Values from Part II into the Eight Constructs of Parental Values

Location Leadership Teachers Students Distance of house from school

Communication from principals

Friendliness of teaching staff

Size of student body

Zones and/or feeder high school

Availability of the principal

Availability of teachers

Friends of my child

Transportation offered to the school

Caring teachers Student-to-teacher

ratio

Community involvement

Communication from teachers

Siblings attending same school

Competency of teachers

Highly qualified teachers

Special Programs

Reputation Climate Academics

Related arts offerings

Reputation of school Cleanliness End of year test scores

Student clubs Teacher Reputation Age of building Awards received by school

Field trips Past experiences Safety Before and after care

Recommendation by others

Availability of Technology

Saturday school Academic reputation Values Athletics Extended school day

PTO/PTA Availability of tutoring


Descriptive statistics were generated for parental choice of construct and whether

or not they considered other public school options. A Compare Means test was

performed to determine skewness in the relationships, which created the need for the

generation of an independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney. A Pearson’s correlation

and forward regression were generated to determine if significance existed in the

relationship between the eight constructs of parental values and how many children a

parent had enrolled in MNPS schools. Because both the independent and dependent

variable contained nominal data, Chi-square tests were generated along with Phi and

Cramer’s V when addressing the significance of relationships in multiple hypotheses,

including four of the null hypotheses which are listed below.

1) There is no statistically significant difference between whether a parent has a

child enrolled in a zoned, charter, or magnet school and the top three factors that

influenced parental choice of school.

2) There is no statistically significant difference between whether or not a parent

considered another public school and the top three factors that influenced parental

choice of school.

3) There is no statistically significant difference between a parent’s education level

and the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school.

4) There is no statistically significant difference between parental ethnicity and the

top three factors that influenced parental choice of school.

A Paired-samples t-test was generated to determine if significance existed

between the means for the eight constructs of Part I. From Part II of the parent survey,

parents were asked to identify the top three factors that influenced their choice of school.


Descriptive statistics were generated which produced frequency and percentage tables to

identify the overall top five factors that most often influenced parental choice of school.

Additionally, of the top five factors that were selected by parents, a Chi-square was

generated to determine what percentage of respondents selected these as one of their top

three choices.

From section three of the parent survey, descriptive statistics were generated and

frequency tables created to identify the ethnicity of participants. Because of the low

number of Asian respondents, the Asian demographic was combined within the category

of “Other.” A Chi-square was generated to determine if a relationship existed between

ethnicity and the top five factors that influenced parental choice of school.

Qualitative Data. The focus group and interviews were transcribed by the

researchers from the audio recordings. During transcription, respondents’ identity was

protected by recording answers as R1 (respondent one), R2 (respondent two), etc. A

thorough review was then conducted of researcher notes and transcripts including

observational records. Next, the transcripts were analyzed using the eight constructs of

parental values as a guide. Researchers created a coding guide, and each construct was

assigned a different color code (i.e. teachers=orange, location=blue, etc.). As the

different constructs appeared throughout the transcription, text was highlighted in the

appropriate color for analysis. Frequency, specificity, and intensity of comments were

thoroughly analyzed to look for patterns. As the researchers further analyzed each

transcript, tallies were placed underneath the appropriate construct as it appeared in the

transcripts. These tallies allowed for a visual representation of which constructs appeared

most often throughout the interviews and focus groups. Finally, in vivo coding was used


to look for themes that surfaced based on the eight constructs. These direct quotes were

recorded beside the eight constructs to look for patterns and themes.

In order to examine the extent to which parents were aware or taking advantage of

school choice, the researchers analyzed the transcripts looking specifically for responses

to questions regarding school choice. For the questions of school choice and

communication of those choices from MNPS, responses were tallied. Regarding the

parents’ awareness of the difference between zoned, magnet, and charter schools, key

phrases were extracted from the transcript and placed into appropriate categories.

Null Hypotheses

The researchers have formulated the following null hypotheses for the purposes of

this study:

1) There is no statistically significant relationship between all eight constructs of

parental values.

2) There is no statistically significant difference between what a parent values in a

school, as measured in the eight constructs, and whether or not they considered

any public school options.

3) There is no statistically significant relationship between the eight constructs of

parental values and how many children a parent has enrolled in school.

4) There is no statistically significant difference between whether a parent has a

child enrolled in a zoned, charter, and magnet school and the top three factors

that influenced parental choice of school.


5) There is no statistically significant difference between whether or not a parent

considered another public school and the top three factors that influenced their

school choice.

6) There is no statistically significant difference between a parent’s education level

and the top three factors that influenced their school choice.

7) There is no statistically significant difference between ethnicity and the top three

factors that influenced parental choice of school.


African American

38%

Caucasian15%

Hispanic27%

Other16%

No response4%

Figure 1. Ethnicities of Parents Reponding to Survey

Chapter IV

Results

This research team sought to determine which characteristics parents value most

in public schools and which of those characteristics had the greatest influence on parents

in their determination of the best school for their child. Furthermore, this study sought to

determine to what extent parents explored the options afforded them by their public

school system. This chapter contains the research results, categorized into qualitative and

quantitative sections. The purpose of this chapter is to provide the results of research

findings and analysis of the data resulting from personal interviews, a focus group, and

parental surveys.

Analysis of Quantitative Data

Demographics. Of the approximately 700 surveys administered to parents of 6th

grade students in the MNPS Office of Innovation, 261 surveys were returned to the

research team. The ethnicities of the parents responding to the survey can be seen in

Figure 1. Originally there were five categories of ethnicity: African American, Asian,

Caucasian, Hispanic, and other. There were only eight Asian families represented in the


Not graduate

from high school16%

HS/GED31%Some

college22%

College graduate

15%

Master's 3%

No response

13%

Figure 2. Education of Parents Responding to Survey

study and this low number would create problems in a cross tabulation. Therefore, the

Asian families were combined into the category of “Other,” which resulted in four

categories of ethnicity: African American, Caucasian, Hispanic, and “Other.” In the

survey, parents were also asked to respond to the question of educational background.

Responses to the question of educational attainment can be seen in Figure 2.

Analysis of Null Hypotheses.

H01: There is no statistically significant relationship between all eight constructs of

parental values.

SPSS 19 was used to generate all quantitative data. In order to determine the

relationship between one predicted, or dependent variable, and a selection of predictors,

or independent variables, a stepwise regression was generated. The values of each of the

constructs were generated by classifying each statement in Part I of the parental survey

into its appropriate construct. The mean of each construct for each individual participant

was based on his or her Likert scale responses to Part I of the survey. A Compare Means

approach was implemented to generate a mean value for each participant in each of the


eight constructs. The eight constructs of parental values included: teacher, students,

special programs, reputation, climate, leadership, location, and academics. Each of the

eight constructs was used as a dependent variable with the remaining seven constructs

used as independent variables. For example, if the construct of teacher was used as the

dependent variable, the additional constructs of students, special programs, reputation,

climate, leadership, location, and academics were used as independent variables. Results

of the eight stepwise regressions showed which combination of independent variables

had stronger relationships with each of the eight constructs. These results can be found in

Table 2. Each dependent variable was found to have predictors that created models which

were of significance. As a result of the stepwise regression analysis, the null hypothesis

was rejected.

In order to determine which of the eight constructs were consistently shown to be

in relationship with each other, the results of each ANOVA and Model Summary were

organized in Table 3. Reputation (p<.01) and climate (p<.01) appeared to have the

strongest relationship to the eight constructs as a whole. The constructs of reputation and

climate appeared in six of the seven models. Survey choices that related to the construct

of reputation included the following: school, teacher, and academic reputation, as well as

past experiences and word of mouth recommendations. Survey choices that related to the

construct of climate included the following: school elements having to do with safety,

cleanliness, age of building, technology, and values.


Table 2 Model Summaries of Stepwise Regressions

Dependent Variable Predictors R R2 p

Climate reputation 0.607 0.368 .000*

location teachers students

special programs

Reputation teachers 0.648 0.420 .000*

location students

climate academicsleadership

Teachers reputation 0.617 0.381 .000*

leadership climate Location climate 0.632 0.399 .000*

special programs

reputation academics Special programs location 0.643 0.413 .000*

climate academics leadership Students reputation 0.467 0.218 .000*

climate Leadership teachers 0.579 0.336 .000*

climate reputation

Academics special programs

0.531 0.282 .000*

location reputation

*p < 0.05


Appearing in four of seven models, a relationship which fell in the middle included

teachers (p<.01), suggesting this construct did not serve as important a role as reputation

and climate. Survey choices that related to the teacher construct included the following:

communication, friendliness, caring, availability, Highly Qualified status, and

competency.

Appearing in three of seven models, relationships included the constructs of

special programs (p<.01), leadership (p<.01), location (p<.01), and academics (p<.01).

Students (p<.01) appeared in only two of seven models. Survey choices that related to

the special programs construct included the following: athletics, before and after-school

care, field trips, parent-teacher organizations (PTO), student clubs, extended school days,

availability of tutoring, and offering of related arts classes. Survey choices that related to

the leadership construct included the following: communication from principal and

availability of principal. Survey choices that related to the location construct included the

following: distance of house from school, zoned or feeder high school, brothers and

sisters attending the same school, community involvement and transportation offered to

the school. Survey choices that related to the academic construct included the following:

end-of-year scores and awards received by the school. Survey choices that related to the

students construct included the following: size of the student body, student-teacher ratio,

and any knowledge of students who attend a school (i.e. friends and siblings).


H02: There is no statistically significant difference between what parents value in a

school, as measured in the 8 constructs, and whether or not they considered other school

options.

In determining if there was a statistically significant difference between what

parents value in a school and whether or not they considered other school options, the

independent variable of whether or not a parent considered other public school options

was denoted by a 0 for a no and a 1 for a yes. Descriptive statistics for what parents

value in schools and whether or not they considered other public school options can be

found in Table 4. Each of the eight constructs was used as dependent variables. Using a

compare means approach, results showed that skewness was considered significant in the

two constructs of leadership and academics. Therefore, an independent samples t-test

was performed as well as a Mann-Whitney. The independent samples t-test showed there

was a significant difference between those who did not consider other public school

options and location. Those who did not consider other public school options valued

location more than those who did consider other public school options. The Mann-

Whitney was utilized to determine if a significant difference was found in the two

constructs that were not normally distributed. The Mann-Whitney agreed with the t-test,

and no p value was found to be less than .05, as reported in Table 5. The null hypothesis

was rejected.


Table 4

Descriptive statistics for what parents value in schools and whether or not they considered other public school options

Location Consider other school options n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.202 -.434 .169 Yes 91 4.051 -.484 .660 Leadership n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.483 -1.689 4.916 Yes 91 4.449 -1.538 2.701 Teachers n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.332 -.461 -0.716 Yes 91 4.304 -.687 -.260 Students n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 3.804 -.441 1.491 Yes 91 3.808 .053 -.594

Special Programs n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.031 -.174 -.119 Yes 91 3.954 -.354 -.325 Reputation n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.152 -.782 1.075 Yes 91 4.183 -.660 .532 Climate n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 133 4.292 -.812 1.047 Yes 91 4.262 -.398 .278 Academics n Mean Skewness Kurtosis No 132 4.546 -1.400 2.287 Yes 91 4.434 -1.058 .785


Table 5

An Independent Samples t-test for Constructs and Whether Parents Considered Other Public School Options

Location

Consider other school options n Mean df t p No 133 4.202 222 2.046 .042* Yes 91 4.051 Leadership n Mean df t p No 133 4.483 222 .388 .699 Yes 91 4.449 Teachers n Mean df t p No 133 4.332 222 .365 .716 Yes 91 4.304 Students n Mean df t p No 133 3.804 222 -.054 .957 Yes 91 3.808 Special Programs n Mean df t p No 133 4.031 222 1.140 .255 Yes 91 3.954 Reputation n Mean df t p No 133 4.152 222 -.407 .684 Yes 91 4.183 Climate n Mean df t p No 133 4.292 222 .488 .626 Yes 91 4.262 Academics n Mean df t p No 133 4.546 221 1.429 .154 Yes 91 4.434 *p < 0.05


H03: There is no statistically significant relationship between the eight constructs of

parental values and how many children a parent has enrolled in school.

To determine if there was a statistically significant relationship between the eight

constructs of parental values and how many children a parent had enrolled in a MNPS

school, a bivariate correlation was performed using the number of children a parent had

enrolled in school and the eight constructs. Using a Pearson’s correlation, two findings,

special programs and reputation, were found to be significant between the eight

constructs and the number of children enrolled in school, as seen in Table 6. A forward

regression was generated and significance was determined for reputation (p=.000). As

seen in Table 7, the forward regression showed that 1.9% of the value parents placed in

reputation of the school can be explained by the number of children they have enrolled in

MNPS. The null hypothesis was rejected.


H04: There is no statistically significant difference between whether a parent has a child

enrolled in a zoned, charter, and magnet school and the top three factors that influenced

parental choice of school.

Choice 1. To ascertain if a significant difference was present in whether a parent

had a child enrolled in a zoned, charter, or magnet school and the top three factors that

influenced parental choice of school, a Pearson chi-square was conducted and is shown in

Table 8. In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 1, the p value was greater

than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship.

Findings showed χ2 (14, N=179) =16.8, p=.264. The effect size for this finding,

Cramer’s V, was low, .217. There was not a significant relationship between Choice 1

and whether a parent had a child enrolled in a zoned, magnet, or charter school. The null

hypothesis was retained.



influenced parental Choice 2 of school, a Pearson chi-square was conducted and is shown

in Table 9. In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 2, the p value was

greater than .05, as seen in Table 3.5. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the

strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (14, N=177) = 9.58, p=.79. The effect

size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .233. There was not a significant relationship

between Choice 2 and whether a parent had a child enrolled in a zoned, magnet, or

charter school. The null hypothesis was retained.




influenced parental Choice 3 of school, a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is

shown in Table 10. In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 3, the p value

was greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the

relationship. Findings showed χ2 (14, N=176) =12.9, p=.533. The effect size for this

finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .192. There was not a significant relationship between

Choice 3 and whether a parent had a child enrolled in a zoned, magnet, or charter school.

