We are pleased Lo share wlLh you Lhe comprehenslve, flrsL year evaluaLlon resulLs from Lhe new uenver ubllc Schools enrollmenL process SchoolCholce. 1he evaluaLlon was overseen by a dlverse group of school and communlLy leaders and housed aL A+ uenver. 1he daLa analysls and evaluaLlon was compleLed by Mary kluLe, h.u. of Lhe 8uechner lnsLlLuLe for Covernance aL Lhe unlverslLy of Colorado - uenver. 1hls ls Lhe second and flnal reporL released by Lhe A+ uenver SchoolCholce 1ransparency CommlLLee.
1he purpose of Lhls reporL ls Lo provlde a full accounL of parLlclpaLlon, famlly preferences, school maLches, and paLLerns relaLed Lo a varleLy of facLors from geography Lo sLudenL demographlcs. ln addlLlon Lo Lhe reporL, we have also lncluded an Lxcel spreadsheeL LhaL wlll allow Lhose lnLeresLed Lo analyze Lhe SchoolCholce daLa.
1he new uS SchoolCholce process ls Lhe flrsL unlfled enrollmenL process for a large urban school dlsLrlcL LhaL lncludes nearly all k-12 schools: lnnovaLlon, performance, magneL and charLer. lL ls also one of Lhe only dlsLrlcL enrollmenL sysLems LhaL provldes school performance daLa for every school ln Lhe SchoolCholce enrollmenL gulde.
1he resulLs of Lhls analysls glve cause for celebraLlon. SchoolCholce worked efflclenLly: 83 of sLudenLs recelved one of Lhelr Lop Lhree cholces, and Lhere was a sLrong correlaLlon beLween Lhe quallLy of Lhe school and Lhe demand for a seaL aL LhaL school. Also, more famllles were maklng cholces and Lhose cholces allgned wlLh quallLy allowlng sLudenLs Lo move Lo hlgher performlng schools. llnally, parLlclpaLlon gaps by geography, lncome and race conLlnued Lo narrow.
1he daLa ln Lhls reporL provldes overwhelmlng evldence LhaL more famllles wanL Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo hlgh performlng schools and LhaL Lhere are far Loo few hlgh quallLy seaLs Lo meeL parenL demand. 1hls ls Lhe challenge for uS.
2 We would llke Lo Lhank uenver ubllc Schools for Lhelr leadershlp and cooperaLlon on every aspecL of Lhls lnlLlaLlve. We would also llke Lo glve a speclal Lhanks Lo CeL SmarL Schools for leadlng Lhe coallLlon of educaLlon groups (Colorado Succeeds, Colorado League of CharLer Schools, uonnell-kay loundaLlon, SLand for Chlldren Colorado, 1ogeLher Colorado- formerly MeLro CrganlzaLlon for eople, School of ubllc Affalrs, unlverslLy of Colorado - uenver and A+ uenver) who worked over Lhe lasL Lhree years Lo creaLe a unlfled enrollmenL process and for fundlng Lhls remarkable evaluaLlon.
Slncerely,
SchoolCholce 1ransparency CommlLLee
1be 5cboolcbolce 1toospoteocy commlttee wos cteoteJ to tecelve ooJ lotetptet two sepotote tbltJ potty (1be uolvetslty of colotoJo, ueovet) tepotts ooolyzloq tbe 5cboolcbolce ptocess ooJ Joto. 1be commlttee ls moJe op of scbool leoJets (wltb tepteseototloo ftom cbottet, moqoet, ooJ ttoJltloool scbools), Jlsttlct leoJets, ooJ tbltJ-potty commoolty stokebolJets. Membets wete selecteJ by A- ueovet ooJ bove 5cboolcbolce bockqtoooJ koowleJqe. !"#$$%&'()*+(+%,-./$*& uS Cfflce of School 8eform and lnnovaLlon
0(1)$*)2+&3+"$42& uenver School of Sclence and 1echnology
54/6&7"")4**& uanlels lund
84$(&9:)*(& WesL uenver rep
;%2,1)&<%#"41& urban League of uenver
;%/1%&.1)2=:%2& uS WesL uenver neLwork & 341%&>"44,& Colorado League of CharLer Schools ?)@(%1,&.%11+**& loneer CharLer School
<(+1+$%&A+2%& ClLy of uenver
<1+2*&9(%1B& uClS aL MonLbello PS
C%2&9@(4%"+$& A + uenver
')""&;++-!$("+#& uS Cfflce of School Cholce
')"")%:&D4(/*& uenver School of Lhe ArLs
E++-!22&0(4& uenver 8esldenL/uS arenL
3
LvaluaLlon of uenver's SchoolCholce rocess for Lhe 2012-13 School ?ear repared for Lhe SchoolCholce 1ransparency CommlLLee aL A+ uenver by Mary kluLe 8uechner lnsLlLuLe for Covernance School of ubllc Affalrs unlverslLy of Colorado, uenver
!une 2012
4
!"#$%#$&' LxecuLlve Summary ........................................................................................................................3 lnLroducLlon....................................................................................................................................8 Who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce rocess?............................................................................9 Pow Were SeaLs ulsLrlbuLed Across Lhe ulsLrlcL? ........................................................................12 WhaL were SLudenLs' Cholces?.....................................................................................................16 Number of Student Choices................................................................................................................... 16 Schools Students Chose........................................................................................................................ 18 Are Students Characteristics Associated with the SPF Rating of the Schools they Choose? .............. 28 WlLh Whlch Schools dld SLudenLs CeL MaLched?.........................................................................32 Students Matched with Choices............................................................................................................. 32 Grade.................................................................................................................................................. 33 Free or Reduced Lunch Status........................................................................................................... 33 Race/Ethnicity..................................................................................................................................... 