The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout ... · choice movement as well as research...

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout

Menomonie, WI

Author: Jacobson, Kimberly R.

Title: The Effect of Choice on Attentlance, Performance, and

Behavior.

Graduate Degree/ Major: MS Education

Research Adviser: Kay Lehmann, EdD.

Month/Year: January, 2012

Number of Pages: 57

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th edition

[8:1 l understand that this research report must be officially approved by the Graduate School and that an electronic copy of the approved version will be made available through the University Library website 1:8;] I attest that the research report is my original work (that any copyrightable materials have been used with the permission of the original authors), and as such, it is automatically protected by the laws, rules, and regulations of the U.S. Copyright Office. [8:1 My research adviser has approved the content and quality of this paper.

STUDENT:

NAME Kimberly Jacobson DATE: March 19, 2012

1

2

Jacobson, Kimberly R. The Effect of Choice on Attendance, Performance, and

Behavior.

Abstract

Because there are so many options available for students in open enrollment and

choice school districts, a research study was done to determine what affect, if any,

active participation had on a student’s behavior, attendance, and academic

performance. To this end, the research first conducted a literary review of the

choice movement as well as research regarding Milwaukee Public Schools and its

school choice program. A research study was also conducted by the researcher to

determine any relationship between student success and their level of choice. The

results of the study were inconclusive.

3

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................4

Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................5

Research Question ...............................................................................................................7

Definition of Terms..............................................................................................................7

Assumptions of the Study ....................................................................................................8

Chapter II: Literature Review ..........................................................................................................9

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................25

Subject Selection ................................................................................................................25

Description of Setting ........................................................................................................26

Description of Subjects ......................................................................................................27

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................................27

Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................27

Limitations .........................................................................................................................28

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................29

Item Analysis ....................................................................................................................29

Chapter V: Discussion ...................................................................................................................32

Summary ...........................................................................................................................32

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................33

Recommendations ..............................................................................................................34

References ......................................................................................................................................35

Appendix A: Data Tables..............................................................................................................39

4

Chapter I: Introduction

Across the United States, there are thousands and thousands of school districts

each with unique organization methods and a variety of education plans within the

schools. Because there are so many kinds of schools within districts which have real and

perceived differences, there has been a movement for parents and students to have the

power to choose the school that the student will ultimately attend. This is called the

choice movement.

The choice movement has been further complicated by the emergence of charter

schools. A charter school is a school that contracts with a state or district to run an

alternative or innovative education plan that differs from the traditional programs offered

to students. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2007), there were

3,294 charter schools in operation nationwide in the 2004-2005 school year. Further, in

Wisconsin, 149 of 2,206 schools were charter schools (National Center for Education

Statistics, 2005). Charter schools are gaining in popularity in Wisconsin. According to

the Wisconsin Department of Education (2011), in 1997, there were only 17 charter

schools within the state; in 2011, there were over 200 public charter schools in the state

of Wisconsin serving 37,173 students (Wisconsin Department of Education, p. iii). The

charter school movement is particularly active within Milwaukee, where in 2007-2008,

there were over forty charter schools in operation (Wisconsin Department of Education,

2008), and in 2010-2011, where 48 charter schools were in operation (Wisconsin

Department of Education, 2011, p. 9). With so many charter schools in addition to the

traditional, alternative, private, and religious schools to choose from, parents and students

alike should be educated about their options for enrollment. However, many parents and

5

students who do exercise their choice make these decisions based limited or non-essential

information. For example, parents and students may make their choice based on

proximity to their home or the availability of extracurricular activities rather than on the

academic program or curriculum design at the school. Further, with such a variety of

coexisting schooling options in one district, there are many details for parents to consider

before enrolling their student in a program; however, to date, local districts, specifically

Milwaukee Public Schools, have not been successful at disseminating information about

the variety of programs in any structured or accessible way.

Statement of the Problem

In a large school district with dozens of high schools such as exists in Milwaukee

Public Schools (MPS), students have many options from which to choose. There are

traditional comprehensive schools, small charter schools, and alternative schools. In the

open enrollment system in MPS, students have the choice to attend any school in the

district. Ideally, high school students would only be placed at school of their choosing

under open-enrollment. Many students choose schools after the student and his or her

guardians evaluate the school and determine that it will meet the student’s individual

needs, goals, and learning styles. However, thousands of students need placement each

year. Some students may be placed at the beginning of the year while others may need

new school placements midyear. Many students needing placement do not seem to

actively participate in evaluating their potential schools. Moreover, some students are

placed by the district rather than making their own informed decision and are therefore

not able to adequately exercise their voice in the process. With thousands of students

needing placement at the beginning of the year and throughout the school year and the

6

multitude of educational options, it is likely that many students do not actively evaluate

or choose their own educational placement. In addition to some students and families not

actively pursuing participation at a specific school, some students are placed at charter

schools based on enrollment numbers, issues at a previous school, release from custody,

or relocation.

Students in MPS who are simply placed may be at a disadvantage to their peers:

these placed students do not have the same “buy-in” as students who evaluated the

schools and as result may suffer academically and behaviorally. The researcher

hypothesized that the students who do not participate in choosing which school to attend,

appear to have more academic and behavioral issues at school. It seems they earn less

credit than their peers, are suspended more frequently, and attend school with less

frequency. In addition, the students who did choose the school as well as the school itself

suffer from distractions and behavior issues brought about by students who simply do not

want to be there.

An investigation needed to be done to determine whether the lack of voice in the

open enrollment systems negatively effects student achievement, behavior, and

attendance. In order to determine what effect student choice truly has on student behavior

and academic performance in small charter schools in Milwaukee, the researcher

conducted a survey of enrolled students to determine if students chose to attend their

school, were sent by their parents, or if they were placed in the school by the district. The

survey included questions relating to what factors students considered if they chose and

how they perceive their school setting and education. The researcher then compared

student suspension rates, attendance rates, and academic credit for students each category

7

to determine to what extent students who choose their school differ than those who did

not.

Research Question

1. Do students who make informed choices about attending particular schools have

better attendance, academic achievement, and behavior than those who do not?

Definition of Terms

School choice: School choice is the policy to allow parents and students to

choose the school that they attend rather than being required to attend a certain

school within a district or city zone.

Interdistrict open enrollment: Students may choose to attend any public school

in interdistrict open enrollment within their district even if it is not within their

neighborhood or geographically assigned or zoned area.