The null hypothesis was retained.

H05: There is no statistically significant difference between whether or not a parent

considered another public school and the top three factors that influenced their parental

choice of school.

Choice 1. To ascertain if a significant difference was present in whether or not a

parent had considered another public school and the top three factors that influenced

parental choice of school, a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 11.

In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 1, the p value was less than .05. Phi

and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings

showed χ2 (7, N=166) =19.51, p=.007. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was

moderate, .343. There was a significant relationship between Choice 1 and whether or

not a parent considered another public school. The null hypothesis was rejected. The

Chi-square analysis indicated that location had significantly more influence on parental

choice of school for those who considered another school option.





In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 2, the p value was greater than .05.

Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings

showed χ2 (7, N=164)=8.937, p=.257. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was

low, .233. There was not a significant relationship between Choice 2 and whether or not

a parent considered another public school. The null hypothesis was retained.




In generating a Chi-square for only parental Choice 3, the p value was greater than .05.

Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings

showed χ2 (7, N=163) =4.01, p=.778. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was

low, .157. There was not a significant relationship between Choice 3 and whether or not

a parent considered another public school. The null hypothesis was retained.


H06: There is no statistically significant difference between a parent’s education level

and the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school.

Choice 1. To ascertain if a significant difference was present between a parent’s

education level and the first choice of the top three factors that influenced parental choice

of school, a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 14. In generating

a Chi-square, the p value was greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated

to test the strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (28, N=168) = 30.438,

p=.343. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .213. The null hypothesis

was retained.


education level and the second choice of the top three factors that influenced parental

choice of school, a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 15. In

generating a Chi-square, the p value was greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also

generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (28, N=166) =

28.6, p=.433. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .208. The null




education level and the third choice of the top three factors that influenced parental

choice of school, a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 16. In

generating a Chi-square, the p value was greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also

generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (28, N=166) =

24.871, p=.635. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .194. The null


H07: There is no statistically significant difference between ethnicity and the top three

constructs that influenced parental choice of school.


ethnicity and the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school, a Pearson

Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 17. In generating a Chi-square, the p

value was less than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of

the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (21, N=184) = 40.547, p=.006. The effect size for

this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .271. The null hypothesis was rejected. The Chi-

square analysis indicated that reputation had significantly more influence on parental

choice of school for Hispanics than any other ethnicity.



ethnicity and the second of the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school,

a Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 18. In generating a Chi-

square, the p value was less than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the

strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (21, N=184) = 44.155, p=.002. The

effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .284. The null hypothesis was rejected.

The Chi-square analysis indicated that reputation had significantly more influence on

parental choice of school for Hispanics than any other ethnicity.


ethnicity and the third of the top three factors that influenced parental choice of school, a

Pearson Chi-square was conducted and is shown in Table 19. In generating a Chi-square,

the p value was greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the

strength of the relationship. Findings showed χ2 (21, N=183) = 19.7, p=.539. The effect

size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .189. The null hypothesis was retained.


Other Quantitative Results

Top Three Factors that Influence School Choice. In Part II of the parent

survey, parents selected their top three factors that influenced their choice of school (See

Appendices A and B). Their choices were as follows:

Reputation

Cleanliness

Size of student body

Athletics

Distance of house from school

Communication from principal

End-of-year school wide test scores

Friends of my child

Age of the building

Cafeteria staff

Existence of a Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) or Parent-Teacher Organization

(PTO)

Student-to-teacher ratio

Teachers who have highly qualified status

Zoned high school

Awards received by the school

Availability of tutoring

Friendliness of the teachers

Availability of technology


Values

Availability of the principals

Competency of the teachers

Before and after school care


Past experiences

Community involvement

Communication from the teachers

Field trips

Caring teachers

Student clubs

Availability of teachers

Brothers and sisters of my child attending the same school

Recommendation by others

Offering related arts classes (music, art, band, physical education)

Friendliness of the teaching staff

Safety of the school

In order to determine the top five chosen values for Choices 1, 2, and 3 on section

two of the parent survey, a frequency distribution was generated. In Table 20, 36.8% of

responses to Choice 1 of what drove parental choice of school were found within the top

five chosen values. The responses to Choice 2 accounted for 30.2% of the top five

responses. The responses to Choice 3 accounted for 22.4% of the top five responses.

There were two chosen values which appeared in all three of the top five lists,


Table 20 Frequency Distribution for Top Five Chosen Values for Choice 1, 2 and 3

Top Five f % cum% Choice 1 Distance from house to school 28 10.7 10.7

Reputation 24 9.2 19.9

Safety of the school 17 6.5 26.4


14 5.4 31.8

Highly qualified teachers 13 5 36.8

Choice 2 Transportation offered to the school

20 7.7 7.7

Safety of the school 17 6.5 14.2

Reputation 11 4.2 18.4

Distance from house to school 11 4.2 22.6

aFriends of my child 10 3.8 26.4

aCommunication from teacher 10 3.8 30.2

Choice 3 Safety of the school 16 6.1 6.1

Caring teachers 15 5.7 11.8


10 3.8 15.3

Friends of my child 9 3.4 19

Availability of technology 9 3.4 22.4

aThe two factors were equally chosen by parents to be ranked fifth in choice 2


transportation and safety of school. There were five top issues that a majority of the

parents who answered Part II of the survey named as at least one of their first, second, or

third most influential factors in choosing a school: distance of house from school,

reputation, safety of the school, transportation offered to the school, and teachers who

have highly- qualified status.

Although not identified originally as one of the research questions for this study,

the research team wanted to determine if there was a significant relationship between the

top five factors that influenced school choice and parent’s ethnicity. Figure 1 gave

demographic data as it pertains to ethnicity. Table 21 denotes the frequency of parents

who mentioned one of the top five factors that influenced school choice based on

ethnicity when making Choice 1, Choice 2, and Choice 3 on part II of the parent survey.

According to the survey results, the top five most influential factors in choosing a school

were distance of house from school, reputation, safety of the school, transportation

offered to the school, and teachers who have highly-qualified status.

Table 21

Frequency Distribution for Parents Who Consider Other Schools

Considered other Schools

f % cum%

Yes 147 56.3 56.3

No 114 43.7 100


To ascertain if a significant difference was present in parents who chose the top

five factors and parent ethnicity, a Pearson chi-square was conducted and is shown in

Table 22. In generating a Chi-square, the p value is greater than .05. Phi and Cramer’s

V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship. Findings show χ2 (3,

N=251) = 1.132, p=.769. The effect size for this finding, Cramer’s V, was low, .067.

There is no evidence in the data that these concerns are more prominent among some

ethnic groups than among others. Solid majorities of respondents in each ethnicity

category named at least one of the top five concerns as seen in Table 21 above. The

difference in the percentages is not significant. So the school can address these top five

concerns without favoring one ethnic group's concerns over another.

Table 22

Chi-Square table for parent ethnicity and if they chose at least one of the top five concerns

Ethnicity

African American

Caucasian Hispanic Other χ2 p

Mentioned at least one of top five concerns

Yes 56 22 44 23 1.132 .769

56.6% 53.7% 62.9% 56.1%

No

43 19 26 18

43.4% 46.3% 37.1% 43.9%


Although not identified originally as one of the research questions of the study,

the question arose if the top five factors chosen by parents would more likely to be named

by parents who considered sending their children to other schools than by parent who did

not consider sending their children to other schools. Table 21 shows the frequency of

those parents who considered other schools. The top five issues were determined to be

distance of house from school, reputation, safety of the school, transportation offered to

the school, and teachers who have highly-qualified status. Table 23 denotes the

frequency of parents who mentioned one of the top five issues when making Choice 1,

Choice 2, and Choice 3 on section two of the parent survey.

In order to determine if there was a significance difference between those who

considered other schools and those who did not, a Chi-square test was generated. The

results of the Chi-square are in Table 23. A chi-square test determined that there was a

significant difference between those who considered other schools and those who

mentioned at least one of the top five concerns, X2 (1, N = 224) = 4.872, p =.027. Phi

and Cramer’s V were also generated to test the strength of the relationship. The effect

size for this finding, Phi, was low, -.147.

Table 23 Chi-square table for whether or not a parent considered another school and if they chose at least one of the top five concerns

Considered Other Schools

No Yes χ2 p

Mentioned at least one of top five concerns

Yes 71 62 4.872 .027 53.4% 68.1% No 62 29

46.6% 31.9%


Descriptive statistics were used to determine means of each of the eight constructs

from Part I of the parent survey, as found in Table 24. Results showed that skewness was

considered significant in the construct of leadership. Because leadership had the greatest

mean value and in order to determine if a significant difference existed between

leadership as compared to the other seven constructs, a paired-samples t-test was

generated. Because of the fact that leadership and academics were not significantly

different from each other, a paired-samples t-test was generated to compare academics to

the other six constructs to determine if academics was significantly different from the

remaining constructs, as shown in Table 25. Overall findings indicated the constructs of

leadership and academics were significantly more valued by parents than the other six

constructs in Part I of the parental survey.

Table 24 Descriptive Statistics related to the Eight Constructs from Part I of Parent Survey

N Mean Skewness Kurtosis

Leadership 261 4.491 -1.590 3.641

Academics 259 4.467 -1.118 1.019

Teachers 261 4.326 -.575 -.516

Climate 261 4.277 -.618 .779

Reputation 261 4.181 -.816 1.253

Location 261 4.139 -.427 .250 Special Programs 261 3.980 -.255 -.050

Students 260 3.818 -.268 .807


Table 25 Paired Samples Statistics to Compare the Constructs of Leadership and Academics Leadership n df t p

Location 261 260 7.965 .000* Teachers 261 260 4.578 .000* Students 260 259 13.634 .000* Special Programs 261 260 12.146 .000* Reputation 261 260 7.585 .000* Climate 261 260 5.414 .000* Academics 259 258 0.474 .636 Academics n df t p Location 259 259 8.700 .000* Teacher 259 259 3.231 .000* Students 259 259 14.026 .000* Special Programs 259 259 13.867 .000* Reputations 259 259 7.248 .000* Climate 259 259 5.114 .000* *p < 0.05


Analysis of Qualitative Data

Thirty-two parents participated in the focus group and interviews. Of those

interviewed, six were male and twenty-six were female; additional demographics for this

group include 28% African American, 44% Caucasian, and 28% Hispanic. After

interviews and focus group transcripts were coded and analyzed, the research team found

a wide range of responses regarding the differences between zoned, charter, and magnet

schools. Parents used the following phrases to describe zoned schools:

Based on where you live

Locked into it

Welcome to the masses

Where our kids are supposed to go

Low class (in regards to level of education received by students)

The normal ride out

Never heard of it (Spanish speaking parent)

Parents used the following phrases to describe magnet schools:

School for specific learning

Based on talent or grades

More options (programs, clubs, performing arts)

They get the ‘cream of the crop’

Lottery is used for admission

Harder curriculum

Smaller classes

More direct teaching


Better than other public schools

High class (in regards to level of education received by students)

Students receive a better education

Optional

More advanced

Students learn more

Don’t know

Parents used the following phrases to describe charter schools:

Alternative to zoned

Owned by individual or corporation

Uses government funding

Smaller classes

More privileges

Like a private school

Students functioning below basic

Specific teaching

More advanced

Middle class (in regards to level of education received by students)

College prep

Harder curriculum

Optional

For anyone who doesn’t want their child in public schools

Has funding issues


It’s the best choice out of the three (zoned, magnet, and charter)

Never heard of it

Don’t know

In response to the interview/focus group question, Did you consider sending your child

to any public school other than the one in which they are currently enrolled?, twelve

respondents considered other public school options for their child. However, in the end,

all of them made the choice to send their child to their zoned school. Fifteen respondents

did not consider any alternative public school options for their child; therefore, they were

all attending their zoned schools as well. Parent A mentioned,

Well I don’t think we should have to send our children to charter and

magnet schools in order to get a quality education. I think they should be

able to go their neighborhood school and get the same quality education

that these magnet school applications claim that they’re going to get.

None of the Hispanic parents interviewed considered other public school choices for their

children.

In response to the interview/focus group question, Do you think MNPS did an

adequate job of communicating school choices to you?, fifteen parents said yes, six

parents said no, and one parent was unsure. When asked about the communication from

MNPS about school choice, many parents mentioned that paperwork was sent home on a

yearly basis. Some parents felt like they knew other public school options existed, such

as magnet and charter, but they did not know much about them. SS (Spanish speaking)

Parent B said it was very difficult to learn about school choice because of the lack of

translators in MNPS. He said communication with the school had to be conducted


entirely through his bilingual daughter. Parent C mentioned she had to research school

choice on her own, and other parents had the desire to receive more detailed information

on other public school options for their student. Parent D admitted that she received

information about school choice from MNPS, but she felt overwhelmed by the amount of

literature sent home. After reviewing transcripts, it was noted that not every parent had

the opportunity to respond to the question regarding communication from MNPS about

other public school choices.

One of the major purposes of this study was to determine what parents value in

education. To this end, the research team asked the interview/focus group the following

question: What do you value most in a school? The research team used transcripts to

classify the responses according to the eight constructs of parental values. These data are

presented under each of the eight constructs, in the order of most valued to least valued

according to coding.

Teachers. The construct relating to teachers was mentioned twenty-one times

during the course of the focus group and interviews. Respondents particularly favored

“open communication” with teachers. In today’s world of technology, many parents

valued communication through email, text messages, and phone calls. Parents wanted

instant communication with teachers, and they did not want to have to wait for days to

receive a response. Parent E said that parent/teacher communication “is the old fashioned

way that we grew up with teachers, where parents and teachers look in each other’s faces

and talk about the student.” Other parents also valued teachers who cared about their

children. “I love how they’ve dealt with my child,” stated Parent F. The theme of caring

continued when Parent G stated they valued that their child is counted as an individual in


the school and “not just a number or score on TCAP.” Parent H stated, “They have a lot

of good teachers, whether they made standards or not.” The value placed on the

importance of teachers continued when Parent I stated, “If you have great teachers for

your kid in that class, then it’s great. The teachers that he has are really good at focusing

in on the individual and the way individuals learn.” SS Parent J added,

They’ve got excellent teachers, you know, and they’re willing to, to work

with me as a parent. I think that the teachers are here because they care,

and if a parent is willing to stop and listen, you know, they’ll see the good

in, in the school, in the teachers.