34 Region ................................................................................................................................................ 34 SPF Rating of the Students Current School ...................................................................................... 34 Are Students Characteristics Associated with the SPF Rating of the Schools with Which They are Matched? ............................................................................................................................................... 36 WhaL does Lhe Cholce lnformaLlon 1ell us abouL uemand for Schools? .....................................37 Is Demand for a School Associated with its Characteristics? ................................................................ 37 What Role Does Location Play in School Choice? ................................................................................ 40 Student Characteristics ...................................................................................................................... 41 SPF Rating of Schools ....................................................................................................................... 42 Summary and Concluslons ...........................................................................................................43 Appendlx A: SeaLs Cffered and arLlclpanLs for non-1ranslLlon Crades......................................48 Appendlx 8: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for All School ...............................................................31 Appendlx C: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for 1ranslLlon Crades ..................................................38 1able C1: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for LCL.............................................................................39 1able C2: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for klndergarLen..............................................................63 1able C3: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for 6 Lh Crade....................................................................68 1able C4: 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL for 9 Lh Crade....................................................................70
' 3
()%*+$,-%'.+//012'
uenver ubllc Schools (uS) recenLly compleLed lLs flrsL round of school cholce uslng a new unlfled approach called SchoolCholce. rlor Lo Lhls year, charLer schools, magneL schools and nelghborhood schools used dlfferenL processes Lo enroll sLudenLs. Cne analysls of Lhe prlor sysLem esLlmaLed LhaL Lhere were over 60 dlfferenL procedures for school cholce ln place. ln an aLLempL Lo creaLe a more sLreamllned and equlLable approach Lo school cholce, a unlfled school cholce process was puL lnLo place. 1 1hls year, for Lhe flrsL Llme, charLer, magneL and nelghborhood schools all parLlclpaLed ln Lhe same process. lamllles compleLed one form Lo rank Lhelr Lop flve cholces for schools. A new maLchlng procedure was used Lo maLch sLudenLs wlLh Lhelr requesLed schools ln an equlLable manner. 2
1hls reporL descrlbes analyses of SchoolCholce enrollmenL daLa Lo shed llghL on how Lhe process worked and Lo lnform reflnemenLs Lo Lhe process golng forward. 1hls reporL addresses flve ma[or research quesLlons:
1) Who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process? 2) Pow were seaLs dlsLrlbuLed across Lhe dlsLrlcL? 3) WhaL were sLudenLs' cholces? 4) WlLh whlch schools dld sLudenLs geL maLched? 3) WhaL does Lhe cholce lnformaLlon Lell us abouL demand for schools?
SchoolCholce enrollmenL form and sLudenL demographlc daLa were provlded Lo Lhe 8uechner lnsLlLuLe ln Aprll 2012. 1hls daLaseL lncluded lnformaLlon for 22,737 sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce enrollmenL process. 3 1he group of sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln SchoolCholce was slmllar Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole ln Lerms of race/eLhnlclLy and free/reduced lunch sLaLus.
1he quallLy of avallable seaLs offered Lo SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs Lhe dlsLrlcL was examlned uslng Lhe dlsLrlcL's School erformance lramework (Sl) raLlng as Lhe measure of quallLy. Across Lhe dlsLrlcL, abouL half of offered elemenLary and mlddle school seaLs were ln hlgher-
F 1he lnsLlLuLe for lnnovaLlon ln ubllc School Cholce (2010). Ao Assessmeot of otollmeot ooJ cbolce lo ueovet lobllc 5cbools. 8eporL prepared for 1he uenver LnrollmenL SLudy Croup. G &ln a separaLe reporL, ur. Cary kochenberger descrlbed how Lhe maLchlng procedure worked and concluded LhaL lL performed as lnLended. 1hls reporL ls avallable aL: hLLp://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/llnAL_1C20LeLLer20Lo20uenver20CommunlLy20Members.pdf 3 1he sample of sLudenLs ls raLher large creaLlng a slLuaLlon where sLaLlsLlcal power ls hlgh enough Lo deLecL very small effecLs LhaL are llkely Lo be of llLLle pracLlcal slgnlflcance. 1o ad[usL for Lhls, an alpha level of .0001 ls used ln Lhls reporL for deLermlnlng slgnlflcance ln all analyses LhaL use Lhe sLudenL as Lhe unlL of analysls. ln sLaLlsLlcal analyses uslng Lhe school as Lhe unlL of analysls, Lhe sample slze ls much smaller and a more sLandard alpha level of .03 ls used. 6
raLed schools. AbouL half of Lhe offered hlgh school seaLs were ln schools raLed as Cn WaLch. Cenerally speaklng, Lhe SouLheasL Lended Lo have Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of hlgher-raLed seaLs across grade levels. Plgher proporLlons of lower-raLed seaLs were found ln Lhe near norLheasL, norLhwesL, and SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy.