Intradistrict open enrollment: Schools within multiple, independent districts

allow students to attend any participating school including those of neighboring

districts within the open enrollment agreement in an intradistrict open enrollment

system.

Skimming: When a school uses standardized test results, entrance exams and

requirements, or other methods to insure that their school has a greater proportion

of advanced students, it is considered skimming.

Mobility: Mobility is the movement of students from one school to another.

Charter school: A charter school is a school that has a contract with a state or

district to run an alternative or innovative education plan that differs from the

traditional programs offered to students. Charter schools often have certain

8

requirements waived for great autonomy, but in return, they also have to prove

that they are educating students through accountability plans and requirements.

Assumptions and limitations

This study assumed that parents and students chose schools based on different

criteria and that there was some relationship between the role of choice and student

performance at school. This study only surveyed current students at the schools in

question. This may have slightly skewed some of the data because student mobility is so

high. Therefore, there were a portion of students who enrolled at one of the charter

schools at the beginning of the school year, but who had already left by the time the study

was fully conducted; this means that for some students, there was not be adequate, year-

long data to collect. In addition, because only a handful of schools were studied, the data

cannot be widely generalized, though this study could set up the possibility of future

studies at other small schools within the Milwaukee Public Schools district.

9

Chapter II: Literature Review

Open Enrollment Definition

According to Pipho (1998), the idea of open enrollment started in the 1980’s with

the term “choice” which began when parents sought the right to decide which public

school their student would attend. Overtime, this idea of choice has morphed and

changed in districts. Choice in its broadest terms includes public and private institutions;

local and regional areas; religious and non-religious programs; and traditional, charter,

and alternative schools. Open enrollment in public schools is usually separated into two

major forms across the United States: Interdistrict and intradistrict. In interdistrict open

enrollment, students may choose to attend any public school within their district even if it

is not within their neighborhood or geographically assigned area. In intradistrict open

enrollment programs, schools within multiple independent districts allow students to

attend any participating school including those of neighboring districts within the open

enrollment agreement. Today, most districts within both forms of open enrollment

usually include traditional public schools, voucher schools, charter schools, and

alternative or second chance schools.

Over half of American parents indicate that some form of school choice exists in

their local district. (Tice, Princiotta, Chapman, & Bielick, 2006). Additional options

within choice alternatives sometimes also include voucher programs where students are

allowed to attend private schools with funding supplementation from the home public

school district. There is usually distinction indicated between public choice now called

open enrollment and non-public choice programs which are usually called voucher or tax-

credit programs. Open enrollment programs are sometimes voluntary for schools or

10

districts to participate in, however, many states mandate some form of intradistrict choice

and many districts also require all of their schools to participate in interdistrict choice

programs. There are laws regarding voluntary and mandatory open enrollment throughout

the United States.

According to Jimerson (2002), at least thirty-three states had open enrollment

policies in 2001. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) noted in their

study from 2006 that “the percentage of students enrolled in their assigned public school

decreased from 80 percent to 74 percent between 1993 and 2003, while this decrease was

nearly offset by an increase in chosen public school enrollment from 11 to 15 percent

between 1993 and 2003” (Tice et al., 2006, p. iii). This demonstrates that more students

are attending public schools outside their zone within open enrollment systems

nationally. The NCES (2006) also suggested that at least 4.5 million students in the

United States attended public schools outside their original assignment including open

enrollment, charter, and alternative programs (Tice et al., 2006). Therefore, a significant

number of students in the United States have been taking advantage of options within the

public school systems in their states.

Open Enrollment in Milwaukee

In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, over 17,000 parents used open enrollment policies to

attend choice schools in 2006 according to the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute

(WPRI) (Dodenhoff, 2007). However, the open enrollment program in Milwaukee has

been somewhat controversial because of the way in which parents participate, or do not

participate, in the open enrollment process. In addition, Milwaukee is considered to be a

district in need of improvement which means that the district and schools within the

11

district have not made adequate yearly progress based on graduation and attendance rates,

math and reading scores, and testing participation. According to Dodenhoff (2007), this

status coupled with other factors such as a disproportionate number of low-income and

disadvantaged youths enrolled, has made the use of open enrollment more complicated.

Because of the combination of negative traits aforementioned, school choice in

Milwaukee has been rendered less practical and less effective. Milwaukee has a greater

percentage of non-white residents, families with only one parent, and adults with less

than a high school diploma than the rest of the nation (Dodenhoff, 2007). The same

WPRI study indicated that disadvantaged parents have less of the skills necessary to

make informed decisions about their child’s education (Dodenhoff, 2007). In fact, parents

in Milwaukee who enrolled their children using open enrollment policies who actively

chose between at least two options based on academic criteria is only 10 percent

(Dodenhoff, 2007). Similarly, a National Center for Education Statistics study

summarized by Hsieh and Shien (2001) indicated that at least 40 percent of parents who

sent their children to choice schools did so based on non-academic criteria including

social reasons such as location, perceived safeness, and extracurricular activities.

Milwaukee is home to an open enrollment system that has many different options

within it: in Milwaukee, the system allows students to attend their assigned school, an

instrumentality charter school that operates within the district, a non-instrumentality

charter school that operates separately from the district, a voucher school in or near the

city, or suburban schools in a neighboring district through the 220 program.

Benefits of open enrollment for parents and families:

12

There are many benefits seen in districts where open enrollment policies exist.

Howe, Eisenhart, and Beterbenner (2002) suggested that the advancement of choice

schools and open enrollment has actually promoted “equity by allowing all students, not

just those whose parents have money, to leave failing schools (p.20). The options made

available by open enrollment policies have opened the door for families to choose a

school whereas in the past, only parents who could afford private schools could leave

schools or districts they perceived as less successful. Further, Lange and Ysseldyke

(2004) stated that “choice has allowed many who may have otherwise been alienated

from the system” of education in their area “to remain in it” (p.85). Theoretically, open

enrollment may keep a parent from seeking private schools or other options such as home

schooling because it increases the options that the student has rather than forcing the

student to attend a specific school in a specific zone or neighborhood. As noted by Falbo

(2005), prior to school choice options through open enrollment, many middle and upper

class parents would chiefly exercise their voice through physically moving to a new

residential area so that their child could attend a specific school. Thus, the opportunity of

school choice has opened up options for families that previously could not have had

access to the schools they viewed as most beneficial for their children.