Parent K valued teachers that “went into this profession because they care. And they want

the children to learn and they want the children to grow and it’s not just this is a 9 to 5

job.” SS Parent L believed that the most important thing about teachers was that they

“pay attention to problems.”

Academics. Academics were mentioned twelve times throughout the transcripts.

However, it was important to mention that the respondents’ answers did not always

clearly match the researchers’ definition of the academic construct. Parents interviewed

did not value test scores and academic awards of the school as much as they valued their

child receiving a good education. Parent E said the numbers, referring to end of year test

scores, did not really matter to her. She mentioned that she had received a letter from

MNPS stating that the school had not met AYP requirements, but she knew there were

other failing schools in the area, so she chose to keep her child at the zoned school.

Many parents wanted the best for their children academically, and this also involved an

emphasis on “college prep.”


Climate. The construct dealing with climate revealed itself ten times during the

course of the interviews and focus group. Comments stemmed from the cleanliness of

the building and school grounds to the importance of school safety and its impact on

learning. Parent M mentioned, “If my child is safe, then my child can learn.” Parent N

also valued safety and was concerned about the safety of students walking to and from

school. She said,

We have lived here for seven years and we have seen an extreme amount

of middle school fights on the way home to where the principal and some

of the teachers have to walk them down past intersections and keep saying

to them, ‘Go home, go home, go home.’

Parent N also valued the cleanliness of the school building. She mentioned that her son

had attended another school, School A, and she “enjoyed that it was clean.” Based on the

current school in which her son was enrolled, she was about to approach the principal

about the lack of cleanliness. Parent N explained,

If you ever get a chance to walk the halls of this school, there is trash in

the halls at all times in this school. No matter what I’ve had to go meet a

teacher with, about, or go to meet the assistant principal on the second

floor, I have walked through trash and garbage throughout this school.

School A is extremely clean. It’s very professional.

She believed that middle school students should take ownership of the school building

and its cleanliness. Parent I mentioned the overall cleanliness of the building when he

stated,


Yeah, right, yeah and lights that flicker and stuff like that, it’s bad for the

kids’ morale, it’s bad for learning environment. You know good lighting’s

important; you know stained floors are you know, that gives… a bad

feeling. They’re not just learning math, they’re learning how to present

themselves in life and what is acceptable and what isn’t.

The age of the building did not seem to impact parents as long as the building was well

maintained. Parent I also complimented MNPS and its recent renovation of an older

middle school. In regards to his son’s school, he said,

It had a complete facelift before this year and to me it gave everybody a

much better feel. I was there last year and there were broken tables in the

cafeteria, there were broken chairs with only three legs in the cafeteria. I

mean it was that bad, and the facelift was fantastic.

Parent H also complimented a recent renovation where MNPS turned an older high

school building into a middle school building. She explained,

I was impressed when I walked in and saw the updates that they had made

to the school, because if it wasn’t safe enough for high school kids to go

there, I’ve always wondered how it was safe enough to put younger kids

there.

The role of technology was also valued by some parents. SS Parent J stated, “I think the

technology should be there because I mean, you know, it’s what’s out there now, and I

know the kids also do need to learn that.”

Location. Location was mentioned nine times in the qualitative data collection.

Many parents valued their children walking to school, and it was convenient for them to


live so close to the school building. “Having friends and family close is extremely

important to me in case anything should happen,” mentioned Parent H who chose to send

her child to their zoned school. “I felt better knowing they were in the neighborhood.”

Parents also valued transportation, and many mentioned that magnet and charter schools

were never a viable option for them because of the lack of transportation. Parent O

mentioned that “it was mainly the logistics of getting him there and getting him back”

that kept her from enrolling her son in a magnet or charter school. But for the majority of

parents interviewed, sending their children to their zoned school boiled down to simple

convenience.

Special Programs. Special programs were mentioned as being valued nine

different times. Related arts were valued by many parents, and the potential for the

possible removal of these programs from the schools was not favored. Many parents

believed it was important for their children to receive a well-rounded education, and they

credited this to the related arts, such as art, music, band, orchestra, physical education,

and computer classes. SS Parent J believed, “If [the schools] don’t have those [related

arts] and they don’t have those options, [students will] never know what they like.”

In addition, many parents valued before, during, or after school tutoring. Some schools

even had intervention and tutoring built into the school schedule, so it was more

convenient for parents. Speaking about tutoring at his son’s school Parent I commented,

My son had great tutoring in 2nd grade and his math skills increased

greatly and his grades increased greatly, but they did it and they were very

open. It was obviously free, it was during the school day, but they did it

during recess and he came to feel that it was a punishment, so that gave a


negative sense to education for him that, that worried us and we took him

out of it.

Students. The construct of students was mentioned six different times throughout

the data collection. Parents’ comments referenced both the size of the student body and

student-teacher ratio. They valued smaller schools, and Parent I believed that “1,200

students in one building cannot thrive.” Parent P valued smaller class sizes, because they

believed “teachers [had] more time to focus with the students, as opposed to herding

them like cattle.” The sense of community between students was also mentioned as

being something parents valued, and they believed this was very difficult to establish in a

large school setting. Parent Q valued “the different races” present at her daughter’s

school and mentioned that at another school with less diversity, her daughter had trouble

focusing on academics.

Leadership. The construct of leadership was mentioned four times as being

something parents valued. Parent R appreciated leadership teams that “watched over

their kids.” Parents also valued communication with the administration of their child’s

school. SS Parent J valued the assistant principal at her son’s school.

You know, he says what he means, he means what he says. And he takes

action to make sure, you know, when my son was having the problems,

he’s like, it will stop. And it stopped, you know, he’s taught him and this

is my child. You know, I, I just really, that’s something that I really value,

like with the administration.

School-wide communication was valued, and the phone system that called parents

was mentioned as being the most effective form of communication from MNPS.


Parent N mentioned that “we probably check our phone ten times a day, but we

don’t check our email that often.” Parent N also mentioned that the phone system

had not worked properly in her child’s school for the entire school year. She

made multiple attempts to make the school aware of the problem, but no

corrective action was taken. She felt it reflected poorly on the leadership of the

school.

Reputation. The construct of reputation was mentioned three times as being

something parents valued throughout the course of the data collection. Reputation was

only mentioned once in regards to middle schools. SS Parent J had heard several parents

say that they “didn’t want their kids coming here because it was like little Mexico or

something, you know, and it was a race thing.” Many of the comments regarding the

construct of reputation were directed toward the high schools in the area. Parent H said,

I don’t think your middle schools are as bad, but I know that my son is

actually zoned to go to School B. I do not want him to go to School B

because I have heard nothing good as far as… now it’s a beautiful school,

brand new, but from my understanding there are a lot of gangs.

Parent N mentioned,

I’ve heard horror stories about School B where teachers are afraid to

follow through on what they said no matter if it meant that this kid is

going to be in high school six years, you know. It’s, you’re going to pass

high school, that’s life. You’re going to have to do the work because that’s

life.


Parent N discussed the inequity of holding students accountable for work. On

several occasions, her coworker’s son completed assigned projects and turned

them in to the teacher. However, the assignments were never graded because of

the low percentage of students who completed the assignment. The teacher would

refer to the work as “practice for the future.” The lack of holding students

accountable greatly frustrated Parent N.


Chapter V

Conclusion and Discussion

Conclusions Because of the introduction of No Child Left Behind legislation, parents are

offered more educational choices than in any time in recent history. Consequently,

public schools now have to compete for student enrollment. Proponents of school choice

claim that school choice “leads to competition among schools, thereby raising school

quality for all students” (Rabovsky, 2011, p. 87). Critics assert that school choice only

increases the separation of segregation between race and class. Working with the Office

of Innovation for Metro Nashville Public Schools, this study seeks to determine what

characteristics parents value most in public schools. Additionally, the desire is to find

which of these characteristics have the greatest influence on a parent’s determination of

the best school for their child. Furthermore, this study will determine to what extent

parents are exploring the options afforded them by their public school system. The

findings of this study will be shared with the director of the Office of Innovation for

MNPS to help inform his decision making as he seeks to move all schools into good

standing based on AYP. In addition, this study is intended to help school leaders and

policy makers understand what parents value most in schools, the factors that drive

parental choice of school, and to what extent parents are taking advantage of public

school choices in order to help them make improvements to MNPS.

Although the rapid expansion of public school choice is a relatively recent event,

researchers have always been interested in what parents value in education. Although

most people would assume that, when given a choice, parents choose good schools for


their children, Bell (2005) found that many parents chose failing schools over more

successful ones. According to Schneider, Teske, Marschall, and Roch (1998), teachers

were listed by parents as the most important factor to consider when choosing a school.

Seventy-seven percent of parents interviewed chose teachers above the other ten

attributes of what mattered most in a school (p.775). In a study by Kleitz, Weiher, Tedin,

and Matland (2000), it was found that families chose charter schools primarily because of

smaller class sizes. Additionally, when parents were asked to rate various factors in

terms of their importance of selecting a school, Bainbridge and Sundre (1992) found that

class size mattered most.

Although the research indicates that parents value teachers and class size when

choosing a school for their child, location also plays an important role in their decision-

making. Bosetti (2004) surveyed 1,500 parents of students in Alberta, Canada, and gave

them twenty-two factors regarding reasons for choosing the school in which their child

was currently enrolled. According to his findings, 50% of public school parents indicated

proximity to home as the most important factor in choosing a school (p. 397). Similarly,

Kleitz et al. (2000) interviewed 1,100 parents and found that convenience of the school

was the most important factor because of their lack of transportation (p. 851). Bagley,

Woods, and Glatter (2001) also found that the number one reason why parents rejected

certain schools for their children was because of the factor of transport/distance.

Academics also show up consistently in the literature as being important to

parents when choosing a school for their child. According to Stein, Goldring, and

Cravens (2010), across grade levels, a majority of parents reported that academic factors

were the driving force behind their choice of school. However, this study also found that


there was no clear pattern of students moving from lower performing schools to higher

performing schools (p. 2). In a study conducted by the Foundation for Educational

Choice, parents were asked to rank the most important school attributes when selecting a

regular public, charter, virtual, private, or home school program. One in four voters

stated the top attribute when selecting a school for their child was standards/curriculum,

which ranked as number one (DiPerna, 2010, p. 30).

After receiving approval from the IRB committee at Lipscomb University and

from MNPS research department, the research team developed a research design in order

to answer the four primary research questions. A mixed methods approach was utilized

which resulted in a quantitative study with qualitative measures. Quantitative data were

gathered from a parental survey that included Likert scale rankings, demographic

information, and rankings of top three factors that influenced parental choice of school.

An existing instrument, which had been deemed reliable and valid by the IRB Committee

at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, served as a model for the design of the

parental survey. Permission to use this survey was granted by its author. Qualitative data

were gathered through individual parent interviews and a focus group.

The sample population for this study was seven middle schools located within the

Office of Innovation for MNPS, which included one charter, one magnet, and five zoned

schools. In order to provide uniformity and a manageable scope to this study, the

research team limited their research strictly to parents of sixth grade students. Of the

schools participating in the study, the two primary languages of students attending were

English and Spanish. Therefore, parental surveys, consent forms, focus groups, and

interviews were made available in both English and Spanish. Of the surveys distributed,


a total of 261 were returned, analyzed, and serve as the basis for our quantitative findings.

Additionally, partially based on contact information provided on the parental survey, a

focus group and parent interviews were conducted on a volunteer basis. From the focus

group and personal interviews, data were analyzed and coded, and serve as the basis for

our qualitative findings.

What characteristics do parents value most in their child’s school? Based on

the findings from Part I of the parental survey, parents value the constructs of leadership

and academics the most in their child’s school. Based on the Likert scale rankings by

parents, the mean averages for these two constructs were shown to be statistically more

significant than the other six constructs. On a scale of 1-5, the construct of leadership

averaged 4.491, and the construct of academics averaged 4.467. Survey choices that

relate to the construct of leadership included the following: the effectiveness and

availability of school administrators (i.e. principals, department heads, etc.) and school-

wide communication. Survey choices that relate to the construct of academics included

the following: academic achievement of a school as revealed in end of year scores (such

as AYP and TVAAS) and academic awards. Although there is a dearth of research

pertaining to the extent to which parents value leadership, large scale quantitative

research studies concluded the effects of strong leadership on student learning are small

but educationally significant (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).

Based on the qualitative data derived from the focus group and parent interviews,

parents value the constructs of teachers, academics, and climate the most.

Characteristics that might be included in the teacher construct include the following:

communication, friendliness, caring, availability, Highly Qualified status, and


competency. During the interviews and focus group, MNPS parents mentioned the

construct of teachers twenty-one times. Parents value open communication from

teachers, and they want to know that the teachers truly care about their children.

Furthermore, if problems surface regarding their child, socially or academically, parents

value instant communication from teachers. Specifically, parents value communication

from the teacher more than communication from the school.

It is important to note that academics is the only construct that appears in both the

quantitative and qualitative findings as being a characteristic that parents value in their

child’s school. During the focus group and interviews conducted for this study, MNPS

parents mentioned the value they placed on academics twelve times. In a study

conducted by The Foundation for Educational Choice, one in four parents stated the top

attribute they considered when choosing a school for their child was standards and

curriculum (DiPerna, 2010, p. 30). In another study based on interviews with public

school parents from Washington, D.C., the number one factor parents looked at when

selecting a school for their child was academics (Teske, Fitzpatrick, & Kaplan, 2007, p.

28). Furthermore, after interviewing MNPS parents, the construct of academics seems to

be connected with the construct of teachers. Based on findings, if parents know their

child’s school has excellent teachers who provide a top-notch education for their child,

they do not seem to care if their school is failing based on AYP. This seems to align

itself with the qualitative data from this study in which MNPS parents say that as long as

their child has excellent teachers, they do not place much value in the overall test scores

of the school.