uemand for schools was assoclaLed wlLh boLh Lhe characLerlsLlcs of currenLly enrolled sLudenLs (e.g., percenL free/reduced lunch, percenL speclal educaLlon) and school quallLy as measured by Lhe Sl. 1he percenLage of Sl polnLs earned was sLrongly and conslsLenLly assoclaLed wlLh Lhe LoLal number of requesLs and number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL for all grade levels. Schools scorlng hlgher on Lhe Sl Lended Lo geL more requesLs per avallable seaL.
A large proporLlon of sLudenLs were maLched wlLh one of Lhe schools Lhey requesLed. Cver Lwo-Lhlrds of sLudenLs overall were maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. 1hese proporLlons Lended Lo be lower for sLudenLs enLerlng LCL or one of Lhe non-LranslLlon grades Lhan lL was for klndergarLen, 6 Lh and 9 Lh grades. SLudenLs who quallfled for free or reduced lunch were sllghLly more llkely Lo geL one of Lhelr cholces and more llkely Lo geL Lhelr flrsL cholce Lhan sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy. Plspanlc sLudenLs were mosL llkely of Lhe raclal and eLhnlc groups Lo be maLched wlLh any cholce and Lhelr flrsL cholce, whlLe sLudenLs were Lhe leasL llkely.
lnLeresLlngly, sLudenLs ln Lhese same subgroups (l.e., quallfy for free or reduced lunch, Plspanlc, llve ln Lhe norLhwesL or SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy) all Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces, on average. SLudenLs who quallfled for free and reduced lunch and Plspanlc sLudenLs were more llkely Lo llve ln reglons of Lhe clLy LhaL Lended Lo have fewer seaLs ln hlgher raLed schools and more seaLs ln lower-raLed schools, whlch may explaln why Lhey Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces. noneLheless, Lhe facL LhaL Lhey Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools may explaln, aL leasL ln parL, why Lhey were more llkely Lo geL Lhelr flrsL cholces, as Lhe Sl raLlng of schools was sLrongly relaLed Lo Lhe demand for schools. AfLer Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe Sl polnLs earned by Lhe schools LhaL sLudenLs requesLed, we found LhaL demographlc characLerlsLlcs were largely unrelaLed Lo Lhe Sl raLlngs of Lhe schools wlLh whlch sLudenLs were acLually maLched. 1haL ls, any apparenL demographlc dlfferences ln Lhe Sl raLlngs of schools wlLh whlch sLudenLs were maLched are acLually due Lo Lhe dlfferences ln Lhe Lypes of schools LhaL sLudenLs from dlfferenL demographlc groups requesL. 1hls hlghllghLs Lhe falrness of Lhe maLchlng procedure buL also ralses quesLlons abouL Lhe exLenL Lo whlch all sLudenLs are maklng requesLs LhaL reflecL Lhelr Lrue preferences. 1he old sysLem for cholce ln uS provlded lncenLlves for some sLudenLs Lo mlsrepresenL Lhelr cholces. 1he new procedure ellmlnaLes Lhls need, buL Lhese resulLs ralse quesLlons abouL Lhe exLenL Lo whlch parenL behavlor has changed along wlLh Lhe SchoolCholce process.
7
AbouL Lwo-Lhlrds of sLudenLs' requesLs were for schools ln Lhe same reglon of Lhe clLy as Lhey reslded. SLudenLs ln Lhe non-LranslLlon grades requesLed schools ouLslde Lhelr home reglon more ofLen Lhan sLudenLs enLerlng oLher grades. Plspanlc sLudenLs Lended Lo choose schools wlLhln Lhelr home reglon more ofLen Lhan sLudenLs of oLher races/eLhnlclLles. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon made Lhe smallesL percenLage of cholces ln Lhelr home reglon. llnally, generally speaklng sLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln lower-performlng schools Lended Lo make more cholces from wlLhln Lhelr reglon Lhan sLudenLs ln hlgher performlng schools.
ln sum, many sLudenLs parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process. lL ls lmposslble from Lhese daLa Lo deLermlne lf Lhose who dld noL parLlclpaLe lnLended Lo choose Lo aLLend Lhelr nelghborhood school or lf more markeLlng ls needed Lo engage more sLudenLs ln Lhe process. lor Lhose LhaL dld parLlclpaLe, Lhe process dld noL appear Lo dlsadvanLage mlnorlLy or low- lncome sLudenLs. 1here was evldence LhaL famllles showed a preference for hlgher-performlng schools, buL LhaL Lhe sLrengLh of LhaL preference varled by demographlc characLerlsLlcs, lncludlng where ln Lhe clLy sLudenLs reslded. lL ls clear from Lhese analyses LhaL demographlc characLerlsLlcs, reglon of Lhe clLy ln whlch sLudenLs reslde, Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey requesL hlgher-raLed schools, and Lhelr wllllngness Lo aLLend a school ouLslde of Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llve are all facLors LhaL are hlghly assoclaLed wlLh one anoLher and wlLh Lhe school wlLh whlch a sLudenL was ulLlmaLely maLched. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of sLudenLs dld recelve one of Lhelr cholces, buL Lhls was lower among sLudenLs enLerlng LCL, hlghllghLlng a capaclLy lssue LhaL should be addressed.