School choice also improves a parent’s ability to access schools that they

appreciate, which in turn increases parent satisfaction. According to Dodendoff (2007)

school choice “helps level the playing field” because it “creates incentives for parents to

become more engaged consumers” while it also produces options for parents to “find a

better match between students and school[s]” (p.12). When parents were included in the

process of picking a school for their child in the open enrollment process, it improved the

13

parent’s feelings toward the school and raised parental satisfaction in the programs

attended. Hausman and Goldring (2000) concluded that when parents make choices in the

open enrollment process based on academic reasons and values, they are participating in

the process because they are seeking better substitutes for assigned programs; therefore,

the parents will be more satisfied with their chosen programs because they were seeking a

change from their pervious school. As indicated by a Lange and Ysseldyke (2004) study

which focused on parents of students with special needs, 60 percent of the parents whose

children attended choice schools indicated that their children were having their needs

better met in a choice school. To further this point, Jimerson (2002) pointed out that

parents of students in choice schools were generally more satisfied. The satisfaction of

parents with the schools that their children attend seems to be linked directly to what

criteria the parent and family used to make their choice in the first place: According to

Hausman and Goldring (2000), “The more parents choose their specific magnet school

for academic reasons, such as special programs and smaller class sizes, and value

reasons, such as the teaching style of the school, the more satisfied they are with that

school” (p.114). However, the relationship of parents appreciating their choice schools

more than their assigned schools may have other factors to consider. Hausman and

Goldring (2000), suggested that parents have greater satisfaction with their choice

schools for a few different reasons: parents appreciate that they can exercise their choice

in the first place, they feel that they have found a better match for their children or were

dissatisfied with their assigned school in the first place, and they need to justify their

switch to a choice school. Howe and Ashcraft (2005) indicated that “school choice is an

effective means of responding to the diversity of students' interests and needs” (p.2281),

14

and it seems that parents appreciate the option to pick the school that they believe is the

best option for their student.

Benefits of open enrollment in regard to charter school achievement:

Although in general discussing open enrollment’s benefits is necessary, it is

difficult to generalize all open enrollment options together to compare student

achievement. For that reason, specifically, a comparison of the achievement of students

in open enrollment charter schools to that of their peers is necessary.

According to the Center for Education Reform (2006), charter schools specifically

have improved achievement in many districts in the nation. For example, Massachusetts

charter schools outperformed their traditional school counterparts in English by 9.2

percent, math by 8.7 percent, and science 8.3 percent. Moreover, data from Michigan

suggests that 25 percent more African American students in the eighth grade at charter

schools scored proficient in math than the non-charter school African American students.

Other examples discussed by the Center for Education Reform (2006) included more

improvement from one year to the next amongst charter schools in California and New

York showing that the charter schools were improving their scores more rapidly than the

traditional public schools available in the state.

Through a nation-wide study comparing charter schools with the schools that the

students would likely attend if there were no charter schools, Hoxby (2004) discovered

that “In states where charter schools are well-established, charter school students'

advantage in proficiency tends to be greater” (p.1). Further establishing this trend, Hoxby

pointed to the evidence that “in Arizona, fourth grade charter students are about 7 percent

more likely to be proficient in reading and math…. In California, the corresponding

15

proficiency advantages are about 8 percent in reading and 3 percent in math. In Colorado,

the corresponding proficiency advantages are about 11 percent in reading and math. In

the District of Columbia... fourth grade charter students’ advantage is 35 percent or more

in both reading and math” (p. 2). Hoxby expands this generalization that in the 17 states

with a large number of established charter schools, the charter schools outperform their

nearest comparable traditional school by stating that all states with charter schools save

one had notably higher test scores in at least one area. Hoxby (2004) suggested that new

research being done which fairly compares apples to apples demonstrated a great

probability, “that the average student attending a charter school has higher achievement

than he or she otherwise would” (p. 3). For example, this study concluded that many

states have wide ranging reading proficiency differences from 5 percent in Florida and

Georgia; 8 percent in states like Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania;

10 to 11 percent in Nevada, Colorado, and New Jersey; 14 to 16 percent in Hawaii,

Illinois, and Oregon; to more than 30 percent in Louisiana and the District of Columbia.

Hoxby (2004) found that “for the United States as a whole, charter school students are

3.8 percent more likely to be proficient on their state’s reading examination when

compared to students in the nearest public school” and “4.9 percent more likely to be

proficient when compared to students in the nearest public school with a similar racial

composition” (p. 11). Similar, but less statistically relevant results were reported in the

study in regard to mathematics.

The Chicago Study by Booker, Gill, Zimmer, and Sass (2008) is important

because it compared charter and non-charter high school students of which all had

attended charter schools through middle school. This is significant because the students

16

compared entered the ninth grade at similar achievement levels, so the study could

analyze the impact that charter education had during the high school years (Booker et al.,

2008). This study determined that charter schools in Chicago “produce positive effects on

ACT scores, the probability of graduating, and the probability of enrolling in college” (p,

x). Specifically, continuing to a charter school for high school rather than attending a

traditional public school “lead to an advantage of approximately half a point in composite

ACT score” (p. x). Booker, et al. (2008) determined that attending a charter school had a

positive effect on the ACT scores of average charter school eighth graders. Students who

stayed in charter high schools in Chicago had a composite ACT score of 16.7 while their

peers who attended a traditional high school had a composite score of only 15.8. Even

when other factors are taken into consideration, the charter students still attained a

composite ACT score .43 higher than their traditional high school counterparts. Those

same students gained “an advantage of 7 percentage points in the probability of

graduating from [high school” and “11 percentage points in the probability of enrolling in

college” (p. x).

According to Broy’s article (2007), charter schools in Georgia were more

successful than their traditional counterparts because in 2006, 87.8 percent of the charter

schools made adequate yearly progress which is surpassed the traditional schools of

which only 78.7 percent made adequate yearly progress. To further demonstrate the

achievement in Georgia’s charter schools, Broy points out that the charter schools

originally had significantly lower test scores than the traditional schools in the state;

however, as of 2006, the charters had not only improved when measured against their

17

previous achievement, but they had improved their proficiency in all areas to be greater

than that of the traditional schools.