Jacob and Lefgren (2005) interviewed parents about characteristics that they

valued in their child’s school. According to their findings, “Parents strongly prefer

teachers that principals describe as best able to promote student satisfaction, and place

relatively less value on a teacher’s ability to raise standardized math or reading

achievement” (p. 1). The value placed on academics also has indirect ties with the

construct of location, according to the findings. Parents of children who attend a failing

MNPS school say they would be willing to send their child to another school, such as

magnet or charter, if transportation was readily available. However, in the end, the

construct of location seems to rise to the surface, because parents ultimately value the

convenience of their child being close to home.

The third most cited construct that parents value is climate, which revealed itself

as important ten times during the course of interview and focus group sessions.

Characteristics that relate to the construct of climate include the following: school

elements having to do with safety, cleanliness, age of building, technology, and values.

Parents value safety and cleanliness the most. Many parents want their children to feel

safe at school, and many believe learning cannot happen until their students do, indeed,

feel safe. Parents appreciate that so much is being done by MNPS administration to deter

bullying in the schools. They feel bullying is something that could very well force them

to move their child to another school. Additionally, within the construct of climate,

parents value the cleanliness of a building more than they value the age of a building.

According to Schneider et al. (1998), when parents were asked to choose which

characteristics they thought were most important in a school, from a pre-generated list of

eleven attributes, safety was chosen by 70% of parents and discipline was chosen by 44%


of parents interviewed (p. 775). This seems consistent with the findings from this study.

Additionally, in a survey conducted by The Foundation for Educational Choice, parents

ranked structure and discipline as the second most important attribute (19%) when

choosing a school for their child (DiPerna, 2010).

Which characteristics have the greatest influence on parental choice of

school? The top five factors that drive parental choice of school are distance of house

from school, reputation, safety of the school, transportation offered, and teachers who

have Highly Qualified status. The parents were never presented with the eight constructs;

instead, parents were asked to rank the top three factors that influenced their choice of

school in Part II of the parental survey from a pre-generated list of thirty-five factors. It

is important to note that two of the top five factors that parents selected, distance from

house to school and transportation, fall within the construct of location. From the list of

factors presented, 16.1% of parents ranked these two factors as their number one choice

that influenced parental choice of school. The remaining three factors fall under the

constructs of reputation, climate, and teachers. Existing literature from Bosetti (2004)

supports these findings. When parents were given twenty-two factors to choose from

regarding reasons for choosing a school for their child, 50% of public school parents

indicated proximity to their home as the most important factor in choosing a school (p.

397).

Furthermore, these quantitative findings are consistent with the results of Part I of

the parental survey in which reputation and climate have the greatest influence on the

other six constructs. It is interesting to note that the construct of academics does not

seem to affect parental choice of school within the population surveyed. Therefore,


parents choose the convenience of location over a school with a positive academic

reputation. Findings also show that Hispanic families value reputation over all of the

other constructs. This is consistent with the findings of Weekes-Bernard (2007) in which

reputation played an important role in school choice, regardless of the extent of a parent’s

informational network. These findings support the qualitative data derived from the

focus group and interviews of MNPS parents in which the constructs of teachers and

climate were mentioned more than the other constructs as being something parents value

in schools.

Survey choices that relate to the construct of climate include the following: school

elements having to do with safety, cleanliness, age of building, technology, and

values. The top factors that surface from this construct are safety and cleanliness. Of the

261 parents surveyed, 19.1% of parents identified safety as one of the top three factors

they considered when choosing a school for their child. Furthermore, the parents that

were interviewed in this study consistently mentioned safety as being of utmost

importance to them. Many MNPS parents want their children to feel safe at school, and

many believe learning cannot happen until their students do, indeed, feel safe. Parents

appreciate that so much is being done by administration to deter bullying in the

schools. They feel bullying is something that could very well force them to move their

child to another school. Lee, Croninger, and Smith (1996) found that safety was of

greater concern for parents of minority families. Because 81% of respondents surveyed

in this study classify themselves as minority, this seems to align with the existing

literature. Furthermore, Kleitz et al. (2000) noted that Hispanic families were found to

consider safety more important than black or white families.


Additionally, within the construct of climate, parents value the cleanliness of a

building more than they value the age of a building. Furthermore, based on the findings

for this study, 3.4% of parents chose technology, which falls within the construct of

climate, as one of their top three factors to consider when choosing a school. Lyons

(2001) reported that the age of a building and technology go hand-in-hand. Many

schools are unable to support the needed technology for students of the 21st century

because of the age of building. Based on interview and focus group sessions, MNPS

parents say technology plays a role in the importance of communication between schools

and parents.

Do relationships exist between the eight constructs of parental values? When

examining the relationships between the eight constructs of parental values, reputation

and climate have the largest impact on all of the other constructs. Although these

characteristics do not rank among the top two constructs parents value in their child’s

school, they do have the greatest influence on the other constructs of parental values.

Based on parent interviews, the characteristic that stands out the most within the

construct of reputation is word of mouth recommendations. Parents place a lot of value

into what other parents say about particular schools. Martinez and Thomas (1994) also

found that much information regarding school choice comes from friends and relatives

(i.e. word of mouth). From the MNPS parents interviewed, several middle school parents

are already looking for other choices for their children, other than their zoned high

school. Because of the stories they hear from friends and relatives relating to bullying,

gangs, and ineffective teachers, they are hesitant to send their child to their zoned high

school.


Additionally, reputation is more important to parents based on the number of

children they have enrolled in MNPS public schools. Based on the findings, the fewer

children a parent has enrolled in a school, the more importance parents place on the

reputation of the school. Conversely, the more children a parent has enrolled in school,

the less importance they place on reputation. Furthermore, reputation is shown to be the

most important construct for the Hispanic families in MNPS as compared to all other

constructs, with Hispanic respondents comprising 27% of participants.


The research team’s ability to answer this research question was limited because of the

omission of the two charter schools from participation, as explained in the section entitled

Limitations of the Study. However, the question of whether or not parents considered

other public school options for their child is answered by this study. According to

qualitative data derived from the thirty-two respondents interviewed, the majority of

parents who responded to this question did not consider other public school options for

their child. Conversely, according to the survey results, a majority of MNPS parents did

consider other public school options for their child (56.3%), aside from the schools in

which they were currently enrolled. Parents who consider sending their children to a

different school are more likely to name one of the top five factors that influence parental

choice of school, which include distance of house from school, reputation, safety of the

school, transportation offered, and teachers who have Highly Qualified status, as

compared to those parents who do not consider sending their child to another school.

Both parent groups, those who consider school choice those who do not, name at least

one of the top five factors as being something they value.


Additionally, the findings from this study indicate that parents who consider

public school choices name location as the construct that is most important to them when

choosing a school for their child. These parents, who consider other public school options

for their child, are likely to send their child to their zoned school. In a study conducted

by Bell (2005), it was noted that parents who knew the local schooling market from prior

searches conducted for older siblings felt confident that their zoned school was exactly

what they wanted and were sure that other schools would not be able to offer what their

customary school did. For those parents who do not consider other public school options

for their child, the location construct is of the utmost importance. In a study conducted

by Bosetti (2004), a similar conclusion was reached. He found that 47% of public school

parents surveyed sent their children to their designated school without seeking

information about other public school choices, drawing the conclusion that the key

concern for them in choosing a school for their child was proximity to their home (p.

397).

Limitations of the Study

There were limitations present during the course of the research project. The

population for the study came directly from those schools associated with the Office of

Innovation in Metro Nashville Public Schools, including the district’s charter, magnet,

and ten lowest performing schools according to AYP based on the Tennessee

Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP). Because of the population discrepancies

between the Innovation Cluster and other MNPS schools, results may not be generalized

to the population of Metro Nashville Public Schools as a whole. Researcher bias possibly

served as a limitation in this study because of the fact that one of the researchers worked


directly in a school within the Office of Innovation, and this school was also selected to

participate in the study. This research project only examined attitudes of parents in the

2011-2012 school year; it does not take into account the attitudes of parents from other

school years. The results of this project will be delimited to the parents of sixth grade

students in the Office of Innovation within Metro Nashville Public Schools. Therefore,

the findings from the study are limited to parents of an urban population. The findings

from this study may have been different if this study were conducted in a rural area.

There were several limitations regarding the parental survey. Some of the parents

did not answer all of the questions on Part I of the survey. The survey was printed on

both sides of the paper; therefore, some parents skipped an entire page of the survey. In

addition, not all parents answered Part II of the survey where they ranked the top three

choices that influenced parental choice of school. In Part III of the survey, several

parents did not complete demographic information. Finally, at the completion of the

survey, parents had the opportunity to volunteer for participation in a focus group.

However, because some handwriting was illegible, the research team was unable to

successfully contact every parent who volunteered participation.

An additional limitation with the parental survey centered on the amount of time

parents had to return completed surveys to the school liaison. In order to have all of the

surveys returned prior to spring break, parents were only given a one to two week

window to complete the surveys. This limited window was also because of the fact that it

took several weeks to translate the parental survey, consent form, and focus group

questions into Spanish. Ideally, parental surveys, consent forms, and focus group

questions would have been translated into all languages represented in the student


population within the Office of Innovation. Because of limited time and resources, the

research team focused on the two primary languages represented, English and Spanish.

Furthermore, after several unsuccessful attempts were made to conduct focus

groups with voluntary participants from the parental survey, the research team decided to

conduct interviews in order to obtain qualitative data. Because of the nature of onsite

interviews, there were time constraints placed on many interview sessions because of

parents’ prior commitments. This resulted in the researchers not getting to engage in as

many questions and discussions as they would have been able to in a focus group setting.

In order to provide a copy of the parental survey and consent forms to Hispanic

families, translation was necessary. The research team had the survey and consent form

translated by a bilingual translator. Furthermore, these translated documents were

reviewed and approved by another Spanish/English speaking interpreter. Therefore, both

the copies of the Hispanic parental survey and the consent forms are a translation from

English to Spanish and were not originally created in Spanish. Additionally, because of

the lack of Hispanic parents present at the focus groups and face-to-face interviews, the

decision was made to call the Hispanic families who had originally agreed to participate

in a focus group. The researcher read questions to a Spanish/English translator in English

who would then translate for the parents in Spanish. This process was reversed as

parents’ responses were translated from Spanish back to English. This process was

repeated for any follow up questions for the participants. The interviews were recorded

and transcribed by the Spanish translator into text at the end of each

interview. Limitations may exist between the translation of English to Spanish and back

to English again for both the interview and survey instrument. Because of the multiple


translations, potential exists for possible alterations in meaning and/or context during the

translation process.

At the time of this study, the middle schools within the Office of Innovation

consisted of three charter schools, one magnet school, and five zoned schools. Because

the population sample for this study only included parents of sixth grade students, the

choices that parents had were limited to nine schools. Out of the three charter schools

within the Office of Innovation, two of them chose not to participate in the distribution of

parental surveys. After multiple attempts were made by the research team and the

director of the Office of Innovation to rectify this issue, a group decision was made to

proceed with the addition of two more zoned schools located within the Office of

Innovation. Originally, the research design called for an equal representation of schools

in the sample population based on the percentages of charter, magnet, and zoned schools

within the Office of Innovation. However, because there were only three charter schools

from which to choose, the representation of charter, magnet, and zoned schools in this

study is not proportionate to the actual representation within the Office of Innovation.

Discussion

It is interesting to note that the construct of academics was listed by parents as

something they value in Part I of the parental survey and in the focus group and interview

sessions; however, when asked to rank the top three factors that influence choice of

school for their child, in Part II of the survey, parents did not list academics; specifically,

in this case, academics refers to awards received by the school and end-of-year school

wide test scores. These findings indicate that although parents greatly value academics in

their child’s school, it is not a driving force behind why they choose a school for their


child. Therefore, the implications for school leaders are that academics are important to

the parents of the children they serve, but it may not be the key factor that attracts parents

to enroll new students in their school. Additionally, these findings point to the fact that

parents may value many different aspects of academics in their child’s school, but AYP,

academic awards, and end of year test scores do not rank among the most important

aspects for them, especially in regards to choice of school for their child.

Based on the qualitative data derived from the question about school choice and

the discussion of magnet and charter schools, many parents do not consider these public

school options for their child because of the perception that transportation is not offered.

However, currently, all of the charter schools operating in MNPS provide free

transportation for their students. It is important to note that not all parents are aware that

this free transportation exists. Therefore, parents’ reasons for not taking advantage of

school choice are partially because of misinformation about other public school offerings

within MNPS. Furthermore, based on the interview and focus group questions regarding

the perceived differences between zoned, magnet, and charter schools, many parents do

not know what a magnet or charter school is. Therefore, it is important that MNPS

clearly defines these different public school options to parents when literature is sent

home. Additionally, some parents feel that the material that is sent home to them by

MNPS is hard to sort through and comprehend. Since MNPS does not currently recruit

students for charter schools, if various charter schools want to increase their presence in

the community and student enrollment, it is important that they clearly and concisely

define all pertinent information about charter schools to various members of the


community. It is also important to make sure this information is available in several

languages.

Based on the quantitative data, Hispanic families, which composed 27% of the

population surveyed, valued the construct of reputation over all of the other seven

constructs. Therefore, it is important to make sure that MNPS schools display a positive

image in the community if they are to attract Hispanic families. Reputation stems from

past experiences, values displayed by the school, and word of mouth recommendations

from other families. It is also interesting to note that out of the Hispanic families

interviewed, 25% of the population, none of them considered other public school choices

for their child. This could be because of the lack of translation services in MNPS

schools. As one Spanish-speaking father stated, he had to communicate with the school

through his bilingual daughter because of the lack of translators at the school. It might be

helpful for MNPS to develop a website that is entirely in Spanish. By doing this, it may

help break down the language barrier and make Hispanic families more aware of public

school options within MNPS.

Based on quantitative findings, there is no statistically significant difference in

parents’ educational level and what they value in public schools. Therefore, when school

leaders decide which factors to place an emphasis on within the school building, it is not

necessarily important to take parents’ educational level into account when making these

decisions. Therefore, it is possible for other MNPS schools that have similar

demographics to this population sample, but are not located within the Office of

Innovation, to generalize the findings of this study to their school based on parents’ level

of education.