1hls reporL represenLs an lmporLanL flrsL sLep ln undersLandlng how Lhe SchoolCholce process worked ln lLs flrsL year. 1he daLa analyzed here are rlch and furLher analyses should be conducLed Lo undersLand Lhe process on a deeper level. Such analyses could look more closely how Lhe quallLy of sLudenLs' currenL schools, demographlc characLerlsLlcs, and Lhe cholces Lhey work ln comblnaLlon Lo predlcL Lhe quallLy of Lhe schools wlLh whlch Lhey are ulLlmaLely maLched. lurLher analyses could also shed llghL on Lhe SchoolCholce process dlffers for schools wlLh dlfferenL characLerlsLlc. lor example, lL may be useful Lo lnvesLlgaLe dlfferences beLween schools LhaL span a wlde grade range (e.g., k-8 schools and mlddle hlgh schools) and schools LhaL serve Lhe more common grade ranges (l.e., LCL-3, 6-8, 9-12) or newer schools and more esLabllshed schools. llnally, lL would be useful lf furLher research examlned Lhe sLudenLs who dld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe SchoolCholce process Lo shed llghL on how Lhey may be slmllar or dlfferenL from sLudenLs who chose Lo parLlclpaLe.
8
' 3#$1"4+*$,"#'
uenver ubllc Schools (uS) recenLly compleLed lLs flrsL round of school cholce uslng a new unlfled approach called SchoolCholce. rlor Lo Lhls year, charLer schools, magneL schools and nelghborhood schools used dlfferenL processes Lo enroll sLudenLs. Cne analysls of Lhe prlor sysLem esLlmaLed LhaL Lhere were over 60 dlfferenL procedures for school cholce ln place. ln an aLLempL Lo creaLe a more sLreamllned and equlLable approach Lo school cholce, a unlfled school cholce process was puL lnLo place. 4 1hls year, for Lhe flrsL Llme, charLer, magneL and nelghborhood schools all parLlclpaLed ln Lhe same process. lamllles compleLed one form Lo rank Lhelr Lop flve cholces for schools. A new maLchlng procedure was used Lo maLch sLudenLs wlLh Lhelr requesLed schools ln an equlLable manner. 3
1he new approach Lo school cholce was a response Lo several flaws ln Lhe prevlous sysLem. ln parLlcular, a reporL prepared by Lhe lnsLlLuLe for lnnovaLlon ln ubllc School Cholce ln May 2010 documenLed LhaL, whlle a falrly large proporLlon of sLudenLs dld noL aLLend Lhelr home schools, a relaLlvely small proporLlon of sLudenLs parLlclpaLed ln a formal cholce process. 1hls lndlcaLes LhaL Lhese sLudenLs were obLalnlng seaLs aL Lhese schools vla some mechanlsm ouLslde Lhe publlshed uS cholce processes. lurLher, Lhese unexplalned sLudenLs" were more llkely Lo be whlLe and less llkely Lo quallfy for free or reduced lunch, ralslng equlLy lssues ln Lhe cholce process.
1he reporL also descrlbed flaws ln Lhe mechanlsm used Lo maLch sLudenLs Lo requesLed schools, whlch prlorlLlzed sLudenLs aL Lhelr flrsL cholce schools slmply because Lhey selecLed LhaL school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. 1hls Lype of mechanlsm creaLed a compllcaLed seL of lncenLlves for famllles Lo mlsrepresenL Lhelr cholces for schools. lamllles wllllng Lo aLLend Lhelr nelghborhood school are able Lo Lake greaLer rlsks and llsL a hlgh demand school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. ln conLrasL, famllles who are noL saLlsfled wlLh Lhelr nelghborhood school need Lo be more sLraLeglc. 1hey may choose Lo noL llsL Lhelr Lrue flrsL cholce school lf lL ls a hlgh-demand school ouL of fear of wasLlng" Lhelr flrsL cholce plck. lnsLead, Lhe sysLem provlded an lncenLlve for Lhem Lo llsL a school LhaL Lhey feel Lhey have a hlgher llkellhood of geLLlng lnLo as Lhelr flrsL cholce. 1hls process creaLes lnequlLles, because lL moLlvaLes famllles Lo behave dlfferenLly dependlng on how Lhey feel abouL Lhelr nelghborhood school.