Drawbacks of open enrollment:

Although many advocates for choice programs state the benefits of such open

enrollment policies, there are also drawbacks to open enrollment especially in regard to

skimming, mobility, socio-economic effects including school closings, and lack of

informed parental consent.

Skimming potential:

Howe et al. (2002) found that skimming was a major problem in open enrollment

districts. Skimming is where certain schools attract a disproportionate number of students

who are high-achieving; thus, leaving the other schools with fewer students who are

academically performing. Skimming seems to occur in open enrollment: “students

requesting open enrollment…had higher test scores than their district cohorts and applied

disproportionately to schools with higher test scores” (p.22). Howe and Ashcraft (2005)

further determined that “skimming occurred in the sense that some schools were drawing

a disproportionate number (or all) of their students from the high-scoring pool, whereas

other schools were losing a disproportionate number” (p.2282). This created a problem

because schools that are perceived by parents as less academically successful will often

lose their highest performing students making the achievement status even worse.

Other specific regional studies, however, discounted Howe et al.’s (2002) findings

for certain types of open enrollment schools such as charter schools. In a study of

Chicago public schools, Booker et al. (2008) “found that, on average, the prior

achievement levels of students transferring to charter schools differ only slightly from the

18

citywide average and from the achievement levels of peers in the district-managed

[Chicago Public Schools] …they exited” (p. ix). According to the Center for Educational

Reform (2008), students who attend charter schools are not more advantaged than their

peers. Further stating that charter schools do not “cherry pick” their students as evidenced

because “half of charter school students around the country fall into categories defined as

at-risk (51 percent), minority (53 percent), or low-income (54 percent)” (p.2). The

Booker et al. (2008) study found that skimming was not occurring in the Chicago open

enrollment process because students who transferred to charter schools were not

significantly different in comparison to their peers who stayed in the traditional schools

in regard to achievement at the time that they left the traditional schools: “In sum,

students who transfer to charter schools have achievement levels that are generally

similar to those of Chicago as a whole and of the particular [traditional public schools]

from which they come” (p. 6). The Booker et al.(2008) study determined that skimming

was not occurring in the charter schools in Chicago because the achievement levels of

students who left their traditional public school was “no substantially higher’ than the

students who remained at the traditional schools, and the racial composition of the

students was similar from the traditional school to the charter school. While some data

overall on open enrollment suggests that some forms of open enrollment, especially

voucher programs, may tend to attract more skilled students, it should not be generalized

that all forms of open enrollment distort their student populations through skimming.

Stratification

This competition between schools to get the best students and more students so as

to further their own academic and school-wide plans also leads to socio-economic

19

impacts that can be very negative in the open enrollment process. Schools are in direct

competition for students, teachers, money, and other resources in an open enrollment

plan; schools that are more effective, theoretically, get more of these necessary

components which according to some researchers can impair cooperation, divide

neighborhoods, and create more stratification within communities (Howe et al., 2002).

Many of these affects are emphasized when direct attention is paid to the economic and

racial stratification that is caused.

While many people praise the choice that open enrollment has brought for many

communities, Howe et al. (2002) recognized that choice programs have created greater

competition, which has strained some school’s abilities to attract and retain students.

Further, open enrollment has been found to create class, socio-economic, and racial

stratification: Howe et al. (2002) found that white students “left high-minority

schools…at a disproportionate rate” (p. 22). This white flight has a greater impact on the

education that is provided at the schools which middle class and white families leave.

Additionally, Howe and Ashcraft (2005) found in their study of Boulder Valley that

“students left regions with higher percentages of minorities for regions with lower

percentages.” This coincided with “white (high-income) students disproportionately”

leaving their assigned schools that “had relatively high percentages of minority (low-

income) students to begin with (p.2282).

Jimerson (2002) cautions that some schools and districts lose out in open

enrollment because they lose so many students and the funding moves with the students.

He found that in Minnesota in 2000, while some districts gained nearly two million

dollars because of open enrollment, others lost close to five million dollars in funding.

20

When this occurred, many “programs available to children ‘left behind’ are frequently

curtailed” and can force consolidation of districts and school closings (p.19). Therefore,

open enrollment can cause issues for students who do not chose to leave their assigned

school or district, thus, making these disadvantaged students even more disadvantaged

academically. Falbo (2005) further cautioned that not only did families participate in

choice options differently in correlation with their demographic groups, but “better

educated, white parents who had more income were more likely to take advantage of

transfer options” and participate in open enrollment.

As with the idea of skimming, the idea of stratification being caused or

emphasized by open enrollment cannot be painted with a broad stroke because different

types of open enrollment create different outcomes. Booker et al.(2008) determined that

“transferring students are moving to schools with similar or slightly lower proportions of

other students of the same race and ethnicity” so students who transfer from traditional

schools in Chicago to charter schools “do not increase racial stratification across the

schools” (p. ix). While some reports suggest that open enrollment and choice or charter

programs increase racial stratification, other studies indicate that the trends are not

significantly relevant because the statistical difference is so minor. Broy (2007)

highlighted that in Georgia, more students in charter schools qualify for free and reduced

lunch and that charter schools are “more racially diverse and less affluent than Georgia

generally” This disputes the suggestion that open enrollment schools skim from the

traditional school systems leaving them more economically disadvantaged and racially

segregated. Yet when considering this data, it is important to recognize that this data is

exclusive to the charter school programs and does not include other various forms of

21

open enrollment such as vouchers, pilot programs, and intradistrict opportunities.

According to Hoxby (2004), “charter schools disproportionately arise where families are

relatively poor, likely to be racial minorities, likely to speak English as a second

language, and likely to have a single parent,” so it is impossible to compare “a charter

school student who would otherwise have attended an inner-city public school to a

student in an affluent, suburban school” (p.5). In fact, in the case of Chicago open

enrollment through the use of charter schools, Booker et al. (2008) found “charter schools

have a higher percentage of black students and lower percentages of white and Hispanic

students than do [traditional public schools]” (p. 10). Further, A study for the U.S.

Department of Education by the National Charter School Research Project stated that

“charter schools serve a larger proportion of minority and low-income students that is

found in traditional public schools” (as cited in WestEd, 2006, p. 2-3). So while the

general process of open enrollment may contribute to stratification, some forms such as

charter schools do not do so.