The constructs of reputation and climate are found to be two of the greatest

influences for parents as they make decisions on where to send their children to

school. Therefore, school administrators may want to pay special attention to these two

constructs as they set forth plans each year. The positive image of a school may send a

wealth of support from parents and community members that would only enhance the

school. All members who enter the school, from teachers, parents, students, and other

community members should feel welcomed and valued as a stakeholder. This welcoming

feeling begins with the office staff, as one parent mentioned in the interview. Reputation

of the school begins from the very moment a person enters the school

campus. Everything speaks about the school, from the weeded flowerbeds to the

presence of trash along the sidewalks and in the school’s hallways. All of these

characteristics are important to not only the reputation of the school but also the school’s

climate. According to the findings, the age of the school building is not of concern, but

the school’s cleanliness and overall presence is of utmost important to parents. Schools

also need to stress the importance of building relationships with the students and parents

by communicating and showing a friendly and caring demeanor.

Schools must also ensure that teachers are competent in their content areas and

are available to meet with parents and students as needed. Additionally, the findings

indicate the importance of making certain that the school is a safe environment for

students. In surveys and in interviews, parents continually mentioned the importance of

safety, which also falls under this study’s definition of climate. Safety falls third behind

distance from home to school and reputation of school, as being an important factor

parents consider when choosing a school for their child. The inclusion of strong


discipline plans would promote safety for the students within the school. Parents are

greatly concerned with bullying and violence in schools. Therefore, administrators must

work with their districts not only to control but also to remove these threats from their

buildings.

Based on an extensive review of existing literature, five hypotheses were created

for this study. These hypotheses include the following:


school’s academics and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s students and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s location and what a parent values most in a school.


school’s teachers and what a parent values most in a school.

5) There is a statistically significant positive relationship between parents

considering choice of school and location.

These hypotheses were based on the review of literature. According to the findings of

this study, hypotheses numbers one and four are confirmed. The construct of academics

and teachers are valued by MNPS parents. This indicates that the existing literature

aligns with the findings of this study. However, since the parents interviewed and

surveyed in this study did not consistently list the construct of students as something they

value, hypothesis number two is not confirmed. Although the construct of location is not

listed by parents as one of the top two characteristics they value in their child’s school, it


is a primary consideration when choosing a school for their child. In fact, distance of

house from school ranks as the number one factor MNPS parents consider when choosing

a school for their child. Nevertheless, because it does not show up as statistically

significant in Part I of the parental survey and it was not consistently mentioned in focus

group and interview sessions regarding what parents value in schools, hypothesis number

three is not validated by this study. In regards to hypothesis number five, it was

determined in this study that MNPS parents who considered other public school options

for their child place a strong emphasis on location. Therefore, hypothesis number five is

confirmed.

Suggestions for Further Research

Throughout the analysis of the data, the researchers made mention of several

areas that would serve as important foundations for further research. This study uncovers

whether or not parents consider other public school options for their child. One

suggestion for further research would be to survey parents who consider other public

school options for their child to determine parental satisfaction in their child’s current

school. Additionally, it might be of value to survey parents who move their child from

their zoned school to another public school option to determine parental satisfaction of

their new choice. It would be important to look for relationships between what parents

value and if their values are being met by their child’s chosen school.

Findings of this study are only generalizable to those parents of 6th grade students

in the Office of Innovation, so it might be important for the population of an additional

study to include either all middle school parents and/or all levels of schools within the

population, including elementary, middle, and high schools. The parental surveys,


consent forms, and focus groups questions were only available in English and Spanish,

which were the two primary languages of those students surveyed within the Office of

Innovation. It might be worthwhile to provide the parental survey, consent form, and

focus group questions in all languages that are represented by families in MNPS.

Research by Lee et al. (1996) found that safety was more of a concern for

minority and low-income parents than middle class, white households. Although this

study finds that safety is of concern for MNPS parents, there are few white, middle class

respondents in which to connect with the literature. By opening up the population of the

study to more schools within MNPS and including a demographic question pertaining to

household income, information could be gathered to draw more detailed conclusions

regarding safety.

For the purposes of this study, the construct of reputation was represented by

teacher reputation, academic reputation, past experiences, and word of mouth

recommendations by others. If this study were to be replicated, it might be more telling

to remove “academic reputation” from the reputation construct. The reason for this

suggestion is the concern that parents answering the survey might misunderstand this

factor as being tied to the academic achievement of their child’s school. In addition, the

construct of academics needs to be broadened to include academic qualities of a school

beyond those relating to end-of-year test scores.

Recently, two of the nation's leading charter management organizations, Aspire

Public Schools and Rocketship Education, have been authorized to open new charter

schools in Memphis and Nashville. Nine schools will be opening in Memphis and

Nashville next year, with plans to open a total of forty-one new charter schools by 2020


("Charter Officials," 2012). According to Aspire CEO James Willcox, “Tennessee is an

exciting place to be… the environment for change here is one that has built up over a

long period of time" ("Charter Officials," 2012, para. 6). With this type of rapid

expansion in school choice, Tennessee schools are likely to be at the forefront of school

reform for the next decade.

Therefore, the effects of parental choice of school on education are of paramount

importance to educational leaders and policy makers in Tennessee. Working with the

Office of Innovation for Metro Nashville Public Schools, this study seeks to determine

what characteristics parents value most in public schools. Additionally, the desire is to

find which of these characteristics have the greatest influence on a parent’s determination

of the best school for their child. The findings of this study will be shared with the

director of the Office of Innovation for MNPS to help inform his decision making as he

seeks to move all schools into good standing based on AYP. Hopefully, this study will

serve to inform MNPS school leaders and policy makers of the characteristics parents

value most in schools, the factors that drive parental choice of school, and to what extent

parents are taking advantage of public school choices in order to help them in their

continual efforts to make MNPS a leading metropolitan school district in the Southeast.

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions from this study, the research team suggests

the following recommendations for the Director of the Office of Innovation:

MNPS needs to clearly and concisely define their public school options for

parents, including the availability of transportation for charter schools. It would

also be helpful to ensure this material is available in several languages.


In order to attract Hispanic families, it is vital that MNPS schools display a

positive image in the community.

Because of the large diversity of languages within MNPS, it would be beneficial

to increase the quantity and availability of translators to help improve overall

communication between school and home.

Because reputation and climate were found to be two of the greatest influences for

parental choice of school, school administrators should pay special attention to

these two constructs as plans are made for the upcoming school year. This might

include making community members feel welcome and valued as stakeholders,

building relations with students and parents by increasing communication, and

displaying a friendly and caring demeanor.

Administrators should work with district officials to control bullying and violence

in schools.

Reflections

As our research comes to a conclusion, there are few important reflections that the

research team feels are worth sharing. Looking at our findings, it is interesting to note

the importance parents place on a school’s reputation and climate, as well as the

significant impact these two constructs have on the other six constructs. This information

can allow administrators to be strategic and efficient in their continual attempts to

improve their schools. In essence, it is a strategy that will give administrators the

"biggest bang for their buck." Another key take-away for this research team is the

surprising amount of misinformation that exists among MNPS parents about school

choice. Because of the tremendous growth in school choice over the last decade, there is


a definite need for school leaders to help parents understand the choices that are offered

to them, especially in regards to transportation and the requirements for enrollment in

charter and magnet schools. Furthermore, in today’s data obsessed culture which places

such a high emphasis on standardized test scores, it is a bit refreshing to see the findings

in our study that reveal that parents value a teacher who “cares” and can give their child a

good education more than a teacher who produces high standardized test scores.

Obviously, the two can go hand in hand, but it points to a need for school leaders to

remind their teachers that it’s not ALL about the numbers. Finally, perhaps the greatest

take-away from this project has been learning to work together as a team. The capstone

process has taught us skills that are required for productive collaboration and high

performance teamwork. This was a more difficult task than originally anticipated, but the

results proved more rewarding in the end. These reflections, and our study as a whole,

should prove especially useful for us as we embark on the remainder of our

administrative and educational careers.


References

Bagley, C., Woods, P., and Glatter, R. (2001). Rejecting Schools: Towards a fuller

understanding of the process of parental choice. School Leadership &

Management, 21(3), 309-325 Retrieved from

http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.waterfield.murraystate.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hi

d=107&sid=59d67f82-f238-4c59-bc77-0bdfb2319913@sessionmgr107

Bainbridge, W. L., & Sundre, S. M. (1992, October 14). What parents really look for in a

school. Education Week. Retrieved from

http://schoolmatch.com/articles/EWOCT92.htm

Bell, C. A. (2005). All choices created equal? How good parents select “failing” schools.

Retrieved from National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education:

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP106.pdf

Bosetti, L. (2004, July). Determinants of school choice: Understanding how parents

choose elementary schools in Alberta. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 387-

405. doi: 10.1080/0268093042000227465

Burgess, S., Greaves, E., Vignoles, A., & Wilson, D. (2010). What parents want: School

preferences and school choice. Retrieved from Department of Quantitative Social

Science: http://repec.ioe.ac.uk/REPEc/pdf/qsswp0901.pdf

Burke, L. M. (2011, October 4). Education savings accounts: A promising way forward

on school choice. WebMemo. Retrieved from

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED524998.pdf

Burke, L. M., & Sheffield, R. (2011, August 17). School choice in America 2011:

Educational opportunity reaches new heights. Backgrounder. Washington, DC:


The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from


Charles, G. (2011). Parental perceptions of school quality in public and private schools.

(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text

Publication No. AAT 3447723.)

Charter officials announce new Tennessee schools. (2012, June 9). Education Week.

Retrieved from

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/06/04/528819tncharterschools_ap.html

Chen, G. (2007). What is a charter school? Retrieved from

http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/3

Coverstone, A. (2011, June). Office of innovation: A proposal for school turnaround and

maximum capacity in Nashville. Paper presented to the Metro Nashville Board of

Education, Nashville, TN.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Kirby, S. N. (1985). Tuition tax deductions and parent school

choice: A case study of Minnesota (R-3294-NIE). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 273 047)

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., & Meyerson, D. (2005). School

leadership study: Developing successful principals. Retrieved from Stanford

Educational Leadership Institute: http://www.srnleads.org/data/pdfs/sls/sls_rr.pdf

DiPerna, P. (2010). Interstate survey: What do voters say about K-12 education in six

states? Retrieved from The Foundation for Educational Choice:

http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/EdChoice/FileLibrary/606/Interstate-

Survey---What-Do-Voters-Say-About-K-12-Education-in-Six-States.pdf


Flicek, M. (2007). The impact of robust implementation of intra-district open enrollment:

A case study. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association.

Retrieved from

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/community_neighborhood.pd

f

Forster, G. (2009). A win-win solution: The empirical evidence how vouchers affect

public schools. Retrieved from The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice:

http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/EdChoice/FileLibrary/357/A%20Win-

Win%20Solution%20%20The%20Empirical%20Evdence%20on%20How%20Vo

uchers%20affect%20Public%20Schools.pdf

Forster, G. (2011). A win-win solution: Empirical evidence on school vouchers. Retrieved

from The Foundation for Educational Choice:

http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/EdChoice/FileLibrary/656/A-Win-Win-

Solution---The-Empirical-Evidence-on-School-Vouchers.pdf

Gibbons, S., Machin, S., & Silva, O. (2006). Competition, choice and pupil achievement

(CEE DP 56). Retrieved from Centre for the Economics of Education:

http://cee.lse.ac.uk/ceedps//ceedp56.pdf

Goldring, E. B., & Hausman, C. S., (1999). Reasons for parental choice of urban schools.

Journal of Education Policy, 14(35), 469-490.

Goldring, E. & Rowley, K. (2006, April 8). Parent preferences and parent choices: The

public-private decision about school choice. Paper presented at the Annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA

Retrieved from


http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/downloads/papers/goldring-

rowley2006.pdf

Grady, S., & Bielick, S. (2010). Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 2007.

Retrieved from National Center for Educational Statistics:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010004.pdf

Harvey, J. (ed.) National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 Education (2003).

School Choice: Doing it the right way makes a difference. Washington, Dc:

Brookings Institution. Retrieved from

http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/20031116schoolchoicereport.pdf

Hastings, J. S., Van Weelden, R., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Preferences, information,

and parental choice behavior in public school choice. Retrieved from Max Weber

Programme Fellows’ Websites: http://www.nber.org/papers/w12995.pdf

Henderson, M. (2009). Information and exit: Do accountability ratings help families

choose schools? (R305A040043). Retrieved from National Center on School

Choice:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/conference/papers/Henderson_COMPLE

TE.pdf

Hoxby, C. M. (2004, December). Achievement in charter schools and regular public

schools in the United States: Understanding the differences. Retrieved from

http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/4848.pdf

How important is class size? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/find-a-

school/defining-your-ideal/174-class-size.gs


Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2005). What do parents value in education? An empirical

investigation of parents’ revealed preferences for teachers. Retrieved from

Educational Research Section, Princeton University Website:

http://www.ers.princeton.edu/jacobs.pdf

Kleitz, B., Weiher, G., Tedin, K., & Matland, R. (2000). Choice, charter schools, and

household preferences. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 846-846.

Ladner, M. (2011). Lessons for Tennessee from Florida’s education revolution. The

Foundation for Educational Choice. Retrieved from

http://www.edchoice.org/CMSModules/EdChoice/FileLibrary/641/Lessons-for-

Tennessee-from-Floridas-Education-Revolution.pdf

Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1996). Equity and choice in Detroit. In B.

Fuller & R. F. Elmore (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and

the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 70-94). New York: Teachers College

Press.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003, April). What do we already know about successful

school leadership? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American

Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from

http://dcbsimpson.com/randd-leithwood-successful-leadership.pdf

Lyons, J. B. (2001). Do school facilities really impact a child's education? An

introduction to the issues. Retrieved from

http://www.igreenbuild.com/pdf/School%20Facilities%20Impact%2012-27-

01.pdf


Martinez, V., & Thomas, K. (1994, May). Who chooses and why: A look at five school

choice plans. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(9), 678-681.