H 1he lnsLlLuLe for lnnovaLlon ln ubllc School Cholce (2010). Ao Assessmeot of otollmeot ooJ cbolce lo ueovet lobllc 5cbools. 8eporL prepared for 1he uenver LnrollmenL SLudy Croup. I &ln a separaLe reporL, ur. Cary kochenberger descrlbed how Lhe maLchlng procedure worked and concluded LhaL lL performed as lnLended. 1hls reporL ls avallable aL: hLLp://www.aplusdenver.org/_docs/llnAL_1C20LeLLer20Lo20uenver20CommunlLy20Members.pdf 9
llnally, Lhe over 60 separaLe cholce processes LhaL exlsLed among uS nelghborhood schools, magneL schools, and charLer schools creaLed congesLlon" ln Lhe sysLem. under Lhls sysLem, sLudenLs could recelve mulLlple offers for schools Lo aLLend. When Lhey selecLed one, Lhe schools Lhey dld noL selecL would consulL Lhelr walL llsLs and offer LhaL seaL Lo anoLher sLudenL, who may have already accepLed a seaL aL anoLher school. lf Lhls sLudenL accepLed Lhe offer, Lhe seaL Lhey had lnLended Lo occupy would be vacaLed, causlng LhaL school Lo make an offer Lo anoLher sLudenL. 1hls process of offerlng vacanL seaLs Lo sLudenLs on walLllsLs led Lo a shuffllng of sLudenLs LhaL lasLed LhroughouL Lhe summer, uslng much sLaff Llme, causlng uncerLalnLy for sLudenLs and Lhelr famllles, and maklng lL dlfflculL for schools Lo plan.
1hls reporL descrlbes analyses of SchoolCholce enrollmenL daLa Lo shed llghL on how Lhe process worked and Lo lnform reflnemenLs Lo Lhe process golng forward. 1hls reporL addresses flve ma[or research quesLlons:
1) Who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process? 2) Pow were seaLs dlsLrlbuLed across Lhe dlsLrlcL? 3) WhaL were sLudenLs' cholces? 4) WlLh whlch schools dld sLudenLs geL maLched? 3) WhaL does Lhe cholce lnformaLlon Lell us abouL demand for schools?
SchoolCholce enrollmenL form and sLudenL demographlc daLa were provlded Lo Lhe 8uechner lnsLlLuLe ln Aprll 2012. 1hls daLaseL lncluded lnformaLlon for 22,737 sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce enrollmenL process. 6
56"'701$,*,70$%4',#'$6%' .*6""8!6",*%'91"*%&&:'
MosL of Lhe 22,737 sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process were enLerlng grades when sLudenLs Lyplcally LranslLlon Lo a new school (LCL,
6 1he sample of sLudenLs ls raLher large creaLlng a slLuaLlon where sLaLlsLlcal power ls hlgh enough Lo deLecL very small effecLs LhaL are llkely Lo be of llLLle pracLlcal slgnlflcance. 1o ad[usL for Lhls, an alpha level of .0001 ls used ln Lhls reporL for deLermlnlng slgnlflcance ln all analyses LhaL use Lhe sLudenL as Lhe unlL of analysls. ln sLaLlsLlcal analyses uslng Lhe school as Lhe unlL of analysls, Lhe sample slze ls much smaller and a more sLandard alpha level of .03 ls used. 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 >)6/1+&FJ&3/:K+1&4L&9*/,+2*$&A%1M@)B%M26N&.#&O1%,+& SchoolCholce aruclpanLs ro[ecLed LnrollmenL ln 2012-13 School ?ear 10
klndergarLen, slxLh and nlnLh grades, see llgure 1). Also presenLed ls Lhe pro[ecLed enrollmenL for each grade level for Lhe 2012-2013 school year. 7 1he number of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs represenLed abouL 88 of Lhe pro[ecLed enrollmenL for LCL, 80 of Lhe pro[ecLed enrollmenL for klndergarLen, 72 of Lhe pro[ecLed enrollmenL for 6 Lh grade, and 60 of Lhe pro[ecLed enrollmenL for 9 Lh grade. As a polnL of comparlson, Lhe lnsLlLuLe for lnnovaLlon ln ubllc School Cholce reporLed round one parLlclpaLlon raLes for Lhe 2009-10 school year LhaL were subsLanLlally lower. 1hey found LhaL [usL 13 of sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen, 6 of sLudenLs enLerlng 6 Lh grade and 10 of sLudenLs enLerlng 9 Lh grade parLlclpaLed ln Lhe round one cholce process. 8
1he demographlc characLerlsLlcs of Lhese sLudenLs are presenLed ln llgure 2. AbouL Lwo-Lhlrds of sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce quallfled for free or reduced lunch 9 compared wlLh nearly Lhree-quarLers of Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. 1he raclal and eLhnlc composLlon of Lhe group of sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln school cholce was falrly slmllar Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL as whole.