Parental involvement in choice

Generally, the negative effects of open enrollment seem to have a greater impact

on lower class families because they do not have to same skills and access to information

in order to make informed decisions about their child’s education. Hsieh and Shen (2001)

indicated that there was little to no infrastructure supporting choice plans in urban areas

and further complained that there was not transportation, accreditation, or information

available to parents which could help them make more informed decisions about the

education of their students. Howe et al. (2002) found that the practices that many open

enrollment schools use to attract and recruit new students “favor parents with savvy,

22

time, and resources” because they often expect that parents seek out the schools, visit the

schools, and provide the students transportation (p.22). Therefore, even for parents who

would like to participate in open enrollment options, there are obstacles to access valid

and reliable information. Upper class families are more likely to be able to retrieve and

judge information about a school in the current system. This problem is exacerbated

because as Dodenhoff (2007) stated, “the more disadvantaged the parent, the less likely

he or she is to be involved in a child’s education” (p.6). In Milwaukee, Wisconsin,

families are highly disadvantaged with more single parent homes, parents without high

school diplomas and greater poverty when compared to the rest of the nation. This then

calls to question whether MPS parents have had the ability to participate in open

enrollment in a meaningful way on a large scale. Dodenhoff (2007) further surmised that

“disadvantaged parents may not have the time, energy, information, understanding, or

confidence to become active, effective public school consumers” (p.6).

Because of the limitations regarding the access to open enrollment and other

social factors, open enrollment has not been as successful as intended. One major factor

contributing to this problem is the parental involvement in the choice process. Many

parents do not participate in choice at all, and those that do participate often do so in a

manner that is not objective or academic. Hsieh and Shen (2001) found that “40 percent

of parents made choices for their children…for social reasons” including the convenience

of the location, perceived safeness, and extracurricular activities (p.90). The benefit of

choice programs offering more individualized or specific academic programs seems to be

lost in the shuffle because parents were not making their choices in open enrollment

based on the academic programs offered by the choice programs in their area. Falbo

23

(2005) pointed out that “critics of school choice argue that many parents would make

school choices based on the ‘wrong’ criteria, such as the predominant social class of the

students in a particular school or district, or make no choices at all.” To emphasize this

point, Dodenhoff (2007) found that in districts with many disadvantaged families, parents

either did not exercise choice at all, exercised choice with insufficient or erroneous

information about the schools, or chose schools based on non-academic criteria (p.1).

Similarly, Jimerson (2002) warned that studies have found that minority students in

particular were not necessarily affected positively because of their participation in open

enrollment because they were not more likely to be participating in academically rigorous

programs.

In Milwaukee specifically, these parental input affects seem to be greater.

Dodenhoff (2007) concluded that in Milwaukee Public Schools only 33.6 percent of

parents actively chose a school for their child; additionally, of those, only 44.4 percent

made their choices from two or more schools. This indicates that parents were not as

involved in making decisions for their students as is necessary for voice to truly be

sustained. Further, the study found that of those, 64.8 percent of parents made their

choices based on academic criteria. This means that “MPS parents meeting all three

criteria” of an ideal consumer of education making a choice between at least two schools

based on academic factors, was under 10 percent. To further analyze this data, it can be

concluded that at least 60 percent of parent in MPS do not participate in choice options

and simply send their students to their neighborhood schools. While a neighborhood

school may have been a good fit for these students and families, it does not negate the

fact that so many parents have not actively participated in choice for their child. The two

24

sets of data available on this issue indicate that in Milwaukee, parents are not actively

seeking out the best educational opportunities for their students. Dodendoff (2007)

therefore concluded that “under the circumstances—with roughly 90 percent of parents

either not choosing at all, or choosing but not applying particularly rigorous criteria—it

seems unlikely that MPS schools are feeling the pressure of a genuine educational

marketplace as a result of public school choice” (p.11).

25

Chapter III: Methodology

This study investigated what effect a student’s involvement in and knowledge

about the school that they attend prior to enrolling has on the student’s behavior,

attendance, and academic achievement. The study was conducted through the use of a

survey distributed to students enrolled in two charter schools in Milwaukee, WI. The

results of the survey were analyzed to determine any correlation between the criteria of

choice and student performance at the school.

Selection of Subjects and Setting

The setting and subjects were a convenience sample selected based on access to

the researcher. As access to students and technology was necessary to conduct this study,

the researcher used students she had access to rather than a sample of all charter school

students in the city of Milwaukee. Because a convenience sample was used, it is difficult

to generalize the results of this study beyond the students and schools represented.

Students enrolled in charter schools within the researcher’s school based network called

the Teacher Led Network (TLN) were the subjects for the study. Teachers from other

charter high schools within this network were asked to have students participate in the

study. Teachers from the following eight charter schools were asked to participate: Work

Institute, School for Urban Planning and Architecture (Supar), Community High School,

Downtown Institute for Arts and Letters (DIAL), Milwaukee Learning Laboratory &

Institute (Milli), Alliance School of Milwaukee, Marshall Montessori International

Baccalaureate (MMIB), and the Professional Learning Institute (PLI). The subjects

included in the study consisted only of currently enrolled students and excluded students

who are enrolled in a specialized setting for special education students which is referred

26

to as a most restrictive placement or MRP room. Although eight schools were invited to

participate, the researcher only received responses and surveys from two schools: PLI

and DIAL. Since the subjects were already a convenience sample, the respondents were

limited to two schools, and there were a small number of respondents, the results of this

study are limited.

Description of Setting

The setting of this study was teacher-led charter schools in Milwaukee,

Wisconsin. These schools are all instrumentality charter schools that have contracts with

the school district, Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). The academic programs of the

charter schools invited to participate in the study ranged from project-based systems to

International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement programming. Each of these

schools is a smaller public school serving between 100 and 300 students from the city of

Milwaukee. All schools invited to participate are high schools located within the city of

Milwaukee.

MPS was identified as a District Identified for Improvement, Level 5 (DIFI)

because it had missed meeting the annual yearly progress markers six times in reading

and math (Milwaukee Public Schools, 2011, p.45). 25 of the city’s high schools were

identified as schools in need of improvement in 2009. (Milwaukee Public Schools, 2011,

p.48). The students in the district from which the subject schools were selected were in an

urban district with a total enrollment of 82,444 students at 184 public schools

(Milwaukee Public Schools, 2010c). The district as a whole in 2009-2010 served 56.6%

African Americans, 22.6% Hispanics, 11.9% whites, 4.8% Asians, 0.8% Native

27

Americans and 3.2% other. The graduation rate in 2009 was 67% while the attendance

rate was 87.9%.