Matthews, L., & Hansen, J. (1995, September). Choice within schools can help students,

schools, and society. NASSP Bulletin, 79(572), 69-76.

doi:10.1177/019263659507957209

Miamidian, H. M. (2011, January). Can families always get what they want? Family

perceptions of school quality and their effects on school choice decisions

(Doctoral dissertation). Temple University. Retrieved from

http://cdm16002.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p245801col

l10/id/116606/rec/9

MNPS. (2012). Facts and figures. Retrieved from

http://www.annualreport.mnps.org/Page74510.aspx

Morrow, M. (2011, June 16). Restrictions on Tennessee charter schools officially eased

[article]. TNReport. Retrieved from http://www.tnreport.com/2011/06/restrictions-

on-tennessee-charter-schools-officially-eased/

Office of Innovation. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.mnps.org/Page89250.aspx

Peterson, P. E. ( 2007). School choice in Milwaukee fifteen years later. Hover Press:

Hill/Charter Schools, 71-101. Retrieved from

http://media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/0817947620_71.pdf

PTA survey: Parents value arts. (2011). Retrieved from

http://www.artsforla.org/news/pta-survey-parents-value-arts

Public Education. (n.d.).

http://www.publiceducation.org/portals/nclb/NCLB_Overview/index.asp


Rabovsky, T. (2011, January/February). Deconstructing school choice: Problem schools

or problem students? Public Administration Review, 87-95.

Rosenbloom, S. R. (2009, June). My so-called choice: The trappings of school choice for

non-admits. Urban Review, 42, 1-21.

Rothstein, J.M. (2002). Good principals or good peers? Parental valuation of school

characteristics, Tiebout equilibrium, and the incentive effects of competition

among jurisdictions. Retrieved from

http://www.cepr.eu/meets/wkcn/3/3515/papers/rothstein.pdf

Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Retrieved

from National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education:

http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files/684_OP21V2.pdf

Schneider, M., Teske, P., Marschall, M., & Roch, C. (1998, July). Shopping for schools:

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of

Political Science, 42(3). Retrieved from

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/blog/oneeyedparent.pdf

Schneider, M., Teske.P., Roch, C., & Marschall, M. (1997). Networks to nowhere:

Segregation and stratification in networks of information about schools. American

Journal of Political Science, 41(4), 1201-1223.

Sergiovanni, T. (1991). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd ed.).

Retrieved from

http://www.stcoll.edu.jm/Education/PDF%5CTTSS%5Cthe_importance_of_scho

ol_climate_and_culture.pdf


Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2007). Nine characteristics of high performing schools.

Retrieved from Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:

http://www.k12.wa.us/research/pubdocs/NineCharacteristics.pdf

Smith, J., & Wohlstetter, P. (2009, October 25-27). Parent involvement in urban charter

schools: A new paradigm or the status quo? Paper presented for School Choice

and School Improvements: Research in State, District, and Community Contexts,

Vanderbilt University

Smrekar, C. (2009). The social context of magnet schools. In M. Berends, M. Springer,

D. Ballou, & H. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp.

393–407). New York: Routledge.

Smrekar, C., & Goldring, E. (1999). School choice in urban America: Magnet schools

and the pursuit of equity. New York: Teachers’ College Press.

Stein, M., Goldring, E., & Cravens, X. (2010). Choosing Indianapolis charter schools:

Espoused versus revealed academic preferences. Retrieved from National Center

on School Choice website:

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/briefs/brief_stein_goldring_cr

avens.pdf

Stein, M., Goldring, E., & Zottola, G. (2008, March 2-4). Student achievement gains and

parents’ perceptions of invitations for involvement in urban charter schools. Paper

presented at the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, First Annual

Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved from

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/parents_perceptions.pdf


Teske, P. (2011, February). Informing families about school choices. Paper presented at

the Voluntary Public School Choice Conference.

Teske, P., Fitzpatrick, J., & Kaplan, G. (January 2007). Opening doors: How low-income

parents search for the right school. Retrieved from


U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The

Condition of Education 2011. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cse.asp

United States Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2007).

No child left behind: Choosing a school for your child (Consumer Brochure).

Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/parents/schools/find/choose/choosing.pdf

Vaughan, E. L. (2011). Educational facilities. Retrieved from

http://www.wbdg.org/design/elementary.php

Watkins, S., & Lips, D. (2009, May 13). D.C. opportunity scholarship program

improving student safety. WebMemo published by The Heritage Foundation.

Retrieved from www.heritage.org/Research/Education/wm2437.cfm

Weekes-Bernard, D. (2007). School choice and ethnic segregation: Educational decision-

making among black and minority ethnic parents. Retrieved from

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/publications/pdfs/School%20ChoiceFIN

AL.pdf

Williams, M. F., Hancher, K. S., & Hutner, A. (1983). Parents and school choice: A

household survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED 240 739)


Withrow, F., Long, H., & Marx, G. (1999). Preparing schools and school systems for the

21st century. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED427429.pdf


Appendix A

Parental Survey (English)

PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY TO YOUR CHILD’S HOMEROOM TEACHER. Thank you for agreeing to complete the survey below. The purpose of this study is to determine what parents value most when choosing a school for their child. We hope to use this information to help county and school administrators improve Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools. Because you are the parent/guardian of a child enrolled in a school that is a part of MNPS’s Office of Innovation, we are inviting you to participate in this study. We are working in coordination with the MNPS Office of Innovation and have been granted permission to conduct this study. Although you may have more than one child enrolled in a MNPS school, this survey only pertains to the child that received this survey. By completing this survey, you volunteer to participate in this research project. You understand there are minimal risks to your well-being by completing this questionnaire. All data collected during the research process will only be reported as aggregate (group) data and your anonymity will be protected. You may withdraw from participating in this project at any time. If you have concerns or questions, you may contact Dr. Bill Tallon, Chair Lipscomb IRB at [email protected] or 615-966-5825. Each student that returns a survey will receive a treat from their teacher. Thanks again for your willingness to complete this survey. Sincerely, L. High, R. Keller, and T. Parsons Lipscomb Doctoral Candidates


Please rank each statement according to the scale that follows (circle one for each statement)

Statement Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree Not

Applicable

The reputation of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The cleanliness of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The size of the student body at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

It is not important that tutoring be available for my child.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The athletics at my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The distance our house is from my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The communication I received from my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The end-of-year school-wide test scores received by my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The friends of my child attending my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The age of the building of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

My past experiences at my child’s school are not important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The cafeteria staff in my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The existence of a Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) or Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The student-to-teacher ratio (class size) at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Teachers who have highly qualified status at my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The zoned and/or feeder high school of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The size of the student body at my child’s school is not important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The awards received by my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The availability of tutoring at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The friendliness of the teachers at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The availability of technology at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The values held by my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

It is not important to consider the age of the building of my child’s school.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A


Please rank each statement according to the scale that follows (circle one for each statement)

Statement Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree Not

Applicable

The before and afterschool care at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Transportation offered to my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

My past experiences at my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The community involvement of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The communication from the teachers of my child’s school is not important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The friendliness of the teaching staff at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Field trips offered by my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Caring teachers at my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Student clubs at my child’s school are important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The availability of teachers at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

It is important that my child attends the same school as his/her sibling (brother/sister).

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The recommendation of my child’s school by others is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Offering related arts classes (music, art, band, physical education) at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

It is not important that I receive communication from my child’s school.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The safety of my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

It is not important for my child’s teacher to be available.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The extended school day (longer school hours) at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Saturday school at my child’s school is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The reputation of my child’s teacher(s) is important.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

The academic reputation of my child’s school is important

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Other:

1 2 3 4 5 N/A


Part II Is your child attending their zoned school (circle one)? YES NO If YES, did you consider any other MNPS schools for your child (circle one)? YES NO How many other schools did you consider? ______ What were the top three factors that had an influence on your choice of school for your child? Please rank them by using a 1, 2, and 3. Only mark THREE choices: using a 1 as your top factor, 2 as your next most influential factor, and 3 as your next important factor.

Reputation Cleanliness Size of student body Athletics Distance of house from school Communication End-of-year school wide test scores Friends of my child Age of the building Cafeteria staff Existence of a Parent Advisory Committee (PAC) or Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) Student-to-teacher ratio Teachers who have highly qualified status Zoned and/or feeder high school Awards received by the school Availability of tutoring Friendliness of the teachers Availability of technology Values Availability of the principals Competency of the teachers Before and afterschool care Transportation offered to the school Past experiences Community involvement Communication from the teachers Field trips Caring teachers Student clubs Availability of teachers Brothers and sisters of my child attending the same school Recommendation by others Offering related arts classes (music, art, band, physical education) Friendliness of the teaching staff Safety of the school Extended school day or longer school hours Saturday school


Part III: DEMOGRAPHICS 1. How many children do you have currently enrolled in MNPS schools? _____ 2. Current grade level of the child this survey pertains to (circle one): 5 6 7 8 3. Parent’s highest level of education (check one) _____ Did not graduate from high school _____ Graduate from high school or have GED _____ Some college _____ Graduate from college _____ Master’s degree or higher 4. Select what best describes your child’s current school (check one) _____ Charter school _____ Magnet ______ Zoned School 5. How would you best describe your ethnicity? (check one) _____ African-American _____ Asian _____ Caucasian _____ Hispanic _____ Other: _____________________ Part IV: Participation in Focus Group Are you willing to be a member of a focus group? You will be given an opportunity to meet with a small group of parents for approximately one hour of time. If so, please include your name and contact email or phone number below. We anticipate this taking place between February 2012 and March 2012. Those who participate in the focus group will be placed in a drawing to receive a $50 Target gift card. Name _________________________________________________________ Email Contact ____________________________________________________ Phone contact ____________________________________________________


Appendix B

Parental Survey (Spanish)

Encuesta escolar

FAVOR DEVUELVA LA ENCUESTA CON EL MAESTRO DE SU HIJO. Gracias por aceptar a completar la siguiente encuesta. El propósito de este estudio es determinar cuál es el valor de los padres a la hora de elegir una escuela para sus hijos. Esperamos usar esta información para ayudar a los administradores de las escuelas del condado y mejorar las Escuelas Públicas Metropolitanas de Nashville. Debido a que usted es el padre / tutor de un niño matriculado en una escuela que forma parte de la Oficina de MNPS de Innovación, estamos invitando a participar en este estudio. Estamos trabajando en coordinación con la Oficina de Innovación y MNPS que hemos recibido permiso para llevar a cabo este estudio. Aunque es posible que tenga más de un hijo matriculado en una escuela de MNPS, este estudio sólo se refiere al niño que recibió esta encuesta. Al completar esta encuesta, usted se ofrece voluntariamente para participar en este proyecto de investigación. Usted entiende que hay riesgos mínimos para su bienestar por completar este cuestionario. Toda la información recogida durante el proceso de investigación será reportada como grupo total de datos y su anonimato será protegido. Usted podrá retirar su participación en este proyecto en cualquier momento. Si usted tiene dudas o preguntas, puede comunicarse con el Dr. Bill Tallon, el Presidente del IRB Lipscomb en bill.tallon @ lipscomb.edu o 615-966-5825. La clase que recibe el mayor porcentaje de las encuestas devueltas recibirán una tarjeta de regalo de $ 50 Target. Sinceramente, L. High, R. Keller, and T. Parsons Estudiantes de doctorados


Por favor, clasifica cada frase según la siguiente escala.

frase Firmamente Desacuerdo

Desacuerdo Nuetra

l De

Acuerdo Firmemente de Acuerdo

No es Aplicable

La reputación de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La limpieza de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La cantidad de estudiantes que estan matriculados en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

No es importante que clases de recuperación están disponibles para mi hijo/a.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los programas de deportes en la escuela de mi hijo/a/ son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La distancia de mi casa a la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La comunicación que he recibido de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Las notas del fin del año que recibe la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los/as amigos/as de mi hijo/a que asisten a la escuela de mi hijo/a son importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La edad del edificio de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Mis experiencias del pasado en la escuela de mi hijo/a no son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

El personal de la cafetería en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La existencia de una organización de padres y de maestros/as (PAC o PTO) en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La proporción entre los/as estudiantes y los/as maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los/as maestros/as que son muy cualificados/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La escuela secundaria de nuestra zona escolar es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A



frase Firmamente Desacuerdo

Desacuerdo Nuetral De


No es Aplicable

La cantidad de estudiantes en la escuela de mi hijo/a no es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los premios que recibe la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La disponibilidad de clases de recuperación en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La amabilidad de los/as maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La disponibilidad de la tecnología en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los valores que tiene la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

No es importante considerar la edad del edificio de la escuela de mi hijo/a.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La competencia de los/as maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La disponibilidad de los/as directores/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los programas antes y después del día escolar en la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La transportación que ofrecen la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Mis experiencias del pasado con la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La participación de la comunidad de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La comunicación de los/as maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a no es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

No es importante que recibo comunicación de la escuela de mi hijo/a.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Las excursiones escolares ofrecidas en la escuela son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Los/as maestros/as afectuosos/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A



frase Firmamente Desacuerdo Desacuerdo Nuetral De


No es Aplicable

Los clubs para los estudiantes en la escuela de mi hijo/a son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La disponibilidad de los/as maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Hermanos/as mayores de mis hijos/as que asistan a esta escuela son importantes.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La recomendación de otros/as de la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Es importante ofrecer las clases de artes relacionadas (la música, el arte, el grupo musical, la educación física) en la escuela de mi hijo/a.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La simpatía del personal de maestros/as en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La seguridad en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante. 1 2 3 4 5 N/A

No es importante que el/la maestro/a de mi hijo/a está disponible.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

El día escolar extendido (un día escolar más largo) en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

La escuela en los sábados en la escuela de mi hijo/a es importante.