7 LnrollmenL pro[ecLlons were obLalned from Lhe uenver ubllc School's Cfflce of lannlng and Analysls (hLLp://plannlng.dpsk12.org/wp- conLenL/uploads/2011/02/2012-13-llnal-ro[ecLlons.xlsx). 8 lnsLlLuLe for lnnovaLlon ln ubllc School Cholce (2010). 9 Cnly sLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln a uS school were lncluded ln all analyses lncludlng Lhe lree/8educed Lunch varlable. 1hls ls because lL was noL posslble Lo geL rellable lree/8educed Lunch lnformaLlon for sLudenLs who were noL currenLly enrolled. MosL sLudenLs are ldenLlfled for lree/8educed Lunch afLer enrollmenL. 8eaders should noLe, however, LhaL ellmlnaLlng Lhose who are new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL from Lhese analyses also ellmlnaLes a subsLanLlal porLlon of parLlclpanLs who were enLerlng LCL (84). roporLlons ellmlnaLed from lree/8educed Lunch analyses because Lhey were new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL were as follows for Lhe oLher grades: klndergarLen, 44, 1 sL , 23, 2 nd , 16, 3 rd , 18, 4 Lh , 13, 3 Lh , 13, 6 Lh , 7, 7 Lh , 28, 8 Lh , 23, 9 Lh , 12, 10 Lh , 31, 11 Lh , 27, 12 Lh , 20). 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 lree/8educed Lunch Plspanlc WhlLe 8lack CLher Muluple 8aces >)6/1+&GJ&5+:461%B()@&0(%1%@*+1)$M@$&4L&9@(44"0(4)@+&A%1M@)B%2*$&%2,&*(+& 5)$*1)@*&%$&%&'(4"+& SchoolCholce aruclpanLs ulsLrlcL as a Whole 11
nlneLy percenL of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs llved wlLhln Lhe clLy of uenver. llgure 3 dlsplays Lhe reglon of Lhe clLy ln whlch Lhey llved along slde Lhe reglonal dlsLrlbuLlon for Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. AbouL a quarLer of parLlclpaLlng sLudenLs llved ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy. AbouL a flfLh of parLlclpaLlng sLudenLs llved ln Lhe lar norLheasL, SouLheasL, and SouLhwesL 8eglons. 1he smallesL proporLlon of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs who were uenver resldenLs llved ln Lhe norLhwesL reglon of Lhe clLy. 10 1hese proporLlons were slmllar Lo Lhe reglonal dlsLrlbuLlon for Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole.
llgure 4 presenLs Lhe proporLlon of sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng by Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhelr currenL school. Cver a Lhlrd of sLudenLs were noL currenLly enrolled ln a uS school. AbouL half of Lhese sLudenLs who were noL currenLly enrolled ln a uS school were enLerlng LCL and abouL a Lhlrd of Lhem were enLerlng klndergarLen. AbouL a quarLer of parLlclpaLlng sLudenLs were enrolled ln schools LhaL had earned Lhe raLlng MeeLs LxpecLaLlons or Cn WaLch. Much smaller percenLages of sLudenLs were enrolled ln schools LhaL had earned a raLlng of ulsLlngulshed, Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon.
10 1he reglon of Lhe clLy ln whlch sLudenLs reslded was deLermlned uslng home zlp code. lar norLheasL lncluded 80239 and 80249. near norLheasL lncluded 80216, 80203, 80203, 80218, 80206, 80220, 80207, and 80238. norLhwesL lncluded 80211, 80212, 80204, and 80221. SouLheasL lncluded 80209, 80210,80246, 80222, 80224, 80230,80247, 80231, and 80237. SouLhwesL lncluded 80219 and 80223. lar norLheasL near norLheasL norLhwesL SouLheasL SouLhwesL 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 >)6/1+&PJ&?+6)42&4L&?+$),+2@+&L41&9@(44"0(4)@+& A%1M@)B%2*$&%2,&*(+&5)$*1)@*&%$&%&'(4"+ % & School Cholce aruclpanLs ulsLrlcL a Cne LenLh of SchoolCholce paruclpanLs llved ouLslde of uenver and are noL lncuded ln Lhls gure.
3 32 17 3 4 4 33 >)6/1+&HJ&'(%*&)$&*(+&9A>&?%M26&4L&*(+&9@(44"$&*(%*& A%1M@)B%2*$&0/11+2*"#&!Q+2,R& ulsungulshed MeeLs LxpecLauons Cn WaLch Cn rlorlLy WaLch Cn robauon noL 8aLed noL CurrenLly Lnrolled ln a uS School 12
llgure 3 focuses only on sLudenLs who were enrolled ln schools LhaL had been raLed wlLh Lhe Sl and compares Lhe dlsLrlbuLlon of sLudenLs among Lhe flve caLegorles (ulsLlngulshed Lhrough Cn robaLlon) Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. 1he proporLlon of sLudenLs from schools raLed as ulsLlngulshed, Cn rlorlLy WaLch, and Cn robaLlon was slmllar Lo LhaL ln Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. 1he proporLlon of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs LhaL were currenLly aLLendlng schools raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons was sllghLly hlgher Lhan Lhe proporLlon ln Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. Conversely, Lhe proporLlon of sLudenLs from schools raLed as Cn WaLch was lower Lhan ln Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole. ;"<'5%1%'.%0$&'=,&$1,>+$%4'?*1"&&'$6%'=,&$1,*$:'
1able 1 presenLs Lhe number of seaLs offered by grade and reglon for Lhe LranslLlon grades alongslde Lhe number of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs. 11 lor LCL, ln Lhe lar norLheasL, norLhwesL, and SouLhwesL, Lhe number of avallable seaLs was greaLer Lhan Lhe number of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs, suggesLlng Lhere was adequaLe capaclLy ln Lhe reglon Lo accommodaLe all of Lhe sLudenLs. 12 ln Lhe SouLheasL, Lhe number of parLlclpanLs requesLlng a seaL ln LCL sllghLly exceeded Lhe number of avallable seaLs (l.e., Lhere were 1.1 sLudenLs for every avallable seaL ln Lhe reglon). Powever, ln Lhe near norLheasL, Lhe number of parLlclpanLs requesLlng an LCL seaL was nearly Lwlce Lhe slze of Lhe number of seaLs avallable (l.e., Lhere were 1.9 sLudenLs for every avallable seaL ln Lhe reglon).