Description of Subjects

The subjects of this study were high school students in grades 9-12 from the

above listed charter schools in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The researcher invited all the

students from PLI High School to participate, while the teacher at DIAL High School

only invited his homeroom students to participate. Students in grades 9-12 at both schools

were given permission slips which they were required to return prior to accessing the

online survey.

Instrumentation

This study was conducted using an internet based survey. The survey was

digitally administered to students enrolled at the two charter schools that participated by a

teacher at the school. Student responses were anonymously recorded using the internet

based survey.

The survey asked participating students about what factors the student considered

before enrolling in their charter school. In addition, the internet based survey included

questions regarding the student’s academic performance, attendance, and behavioral

issues.

Data Analysis

The study results were analyzed to determine correlations. The researcher created

charts based on the data collected from the student surveys. The researcher determined if

positive or negative relationships existed between elements of student choice and the

performance variables that students indicate on their surveys.

28

Limitations

There were multiple factors that may limit this study. First, the population being

studied was a very specific population that was also fairly mobile. Therefore, the results

of the study cannot be generalized to all charter schools or even all charter schools in

Milwaukee. Along with this limitation, the subjects were a convenience sample that was

selected to be respondents based on access to the researcher. Since access to students and

technology were essential to the research study, the researcher’s sample is representative

of students she had access to rather than a sample of all Milwaukee students at charter

schools. As a result of using a convenience sample, the results of this study cannot be

generalized beyond the students and schools represented. Further limiting the sample, the

number of students who responded and took the survey was very small. There were 23

students who started the survey, with only 22 students completing the survey questions,

and only two of the potential eight schools had respondents. A sample size of fewer than

50 participants is not a valid sample to conduct reliable statistical analysis to determine

correlations. Second, the data collection tool, a survey, requires that students answer the

questions honestly and that all students can be surveyed. This may have caused

limitations because by the time the survey was given, some students who are less

successful in the academic program may have already left the school and moved onto

another school. Third, the survey tool will not demonstrate a cause and effect

relationship.

29

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to determine if there was correlation between the

level of voice students had in the open enrollment systems and student achievement,

behavior, and attendance.

Demographic Information

Eight charters schools in the city of Milwaukee were asked to participate in this

study. Of the schools asked to participate, students from two schools responded for a total

of 22 respondents. The first school was the Downtown Institute of Arts and Letters

(DIAL). According to Milwaukee Public Schools (2010a), this school had 199 students in

the 2009-2010 academic year. DIAL’s demographics were as follows: 45% male, 55%

female; 1% Asian, 1% Native American, 90% African American, 4% Hispanic, and 2%

White. DIAL’s academic program was designed as an integrated arts and humanities

program. The second school with respondents was the Professional Learning Institute

(PLI). According to Milwaukee Public Schools (2010b), PLI had 69 students in the 2009-

2010 academic year. PLI’s demographics were as follows: 57% male, 43% female; 1%

Asian, 70% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 14% White. PLI’s academic program

was structured as a project-based learning community with a focus on life-long learning.

Item Analysis

As will be shown in the analysis that follows, no conclusions or correlations could

be determined based on the data garnered from the survey.

The first item did not show positive or negative correlation or if positive or

negative relationships exist between elements of student choice and the performance

variables students indicated on their surveys. This item was analyzed using Spearman

30

correlations for responses to each component of question 1 on the survey which asked

students to rank the reason they chose the school with the number of days suspended,

total credits per semester, and days absent. The data set from Tables 1 through 7 indicate

that there were no statistically significant correlations.

The second item indicated that there were no statistical differences in average

number of days absent, average number of days suspended, or average number of credits

earned per semester between any of the evaluated groups. The data set from Tables 8

through 18 indicate that there were no statistical differences between the groups of

respondents.

Those who strongly agreed or agreed compared to those who disagreed or

strongly disagreed with the statement “I actively chose to attend this school” showed no

statistically significant differences for average number of days absent, average number of

days suspended or average number of credits/semester.

In analyzing respondents who agreed or strongly agree compared to those who

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I knew a lot about the academic

program at this school before I enrolled,” there were not enough respondents in the agree

or strongly agree categories to perform the testing.

There were also too few respondents in the disagree or strongly disagree category

to perform the test to compare the students who agreed or strongly agreed with those who

disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I did not know very much about this

high school’s program, expectations, or curriculum before I enrolled here.”

The research item comparing those agreed or strongly agree compared to those

who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement “I wish I had enrolled at a

31

traditional school (like Vincent, Hamilton, Bayview, etc) instead of this high school”

showed no statistically significant differences for average number of days absent, average

number of days suspended or average number of credits/semester.

32

Chapter V: Discussion

Past literature indicated that parents and students do not always participate

effectively in schools choice. Therefore the purpose of this study was to determine if the

level of participation on behalf of students had any relationship to the student’s

achievement, behavior, and attendance. Specifically, the study attempted to address the

following question: Do students who make informed choices about attending particular

schools have better attendance, academic achievement, and behavior than those who do

not?

Summary

The design of this study used a convenience sample and an online survey that

addressed student voice in enrollment as well as data collection about the student’s

progress at their charter school including attendance, academic achievement, and

behavior. All the respondents who participated in this study were high school students in

the city of Milwaukee attending either DIAL High School, or PLI High School.

The instrument design that was used for this study was an online survey. Teachers

from eight local high schools were asked to participate in this anonymous study through

the use of the Qualtrics survey database system. The researcher herself and a teacher

from DIAL high school asked students to participate in the survey. The window for

students to complete the survey was about a month. The researcher could not expand the

participation window to increase respondents due to mid-year loss of access to the charter

schools asked to participate in the survey. The researcher ended her employment with the

district mid-year and therefore lost access to the other schools. The data collected from

respondents was then evaluated to determine if correlations existed with the support of a

33

statistical analyst at the UW-Stout Department of Budget, Planning and Analysis. The

number of respondents to this research study resulted in small data sets that could not be

effectively evaluated for correlations through the use of statistical analysis.

Conclusions

Since the sample size was limited and the data sets could not produce any results

of correlation, no conclusions can be drawn for the original research question: Do

students who make informed choices about attending particular schools have better

attendance, academic achievement, and behavior than those who do not?