1 2 3 4 5 N/A

Otra cosa: 1 2 3 4 5 N/A


Segundo Parte:

¿Asiste su hijo/a la escuela de zona? Sí No

Si sí, ¿consideraba matricular a su hijo/a en otra escula en MNPS? ____________

¿Cuántas otras escuelas consideraba? ______________ ¿Cuáles son los tres factores que tenían una influencia en su selección de la escuela para su hijo/a? Por favor, clasifica los primeros tres factores que le influía. Solo marca TRES factores, usando un “1” para el factor más importante, un “2” para el siguiente, y un “3” para el tercero. La reputación

La limpieza

El número de estudiantes matriculados

Los programas de deportes

La distancia de la escuela desde mi casa

La comunicación

Las notas del fin del año que reicbe la escuela

Los amigos de mi hijo/a

La edad del edificio

El personal de la cafeteria

La existencia de una organización de padres y de maestros/as (PAC o PTO)

La proporción entre los/as estudiantes y los/as maestros/as

Las calificaciones de los/as maestros/as

La escuela secundaria de nuestra zona escolar

Los premios que recibe la escuela

La disponibilidad de clases de recuperación

La amabilidad de los/as maestros/as

La disponibilidad de tecnología

Los valores que tiene la escuela

La disponibilidad de los/as directores/as

La competencia de los/as maestros/as

Los programas antes y después del día escolar

La transportación que ofrecen a la escuela

Mis experiencias del pasado con la escuela

La participación de la comunidad

La comunicación de los/as maestros/as

Las excursiones escolares ofrecidas en la escuela

Los/as maestros/as afectuosos/as

Los clubs para los estudiantes

La disponibilidad de los/as maestros/as

Hermanos y hermanas de mi hijo/a que asisten a la misma escuela

La recomendación de otras personas

Las ofertas de clases de artes relacionadas (la música, el arte, el grupo musical, la educación física)

La simpatía del personal de maestros/as

La seguridad en la escuela

El día escolar extendido (un día escolar más largo)

La escuela en los sábados


Tercer Parte: Estadísticas Demográficas

1. ¿Cuántos/as hijos/as tiene matriculados en una escuela en MNPS? ___________ 2. Curso actual de su hijo/a que pertenece a esta encuesta (marque uno)

5 6 7 8

3. Su nivel más alto de educación (marca uno) ___ No me gradué??? de la escuela secundaria ___ Me gradué??? de la escuela secundaria o recibé un “GED” ___ Asisté a unos cursos del universitario ___ Me gradué??? del universitario ___ Recibí un título de máster

4. Marca el tipo de escuela de la escuela actual de su hijo/a (marca uno) ___ una escuela “Charter” ___ una escuela “Magnet” ___ la escuela de su zona

5. Come describiré su etnicidad? ___ Afro-Americano/a ___ Asiático/a ___ Caucásico/a ___ Hispánico/a ___ Otro: ____________________


Cuarto Parte: Participación en un Grupo de Discusión

¿Participará en un grupo de discusión? Tendrás la oportunidad de unirse con un grupo

pequeño de padres por aproximadamente una hora. Si tiene interés, por favor incluye su

nombre y dirección electrónica o número de teléfono más abajo. Esperemos que el grupo

de discusión se reuniré entre febrero 2012 y marzo 2012. Los participantes del grupo de

discusión estarán en un sorteo para recibir una tarjeta de regalo de $50 de Target.

Nombre ____________________________________________________________

Dirección Electrónica _________________________________________________

Número de Teléfono __________________________________________________


Appendix C

INFORMED CONSENT (English) Music City, USA: A Symphony of Values

October 4, 2011 Dear MNPS parent or guardian, We are writing to invite you to participate in a focus group for a research study. Lance High, Russ Keller, and Tammy Parsons, doctoral students at Lipscomb University, are conducting the study as part of their doctoral dissertation under the advisement of Dr. Roger Wiemers. The purpose of the study is to determine what parents’ value most when choosing a school for their child. We hope to use this information to inform MNPS administrators of the different factors parents’ value most in schools. We are inviting you to participate in this study, because you are the parent/guardian of a child enrolled in a school that is a part of MNPS’s Office of Innovation. Ten schools from the Innovation Cluster are being asked to participate in the study. We are working in coordination with the MNPS Office of Innovation and have been granted permission to conduct this study. By participating in the focus group, you are giving your implied consent for your responses to be used by the researchers named above. All information you provide will remain confidential. Any published report will not include the identities of any participants. Any information gathered will remain in a password protected site for two years past completion of the project. There are no known risks from being in this study. However, we hope that other MNPS schools will benefit in the future from what we learn as a result of this study. Taking part in the focus group portion of the research study is completely voluntary, and should last no longer than one hour. For those who choose to participate in the focus group, names will be entered into a drawing for a $50 Target gift card. If you decide not to participate in this study, or if you wish to stop participating at any time, you may do so without penalty. If you have any questions about the research study, please contact us at [email protected]. If you have questions about the rights of research subjects, please contact Dr. Bill Tallon, Chair of the Lipscomb University Institutional Review Board by e-mail at [email protected] or 615-966-5825. If you wish to participate in this study, please indicate as such by signing below. _______________________________________________ ____________ Signature of Participant Date ______________________________________________ ____________ Signature of Researcher Date Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Lance High, Russ Keller, Tammy Parsons Lipscomb University Doctoral Cohort


Appendix D

INFORMED CONSENT (Spanish)

CONSENTIMIENTO INFORMADO Ciudad de la Música, EE.UU.: Una Sinfonía de Valores

El 3 de mayo, 2012 Estimado padre o tutor de MNPS, Gracias por participar en un grupo de enfoque para un estudio de investigación. Lanza High, Russ Keller, y Tammy Parsons, los estudiantes de doctorado en la Universidad de Lipscomb, están realizando el estudio como parte de su tesis doctoral bajo la asesoría del Dr. Roger Wiemers. El propósito del estudio es determinar lo que los padres valoran más para de elegir una escuela para sus hijos. Esperamos usar esta información para informar a los administradores MNPS de los diferentes factores que valoran la mayoría de los padres en las escuelas. Usted ha sido invitado a participar, porque usted es el padre / tutor de un niño matriculado en una escuela que forma parte de la Oficina de MNPS de innovación. Siete escuelas de la Innovation Cluster fueron invitados a participar en el estudio. Estamos trabajando en coordinación con la Oficina de Innovación y MNPS han recibido permiso para realizar este estudio. Al participar en el grupo de enfoque, que está dando su consentimiento implícito de sus respuestas para ser utilizado por los investigadores citados. La reunión del grupo de enfoque se registró en una grabadora digital. Toda la información que proporcione será confidencial. Cualquier informe publicado no se incluyen las identidades de los participantes. Toda la información recopilada se mantendrá en un sitio protegido con contraseña por dos años después de la finalización del proyecto. No existen riesgos conocidos por participar en este estudio. Sin embargo, esperamos que las escuelas de MNPS otros se beneficiarán en el futuro de lo que aprenden como resultado de este estudio. La participación en la porción del grupo de enfoque del estudio de investigación es completamente voluntaria, y no debe durar más de una hora. Para aquellos que opten por participar en el grupo focal, los nombres se incluirán en el sorteo de una tarjeta de regalo de $50 Target. Si usted decide no participar en este estudio, o si desea dejar de participar en cualquier momento, puede hacerlo sin penalización. Si usted tenga alguna pregunta sobre el estudio de investigación, por favor póngase en contacto con nosotros en [email protected]. Si usted tenga preguntas acerca de los derechos de los sujetos de la investigación, por favor póngase en contacto con el Dr. Bill Tallon, Presidente de la Junta de Revisión Institucional de la Universidad de Lipscomb por e-mail a bill.tallon @ lipscomb.edu o 615-966-5825. Si usted desearía participar en este estudio, por favor indique como tal por firmar a continuación. _____________________________________________ ______________ Firma del participante Fecha _____________________________________________ _____________ Firma del Investigador Fecha Muchas gracias por su consideración. Atentamente, Lance High, Russ Keller, Tammy Parsons Lipscomb University Doctoral Cohort


Appendix E

Focus Group/Interview Questions

Focus Group Questions: 1. What do you think difference is between a charter, magnet, or zoned school? 2. Are you aware that you have an option to send your child to one of these types of schools? 3. Did any of you consider sending your child to any school other than the one they are in? Explain. 4. Did you receive information from MNPS about your public school options? 5. What do you value most in a school? Why is that characteristic so important to you? 6. If you could send your child to any school, what would you look for in that school? Why? 7. What’s not important to you about a school? Explain. 8. What do you like or value about the school your child is currently in? 9. What characteristics of a school would cause you to avoid sending your child to that school? Explain. 10. Anything you want to add?


Appendix F

Client Permission and Access for Research

MEMORANDUMOFUNDERSTANDING

BETWEENLIPSCOMBUNIVERSITYCOLLEGEOFEDUCATION

ANDTHEOFFICEOFCHARTERANDPRIVATESCHOOLS,METRONASHVILLEPUBLICSCHOOLS

ThisMemorandumofUnderstanding(MOU)establishestherelationshipandguidelinesbetweentheabovepartiesregardingtheresearchpartnershipdescribedbelow.

TheCollegeofEducation(COE)ofLipscombUniversityofferstheDoctorofEducation(Ed.D.)degreeinLearningOrganizationsandStrategicChange.Thisdegreeisfocusedonpreparingleadersforpublicandprivateorganizationsandacademicsettings.Theprogramculminateswithapractical,collaborativecapstoneresearchprojectwithapartnerorganization.MetroNashvillePublicSchoolsOfficeofCharterandPrivateSchools,(OCPS)hasrequestedaCapstoneTeamtoaddressarealresearchneedinanauthenticsetting.SuccessfulcompletionofthiscapstoneprojectwillfulfillpartoftherequirementsforcompletionoftheDoctorofEducationdegree.

ThemissionoftheMetroNashvillePublicSchoolsstatesthatMetropolitanNashvillePublicSchoolswillprovideeverystudentwiththefoundationofknowledge,skillsandcharacternecessarytoexcelinhighereducation,workandlife.TheOCPSisfocusedonexcellenceateachimportantstageofdevelopmentforacharterschool.

TheCOEandOCPSareenteringintoandoperatingunderthisMOUforaresearchpartnershipandagreetothefollowing.

I. REQUESTFORASSISTANCE

OCPShassubmittedaRequestforAssistance(RFA)outliningthefollowingresearchneed:

TheOfficeofCharterSchoolsisaskingforresearchanddevelopmentofasetofcommonperformanceindicatorsthatcanhelptoidentifyandcommunicateabroadermeasureofschoolperformance.Thecommonperformanceindicatorsmustbevalidandreliable,basedonthebestthinkingaboutschoolperformancemeasurement,andabletodrawaconsensusofsupportfromallsectorsoftheeducationlandscapeinthecity.Atthesametime,themeasuremustremainsimpleenoughforfamiliestouseandschoolstounderstandandacttoimprove.


TheLipscombCapstoneTeamwillbeginthisongoingprojectbyidentifyingindicatorsofeducationalqualityintermsaccessiblebygeneralsocietyratherthanthoseintheeducationalrealm.Becausefamiliesarethosewhomostdirectlyjudgeschoolchoices,theteamwillidentifywhataspectsofaneducationexperienceparentsvaluemostandwillexplorethereasonsforthosevaluationsthroughsurveysandfocusgroupsfromarandomlyselectedgroupofMNPSschools,bothtraditionalandcharter.

II. PROJECTPARAMETERS

TheCOEwillsuperviseanddirectateamoftwotofourdoctoralstudentswhowillframeandconducttheresearchandformrecommendationsforOCPS’sresearchneed.

TheCOEwillprovidethetrainingfortheEd.D.studentstocompletetherequestedresearchprojectthroughitscurriculumandcapstoneprojectsupportstructures.Thistrainingandsupportincludesbutisnotlimitedtoquantitativeandqualitativeresearchtechniques,instrumentdesign,developmentofspecifictimelines,benchmarks,andprocessespertainingtoconductingresearch,andtheassignmentofacapstonefacultyadviserwhowilloverseetheteamthroughouttheresearchproject.

OCPSwillprovidethefollowing:

The team will have access to data that is currently collected from the schools with appropriate precautions to protect student anonymity. This data includes a wide range of measures, but it will be up to the team to devise the measurement model and components of the measure that best serve the goals outlined above. The Office of Charter and Private Schools will help to arrange, through consultation with the charter schools and the MNPS Office of Research and Assessment other proposed research or survey instruments as required by the team.

III. PROJECTEDRESEARCHTIMELINE

- OCPSwillpresenta15‐minutepresentation(includingQ&A)oftheRFAtotheFall2010CohortonClientPresentationDay,whichisscheduledforthemorningofSaturday,July30,2011.

- CapstoneTeamwillbeassignedtoOCPSnolaterthanAugust10,2011.

- TheCapstoneTeamwillhaveaninitialmeetingwithOCPS’sassignedcontactpersonorhis/herdesigneenolaterthanAugust22,2011.

- TheCapstoneTeamwilldevelopandsubmitaprojectproposaltoOCPSnolaterthanOctober4,2011.

- OCPSwillapproveorrequestrevisionoftheprojectproposalnolaterthanOctober10,2011.


- TheCapstoneTeamwillsubmittheapprovedprojectproposaltoLipscombUniversity’sInstitutionalReviewBoard(IRB)byOctober11,2011.SubstantivechangesrequestedbytheIRBwillbediscussedwithOCMSpriortoimplementation.

- TheCapstoneTeamandOCPSwillsubmittheproposaltotheMNPSExecutiveDirectorofResearch,Assessment,andEvaluationnolaterthanOctober24,2011.Theformatshouldfollowtheguidelinesfoundat http://www.mnps.org/AssetFactory.aspx?did=51524

TeamsshouldreferencesectionsA.1throughA.8andB.1throughB.3.indeterminingappropriateformatting.

- UponreceivingapprovalfromtheIRBandtheMNPSExecutiveDirectorofResearch,Assessment,andEvaluation,theCapstoneTeamwillformallybegintheresearchwithaMay3,2012targetdateforcompletionofanalysis.

- TheCapstoneTeamwillsubmitawrittendraftofthereporttoLipscomb’sJuriedReviewCommitteebyJune8,2012.

- TheCapstoneTeamwillscheduleandgiveapresentationtoOCPSandtotheJuriedReviewCommitteebyAugust1,2012.