11 uenver ubllc Schools provlded prlnclpals wlLh hlsLorlcal daLa (where avallable) on Lhe number of sLudenLs enrolled, Lhe number of sLudenLs enrolled from Lhe school's boundary, maLrlculaLlon raLe, number of reLalned sLudenLs, number of new sLudenLs who moved lnLo Lhe boundary, and Lhe number of sLudenLs who accepLed a seaL aL Lhelr school buL dld noL aLLend. 1hls lnformaLlon was lnLended Lo provlde prlnclpals wlLh hlsLorlcal conLexL Lo help Lhem esLlmaLe Lhe number of seaLs Lhelr schools would have open ln each grade and each program. rlnclpals were encouraged Lo use Lhls lnformaLlon along wlLh any addlLlonal knowledge or lnformaLlon Lhey had Lo make Lhelr esLlmaLes. 1he flnal esLlmaLes were lefL up Lo Lhe prlnclpals' dlscreLlon. Cnce Lhese esLlmaLes were made, Lhey were forwarded Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL for use ln Lhe maLchlng procedure. We refer Lo Lhls process ln Lhls reporL as offerlng seaLs. 1he appendlx lncludes a Lable wlLh Lhe same lnformaLlon presenLed ln 1able 1 for non-LranslLlon grades. 12 School reglon was deflned uslng Lhe reglons for each school LhaL were lndlcaLed ln Lhe LnrollmenL Culdes (hLLp://schoolcholce.dpsk12.org/wp-conLenL/uploads/2011/12/SchoolCholce-LnrollmenL-Culde-LlemenLary-2012-13.pdf and hLLp://schoolcholce.dpsk12.org/wp-conLenL/uploads/2011/09/SchoolCholce-LnrollmenL-Culde-Secondary-2012-13.pdf). 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 ulsungulshed MeeLs LxpecLauons Cn WaLch Cn rlorlLy WaLch Cn robauon >)6/1+&IJ&9A>&?%M26&4L&9@(44"$&!Q+2,+,&K#&9@(44"0(4)@+& A%1M@)B%2*$&%2,&*(+&5)$*1)@*&%$&%&'(4"+ % & SchoolCholce aruclpanLs ulsLrlcL as a Whole a 1hls charL only lncludes SchoolCholce paruclpanLs who were currenLly enrolled ln a school LhaL had been raLed uslng Lhe Sl
13
lor klndergarLen, Lhe number of seaLs offered exceeded Lhe number of parLlclpanLs for every reglon buL Lhe near norLheasL. ln Lhe near norLheasL, Lhere were 1.23 parLlclpaLlng sLudenLs requesLlng a klndergarLen seaL for every klndergarLen seaL LhaL was avallable. unllke wlLh LCL, klndergarLen ls guaranLeed for all sLudenLs. As such, lL ls lmporLanL Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL 1able 1 does noL reflecL oll of Lhe seaLs avallable. lnsLead, lL lncludes Lhe number of seaLs avallable Lo sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce. All sLudenLs ln Lhe near norLheasL are guaranLeed a seaL ln klndergarLen ln Lhelr boundary school. Powever, ln Lhls reglon, Lhe number of Lhem chooslng Lo parLlclpaLe ln SchoolCholce ls 1.23 Llmes greaLer Lhan Lhe number of seaLs LhaL prlnclpals offered Lo klndergarLeners parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce. 1hls dlsparlLy llkely has more Lo do wlLh Lhe esLlmaLe of Lhe number of klndergarLeners who would cholce ouL of Lhelr boundary school belng ouL of llne wlLh Lhe number of sLudenLs who acLually dld Lhan lL does wlLh Lrue capaclLy lssues ln Lhls reglon. ln Lhe 6 Lh and 9 Lh grades, Lhe number of avallable seaLs exceeded Lhe number of sLudenLs requesLlng seaLs ln all reglons.