While no correlations could be made between choice and performance, it appears

that some of the researcher’s assumptions were confirmed by the limited data collected.

For example, the researcher hypothesized that students enrolled in the charter schools

included in the study may not have actively participated in choosing their school. The

survey results indicate that only 30.4% of students knew a lot about the academic

program before enrolling as indicated by selecting agree or strongly agree on the survey.

Similarly, in another survey question, 73.9% of respondents selected agree or strongly

agree to the statement: I did not know very much about this high school’s program,

expectations, or curriculum before I enrolled here. The evaluation of these two questions

in conjunction could suggest that respondent students did not actively participate in

choice as intended as theorized by the researcher. While 73.9% of respondents indicated

that the school they were enrolled in was a good fit, just over half, 52.2%, of respondents

agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that they discussed with their parents all of

their options for high school before enrolling at this school, and only 43.4 % of

respondents replied that they had actively chosen the school they enrolled in. Therefore,

34

based on the responses from the limited sample size, it can be inferred, that while a large

percentage of students surveyed believe they are at a school that fits their needs, nearly

half of the students did not actively participate in the choice process.

Recommendations for Future Research

Based on the lack of conclusions and findings in this study, it is recommended

that a future researcher conduct a similar study with alterations. First, a larger sample size

with students from a more diverse array of charter schools would lead to more concrete

results. Further, future researchers are recommended to use an established computer-

based program to enter data about the student respondents’ attendance, academic

progress, and behavior at the school or district level in addition to students answering

survey questions about the level of their participation in the school choice process. By

having access to those data sets, it would be less challenging to collect data on individual

respondents. The data would also be more convenient to collect if the survey was

conducted while school was not in session such as during summer break so that there

would be no variation in number of school days the student had attended at the time of

the survey. The survey could also be altered to include only yes and no questions and a

more targeted question block with fewer variations in the questions.

35

References

Baker, G. (1990). Open enrollment and curriculum centralization in action,

Massachusetts. Educational Leadership, 48(4), 44-47. Retrieved April 2, 2008,

from Teacher Reference Center database.

Booker, K., Gill, B., Zimmer, R., and Sass, T.R. (2008). Achievement and attainment in

Chicago charter schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation

Broy, A. (2007, January). Georgia charter schools: Engines of educational improvement.

Georgia Public Policy Foundation.

Center for Education Reform. (2006, August). No free lunch study wrongly discredits

charter success. Center for Education Reform.

Center for Educational Reform. (2008, March). Boston charter schools: Champions of

school achievement. Center for Education Reform.

Cook-Sather, A. (2003). Listening to students about learning differences. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 35(4), 22. Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Teacher Reference

Center database.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational

research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390. Retrieved April 1,

2008, from Teacher Reference Center database.

Dodenhoff, D. (2007). Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: the limits of parent-driven

reform. WPRI 20(8). Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

Falbo, T., Glover, R. W., Holcombe, W. L., & Stokes, S. L. (2005). Antecedents and

consequences of residential choice and school transfer. Education Policy Analysis

36

Archives, 13(29). Retrieved October 20, 2008 from

http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n29/

Hausman, C. and Goldring, E. (2000). Parent involvement, influence, and satisfaction in

magnet schools: Do reasons for choice matter? The Urban Review, 32, 2.

Howe, K. and Ashcraft, C. (2005). Deliberative democratic evaluation: Successes and

limitations of an evaluation of school choice. Teachers College Record, 107 (10),

2275-2298.

Howe, K., Eisenhart, M., & Betebenner, D. (2002). The price of public school choice.

Educational Leadership, 59(7), 20. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Teacher

Reference Center database.

Hoxby, C. (2004). A straightforward comparison of charter schools and regular public

schools in the United States. Harvard University and National Bureau of

Economic Research.

Hsieh, C., and Shein, J. (2001). Is school choice a mechanism for sustaining change?

Implications from a national survey. Clearing House 75(2), 88-91 Nov-Dec 2001.

Jimerson, L. (2002). Interdistrict open enrollment: The benign choice?. Clearing House,

76(1), 16. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Teacher Reference Center database.

Lange, C., & Ysseldyke, J. (1994). How school choice affects students with special

needs. Educational Leadership, 52(3), 84. Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Teacher

Reference Center database.

Milwaukee Public Schools. (2010a). D.I.A.L. High School 2009-2010 report card.

Retrieved July 28, 2011 from

http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/acctrep/0910/2010_H_0070.pdf

37

Milwaukee Public Schools. (2010b). Professional Learning Institute 2009-2010 report

card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from

http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/acctrep/0910/2010_H_0009.pdf

Milwaukee Public Schools. (2010c). Milwaukee Public Schools at a glance 2010-2011.

Retrieved July 28, 2011 from

mpsportal.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/server.../DistrictFactSheet.pdf

Milwaukee Public Schools. (2011). Milwaukee Public School 2009-2010 district report

card. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from

http://www2.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/acctrep/0910/2010_district.pdf

Mitra, D. (2004). The significance of students: Can increasing “student voice” in schools

lead to gains in youth development?. Teachers College Record, 106(4), 651-688.

Retrieved April 1, 2008, from Teacher Reference Center database.

Noyes, A. (2005). Pupil voice: purpose, power and the possibilities for democratic

schooling. British Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 533-540. Retrieved April

1, 2008, from Teacher Reference Center database.

Pipho, C. (1998). The evolution of school choice. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4), 261.

Retrieved April 2, 2008, from Teacher Reference Center database.

Tice, P., Princiotta, D., Chapman, C., and Bielick, S. (2006). Trends in the use of school

choice: 1993 to 2003, (NCES 2007-045) U.S. Department of Education. National

Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). The

condition of education 2007 (NCES 2007–064), Indicator 32. Retrieved

September 19, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=30

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2007/section4/indicator32.asp

38

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core

of Data (CCD), (2005). Public elementary/secondary school universe survey,

2004–05, Version 1a. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/overview04/tables/table_2.asp?referer=list

WestEd. (2006) Charter high schools: Closing the achievement gap. U.S. Department of

Education. Office of Innovation and Improvement, Washington, DC.