- OCPSandtheTeamshalljointlysubmitawrittenreporttotheMNPSExecutiveDirectorofResearch,Assessment,andEvaluation.

- OCPSwillprovideaClientProjectEvaluationoftheCapstoneTeamandresearchprojectwithinoneweekfollowingthepresentation.

IV. LIPSCOMBUNIVERSITY’SINSTITUTIONALREVIEWBOARD(IRB)

CapstonestudentsarerequiredtogainapprovalfromLipscomb’sIRBpriortoconductingresearch.AllcapstoneteamswillsubmitaresearchproposaltotheIRBfortheircapstoneprojects.TheresearchproposalwillbesubmittedtoandapprovedbyOCPSpriortosubmissiontoLipscomb’sIRB(seeProjectResearchTimeline).

ThefollowingoutlinemayserveasaguideforstudentsinbuildingaresearchproposaltobesenttoOCPSandtheIRB.

TitlePage

TableofContents

Introduction(2–3pages)

- Astatementoftheresearchtopic

- Astatementoftheresearchproblem

- Thepurposeofthestudy

- Theresearchquestion(s)

Methodology(2–3pages)


- Designorstrategyforresearch

- Researchparticipants(describeparticipants,descriptionofrisk,voluntaryparticipation,confidentiality,anonymity)

- Procedurestobefollowed

DataAnalysis(1page)

- Describedatacollection,storage,andanalysisprocedures

- Describedispositionofthedataafterthestudyhasconcluded

References

Appendices

- Informedconsentletter

- Apparatusand/orinstrumentstobeused(questionnaire,interviewquestions,etc.)

- Documentationfromclientgrantingpermissionandaccessforresearch

V. FUNDING

TheCapstoneTeam,theCOE,andOCPSwillmakeeveryreasonableefforttominimizecostsassociatedwiththisproject.

Asofthedateofthesigningofthisdocument,theprojectpresentedbyOCPSisexpectedtorequirenofundingbyeithertheCOEorOCPS.

CapstoneTeammembersareexpectedtoberesponsiblefornormalandcustomarycostsassociatedwithdoctoralstudentsengagingindoctoralresearch(i.e.costofmailings,printing,paper,envelopes,postage,transportation,phonecalls,email,etc.).However,shouldtheCapstoneTeammembersidentifywhattheyconsidertobeanout‐of‐the‐ordinaryfundingneed,thentheteammembersshouldseekfundingfromOCMSduringdevelopmentoftheirprojectproposalandpriortosubmissionoftheproposaltoLipscomb’sIRB.Regardlessofwhenthefundingneedisrealized,writtenapprovalandagreementtoprovidefundingshouldbereceivedfromOCMSpriortoanyexpenditurebeingmade.ExpendituresincurredwithoutexpressedwrittenapprovalfromOCMSwillbetheresponsibilityoftheCapstoneTeammembers.TeammemberswillbeprovidedacopyofthisMOU.

VI. RESEARCHPRODUCTandDISSEMINATION

The Team will prepare the following deliverables before the full report and presentation:

a research report defining the body of work currently existing on common performance measures for charter and traditional district schools


a consensus report from stakeholders such as parents, school leaders, and community leaders detailing key questions to be addressed in forming performance indicators

a validation report applying the final pilot measure to MNPS data

a communication and implementation plan for the measure, including an assessment framework for the measure’s success during its first year of use.

TheCapstoneTeamwillprepareafullreportandpresentationtoOCPSandaCOEJuriedReviewCommittee.ThisreportandpresentationmustmeetorexceedalltherequirementsofthecapstoneprojectasoutlinedintheCOE’sCapstoneProjectManual(seeaddendum).TheCapstoneTeamwillsubmitthefullreporttotheMNPSExecutiveDirectorofResearch,Assessment,andEvaluation.

Hard‐boundcopiesofthereportmanuscriptwillbesubmittedtoOCPS,theCOE,andBeamanLibraryonLipscombUniversity’scampus,andtoeachCapstoneTeamMember.TheCOEmaymakethemanuscriptaccessibleinelectronicformatthroughconventionalvenuesthatprovideaccesstoculminatingresearchprojectsfordoctoralprograms.

OCPSmayrequestanalternativemanuscriptformatforitspurposes.Withinreason,theCapstoneTeamisexpectedtomeettheclient’sneedsandproduceacopyofthemanuscriptintheformatrequested.AnalternativemanuscriptformatmaybesenttoOCPSelectronicallyorasalooselyboundhardcopy,butwillnotbeincludedwiththefinalmanuscriptsthataretobesubmittedtotheCOEforbinding.

AllrightsandobligationrelatedtointerestsinandownershipoftheCapstoneProjectshallbesubjecttotheLipscombUniversityIntellectualPropertyPolicy(acopyofwhichisattachedhereto).

VII. FAILURETOMEETRESEARCHOBLIGATION

IftheCapstoneTeammemberscannotproducetherequestedresearchproducttheyshallpresenttheirconcernstotheirfacultyadvisor.ThefacultyadvisorwilldiscussthematterwithOCPSandattempttocraftaremedytocontinuetheproject.Ifaremedyexiststhatwillmateriallyaltertheresearchproduct,thenOCPS,theCOEdesignee,andtheCapstoneTeamshallmeetanddevelopanalteredresearchproductthatmeetstheneeds,goals,andobjectivesforallparties.Inthatcase,anaddendumtothisdocumentshallsetforththenewparametersoftheadjustedresearchproject.

Ifnoremedyisavailable,theCOEmayunilaterallyremovetheCapstoneTeamfromtheresearchproject,andOCPSwillholdtheCOE,theCapstoneTeam,andLipscombUniversityharmless.

ShouldeithertheLipscombIRBortheMNPSExecutiveResearchCommitteedenythisproject,allpartieswillputforththeirbesteffortstomeettherequirementsof


bothbodies.Ifthoserequirementscannotbemet,neitherLipscombUniversityCollegeofEducationnorMNPSisobligatedunderthisMemorandum,andthisMemorandumshallbecompletelyvoidandwithouteffect.

VIII. AUTHORIZATION

OnbehalfoftheLipscombUniversityCollegeofEducationandtheMNPSOfficeofCharterandPrivateSchools,theundersignedagreetotheabovestipulationsandpledgethattheorganizationswillstrivetothebestoftheirabilitiesandingoodfaithtocompletetheseobjectives.

Further,wepledgethatshouldtheneedformodificationsarise,wewillingoodfaithattempttomakesuchchangesoradditionsasthesituationdictatesandasarefurtherdetailedinsubsequentmutuallyagreeduponaddendumstothisdocument.

IX. MISCELLANEOUSTERMS

ThefollowingtermsshallapplyintheinterpretationandperformanceofthisMOU:

RelationshipoftheParties–ThisMOUshallnotbeconstruedtocreatearelationshipofpartners,brokers,employees,servantsoragentsasbetweentheparties.

A. AdvertisingandPublicity–Neitherpartyshallusetheother’sname,oranynamethatislikelytosuggestthatitisrelatedtotheotherinstitution,inanyadvertising,promotionorsalesliteraturewithoutfirstobtainingthewrittenconsentoftheotherparty.AnypublicationsregardingthisMOUmustbereviewedandapprovedbytheparties.

B. GoverningLaw;Forum–ThisMOUshallbegovernedbyandconstruedunderthelawsoftheStateofTennessee,whichshallbetheforumforanylawsuitsarisingfromanincidenttothisMOU.

C. Waiver–AwaiverofanybreachofanyprovisionofthisMOUshallnotbeconstruedasacontinuingwaiverofsaidbreachorawaiverofanyotherbreachesofthesameorotherprovisionsofthisMOU.

D. Non‐Assignment–ThisMOUmaynotbeassignedbyeitherpartywithouttheadvancewrittenconsentoftheother.

E. Severability‐IntheeventoneormoreclausesofthisAgreementaredeclaredillegal,voidorunenforceable,thatshallnotaffectthevalidityoftheremainingportionsofthisAgreement.


Appendix G

MNPS Client Approval and Access for Research

January 4, 2012 Lance High 808 Rockwood Drive Nolensville, TN 37135 Russ Keller 2116 Hobbs Road G-5 Nashville, TN 37215 Tammy Parsons 2503 Lincoya Drive Nashville, TN 37214 RE: What Parents Value Most When Choosing a School for their Child Dear Mr. High, Mr. Keller, and Ms. Parsons: Your research proposal has been reviewed by MNPS and I am pleased to inform you that it has been approved contingent on the principal’s willingness to participate. We hope that your investigation proceeds smoothly and that your research questions are answered conclusively. MNPS is pleased to approve proposals that are protective of MNPS instructional time, attentive to privacy issues, and aligned with current district instructional efforts. The district is partially motivated by the desire to have results from real-time, externally valid research available to district administrators and policy-makers. Toward this goal, you will be required to submit a two-to-four page research brief summarizing your research method, process and results. This document will be shared with appropriate district staff and potentially be posted on our website. Submit this research brief by email to Matthew Pepper, Ed.D., Coordinator of Research & Data Quality ([email protected]). Please address any questions to Dr. Pepper through email or by phone 662-468-8572. Respectfully, Paul Changas

Paul Changas, Ph.D.

Executive Director of the

Department of Assessment and

Evaluation

2601 Bransford Ave. ▪ Nashville, TN 37204 ▪ 615/259‐8430 ▪ Fax: 615/214‐8657


Appendix H

MNPS External Researcher Statements of Assurances


Appendix I.

Lipscomb IRB Approval

From: Bill Tallon <[email protected]> Subject: IRB Approval of High, Keller, Parsons Date: November 23, 2011 1:27:26 PM CST To: Lance High <[email protected]>, Russ Keller <[email protected]>, Tammy Parsons <[email protected]>, IRB Submissions Only <[email protected]> Cc: Roger Weimers <[email protected]>, Candice McQueen <[email protected]> It is a pleasure to tell you that the Lipscomb University IRB has reviewed your research proposal and found it to comply with requirements for research involving human subjects. We wish you the very best. For the IRB, -- William A. Tallon, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Lipscomb University College of Arts and Sciences Department of Chemistry 615.966.5825


Appendix J.

Permission letter for use of parental survey

September 20, 2011

Dear Mr. High,

I am writing this letter to give you permission to use my parental survey or portions of my survey from my dissertation at the University of Tennessee - Knoxville for your doctoral studies at Lipscomb University. It is with great pleasure that I can help you in this research project. I would be interested in the results of your study, so please email to me a brief summary of your results when they are available.

Good luck in your future endeavors.

Dr. Patricia Neill, Ed. D Assistant Professor Samford University

800 Lakeshore Drive ~ Birmingham, Alabama ~ 35229 205-726-2556 ~ Fax 205-726-4233 ~ email: [email protected]


Appendix K

Human Subject Form Certificate of Completion

Certificate of Completion

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that Lance High successfully completed the NIH Web-based

training course “ Protecting Human Research Participants” .

Date of completion: 10/03/2011

Certification Number: 778354


The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that Russ Keller successfully completed the NIH Web-based





The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Extramural Research certifies that Tammy Parsons successfully completed the NIH Web-based





Lance High was born and raised in Nashville, TN and is a product of Metro

Nashville Public Schools. After attending John Overton High School, he attended

Lipscomb University where he majored in Elementary Education. After beginning his

career teaching at Warner Elementary in Nashville, he pursued his Master’s Degree in

Administration/Supervision from Lipscomb University. He is currently in his ninth year

of teaching, and has taught third and fourth grades at Warner, Percy Priest, and Stratton

Elementary. He is currently the assistant principal at Julia Green Elementary. He is a

Quantum Learning national trainer, and he is an adjunct professor in the education

department at Lipscomb University.


Lance High was responsible for the following regarding the completion of this

research study:

Created IRB proposal and MNPS research proposal

Developed research design for this study

Researched existing literature for literature review

Edited document in its entirety

Primary author of qualitative findings

Analyzed and coded transcripts from focus group and parent interviews

Facilitated translation of parental survey, consent form, and focus group

questions

Facilitated delivery and pick up of parental surveys

Entered data from Hispanic respondents into SPSS 19

Purchased gift cards for focus groups

Facilitated focus group and parental interviews


Russ Keller was born in Los Angeles, California and moved to Nashville

with his family when he was twelve years old. After attending USN and

Hillwood High School in Nashville, Russ received a Bachelor of Arts in history

and a Masters of Science in education from the University of Tennessee,

Knoxville. He is currently in his 16th year of teaching at Grassland Middle School

in Williamson County.


Russ Keller was responsible for the following regarding the completion of this

research study:




Primary author/editor of literature review

Edited document in its entirety and facilitated constant review of document

based on feedback from capstone advisory committee

Copied all parental surveys

Facilitated edits to English and Spanish survey

Facilitated contact with Hispanic parents for participation in focus groups


Was primarily responsible for final edits and formatting


Tammy Parsons grew up in East Tennessee and moved to Nashville shortly after

completing her first Master’s degree at Milligan College. She has since received her

administration degree at Trevecca University, her math certification at Lipscomb

University and is currently a second-year doctoral student at Lipscomb University. She

has worked in MNPS for the last fourteen years as a middle school classroom teacher,

instructional coach, assistant principal, and is currently an assistant principal at Bailey

Middle School. She provides professional development to teachers throughout the state of

Tennessee in the area of mathematics. She has worked as an undergraduate and graduate

adjunct professor in the department of education at both Middle Tennessee State

University and Belmont University teaching mathematics.


Tammy Parsons was responsible for the following regarding the completion of this

research study:




Edited document in its entirety

Entered data from English respondents into SPSS 19

Purchased candy for students who returned parental survey

Facilitated delivery and pick up of parental surveys

Purchased snacks for focus groups

Facilitated transcription of focus group and interviews

Facilitated Hispanic interviews

Primary author of quantitative findings

Generated all SPSS quantitative tests


Formatted paper in its entirety

Music City, USA: A Symphony of Values Lance High, Russ ... · Running head: MUSIC CITY, USA: A...

Documents

Transcript of Music City, USA: A Symphony of Values Lance High, Russ ... · Running head: MUSIC CITY, USA: A...