Wisconsin Department of Education. (2008). Wisconsin charter schools yearbook 2007-

2008. Retrieved September 19, 2008 from

http://dpi.wi.gov/sms/pdf/YearBook2007-08.pdf

Wisconsin Department of Education. (2011). Wisconsin charter schools yearbook 2007-

2008. Retrieved July 28, 2011 from http://dpi.state.wi.us/sms/pdf/2010-

11yearbook.pdf

40

Appendix A: Data Tables

Table 1

Item One Analysis: Spearman Correlations Ranking the Reason the Student Chose Their

School

25 50 75

Location of school 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

Size of school 4.0 2.0 4.0 5.0

Curriculum offered 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0

Friends enrolled 6.0 5.0 6.0 6.0

College preparation 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Extracurricular activities 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0

41

Table 2

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Location of the School in School Choice

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

1.0 4 17.4 17.4 17.4

2.0 1 4.3 4.3 21.7

3.0 6 26.1 26.1 47.8

4.0 8 34.8 34.8 82.6

5.0 1 4.3 4.3 87.0

6.0 3 13.0 13.0 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --

Note. A ranking of 1 indicated the most important factor. A ranking of 6 indicated the

least important factor.

42

Table 3

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Size of the School in School Choice


1.0 3 13.0 13.0 13.0

2.0 4 17.4 17.4 30.4

3.0 3 13.0 13.0 43.5

4.0 2 8.7 8.7 52.2

5.0 9 39.1 39.1 91.3

6.0 2 8.7 8.7 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --



43

Table 4

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Kind of Curriculum and Classes Offered at the

School in School Choice


1.0 5 21.7 21.7 21.7

2.0 9 39.1 39.1 60.9

3.0 1 4.3 4.3 65.2

4.0 4 17.4 17.4 82.6

5.0 3 13.0 13.0 95.7

6.0 1 4.3 4.3 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --



44

Table 5

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Friends enrolled or enrolling at the School in

School Choice


1.0 2 8.7 8.7 8.7

2.0 1 4.3 4.3 13.0

3.0 1 4.3 4.3 17.4

4.0 0 0.0 0.0 17.4

5.0 5 21.7 21.7 39.1

6.0 14 60.9 60.9 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --



45

Table 6

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Ability of the School to Prepare me for College in

School Choice


1.0 8 34.8 34.8 34.8

2.0 5 21.7 21.7 56.5

3.0 5 21.7 21.7 78.3

4.0 2 8.7 8.7 87.0

5.0 3 13.0 13.0 100.0

6.0 0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --



46

Table 7

Item One Analysis: Frequency Table Ranking Extra Curricular Activities Available at the

School in School Choice


1.0 1 4.3 4.3 4.3

2.0 3 13.0 13.0 17.4

3.0 7 30.4 30.4 47.8

4.0 7 30.4 30.4 78.3

5.0 2 8.7 8.7 87.0

6.0 3 13.0 13.0 100.0

Total 23 100.0 100.0 --



47

Table 8

Item Two Analysis: T Test Demonstrating Relationship Between the Statement “I Actively

Chose to Attend This School” with Attendance, Behavior Based on Suspensions, and Credits

Earned.

N Mean Std.

deviation

Std. error

mean

Absences Strongly disagree or disagree 11 10.046 10.101 3.045

Absences Strongly agree or agree 10 15.150 11.247 3.557

Suspensions Strongly disagree or disagree 12 .667 .779 .225

Suspensions Strongly agree or agree 10 .400 .699 .221

Credits Strongly disagree or disagree 12 3.989 5.088 1.469

Credits Strongly agree or agree 9 2.949 3.132 1.044

48

Table 9

Item Two Analysis: T Test Demonstrating Relationship Between the Statement “I Knew a lot

About the Academic Program at this School Before I Enrolled” with Attendance, Behavior

Based on Suspensions, and Credits Earned.

N Mean Std.

deviation

Std. error

mean







49

Table 10

Item Two Analysis: T Test Demonstrating Relationship Between the Statement “I Did Not

Know Very Much About this High School’s Program, Expectations, or Curriculum Before I

Enrolled Here” with Attendance, Behavior Based on Suspensions, and Credits Earned.

N Mean Std.

deviation

Std. error

mean







50

Table 11

Item Two Analysis: T Test Demonstrating Relationship Between the Statement “I Wish I Had

Enrolled at a Traditional School (Like Vincent, Hamilton, Bayview, etc) Instead of this High

School.” with Attendance, Behavior Based on Suspensions, and Credits Earned.

N Mean Std.

deviation

Std. error

mean





Credits Strongly disagree or disagree 11 2.873 2.869 .865


51

Table 12

Student Response to the Statement “I Knew a lot About the Academic Program at this

School Before I Enrolled.”


Strongly disagree 6 26.1 27.3 27.3

Disagree 9 39.1 40.9 68.2

Agree 5 21.7 22.7 90.9

Strongly agree 2 8.7 9.1 100.0

Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

52

Table 13

Student Response to the Statement “I Believe that this School is a Good School for Me.”



Disagree 2 8.7 9.1 22.7

Agree 13 56.5 59.1 81.8


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

53

Table 14

Student Response to the Statement “I Did Not Know Very Much About this High School’s

Program, Expectations, Or Curriculum Before I Enrolled Here.”



Disagree 3 13.0 13.6 22.7

Agree 14 60.9 63.6 86.4


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

54

Table 15

Student Response to the Statement “I Actively Chose to Attend this School.”



Disagree 8 34.8 36.4 54.5

Agree 5 21.7 22.7 77.3


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

55

Table 16

Student Response to the Statement “I Discussed With My Parents All of My Options for

High School Before Enrolling at this School.”



Disagree 5 21.7 22.7 45.5

Agree 10 43.5 45.5 90.9


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

56

Table 17

Student Response to the Statement “I Feel I Have Been Successful at Meeting My Goals

While Attending this High School.”



Disagree 5 21.7 22.7 36.4

Agree 13 56.5 59.1 95.5


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

57

Table 18

Student Response to the Statement “I Wish I Had Enrolled at a Traditional School (Like

Vincent, Hamilton, Bayview, etc) Instead of This High School.”



Disagree 5 21.7 22.7 54.5

Agree 5 21.7 22.7 77.3


Total 22 95.7 100.0

Missing 1 4.3

Total 23 100.0

The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout ... · choice movement as well as research...

Documents

Transcript of The Graduate School University of Wisconsin-Stout ... · choice movement as well as research...