lL ls lmporLanL Lo noL only conslder Lhe sheer number of seaLs offered buL also Lhe quallLy of Lhe schools ln whlch Lhey are offered. llgures 6-8 dlsplay Lhe number of seaLs offered by reglon and Sl raLlng of Lhe school for Lhe elemenLary, mlddle school and hlgh school grades. Across Lhe dlsLrlcL, over half of Lhe seaLs offered for Lhe elemenLary grades were ln hlgher-raLed schools (l.e., schools LhaL had earned a raLlng of ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons, see llgure 6). AbouL a LenLh of elemenLary grade seaLs were ln Lhe lowesL-raLed schools, Lhose Cn rlorlLy WaLch and Cn robaLlon. SllghLly over a LenLh of seaLs were ln newer schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. 1he SouLheasL reglon had Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of elemenLary grade seaLs offered ln hlgher raLed schools. Cver a flfLh of Lhe elemenLary grade seaLs offered ln Lhls reglon were ln ulsLlngulshed schools and over Lwo-Lhlrds of all elemenLary grade seaLs offered were ln schools LhaL were elLher raLed as ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. none of Lhe elemenLary seaLs ln Lhls reglon were ln schools raLed as Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon. ln conLrasL, only abouL half of Lhe seaLs ln oLher reglons were ln schools LhaL had earned a raLlng of MeeLs LxpecLaLlons or ulsLlngulshed. 1he lar norLheasL and SouLhwesL reglons had no elemenLary grade seaLs offered ln schools LhaL had earned Lhe ulsLlngulshed raLlng. 1he norLhwesL reglon had Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of seaLs offered LhaL were ln schools raLed as Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon. A flfLh of Lhe elemenLary grade seaLs offered ln Lhls reglon were ln Lhese lower-raLed schools.
lor Lhe mlddle grades, abouL 40 of offered seaLs were ln hlgher-raLed schools (l.e., Lhose LhaL had earned Lhe ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons raLlngs, see llgure 7). A small percenLage of seaLs were offered ln Lhe lowesL-raLed schools, [usL 6 of seaLs were ln schools LhaL were Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon. Cver a flfLh of offered seaLs were ln newer schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. 1he SouLheasL reglon once agaln had Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of seaLs offered ln schools earnlng a raLlng of ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. AbouL Lwo-Lhlrds of avallable seaLs ln Lhls reglon were ln hlgher raLed schools, Lhough Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of Lhem were ln schools earnlng a raLlng of MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. 1he norLhwesL reglon had Lhe hlghesL 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100 lnL nnL nW SL SW 1oLal >)6/1+&SJ&9+%*$&TU+1+,&K#&?+6)42&%2,&9@(44"&9A>&?%M26N& 7"+:+2*%1#&O1%,+$&V707-IW& noL 8aLed Cn robauon Cn rlorlLy WaLch Cn WaLch MeeLs LxpecLauons ulsungulshed 13
proporLlon of mlddle school seaLs offered ln ulsLlngulshed schools, nearly one- quarLer. 1he near norLheasL reglon had no seaLs offered for Lhe mlddle school grades ln ulsLlngulshed schools. 1he SouLhwesL reglon had Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of seaLs offered ln lower raLed schools. nearly a flfLh of Lhe seaLs ln Lhls reglon were ln schools raLed as Cn rlorlLy WaLch. 1he lar norLheasL and norLhwesL reglons boLh had a hlgh proporLlon of seaLs ln schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. nearly half of Lhe seaLs ln Lhe lar norLheasL and over a Lhlrd of seaLs ln Lhe norLhwesL were ln Lhese newer schools. ln conLrasL, Lhe SouLheasL reglon had no seaLs offered ln schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed.
Across Lhe dlsLrlcL for hlgh school seaLs, abouL half of Lhe offered seaLs were ln schools LhaL were Cn WaLch (see llgure 8). A raLher small percenLage of offered seaLs were ln hlgher-raLed schools. SllghLly over a quarLer of seaLs were ln schools LhaL had earned Lhe ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons raLlngs. !usL 3 of seaLs were ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon. AlmosL a flfLh of seaLs were ln schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. 1he near norLheasL and SouLheasL reglons had Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of seaLs ln hlgher raLed schools. nearly half of Lhe hlgh school seaLs offered ln each of Lhese areas were ln schools LhaL were raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. 1he lar norLheasL was Lhe only reglon of 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100 lnL nnL nW SL SW 1oLal >)6/1+&XJ&9+%*$&TU+1+,&K#&?+6)42&%2,&9@(44"&9A>&?%M26N&Y)6(& 9@(44"&VZ-FGW& noL 8aLed Cn robauon Cn rlorlLy WaLch Cn WaLch MeeLs LxpecLauons ulsungulshed 0 10 20 30 40 30 60 70 80 90 100 lnL nnL nW SL SW 1oLal >)6/1+&[J&9+%*$&TU+1+,&K#&?+6)42&%2,&9@(44"&9A>&?%M26N& \),,"+&O1%,+$&VS-XW& noL 8aLed Cn robauon Cn rlorlLy WaLch Cn WaLch MeeLs LxpecLauons ulsungulshed 16
Lhe clLy LhaL had any seaLs offered ln ulsLlngulshed schools, 16 of avallable seaLs. 1he proporLlon represenLed over half of Lhe seaLs ln schools LhaL had been raLed, as over 70 of seaLs ln Lhe lar norLheasL were ln newer, unraLed schools. 1he norLhwesL and SouLhwesL reglons had Lhe lowesL proporLlon of seaLs ln hlgher raLed schools. nearly all seaLs LhaL were offered ln Lhe SouLhwesL reglon were ln schools LhaL were Cn WaLch. !usL 3 of seaLs were ln schools LhaL were raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. ln Lhe norLhwesL, [usL 16 of seaLs were ln schools raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. 1hls reglon also had Lhe hlghesL number of seaLs ln lower raLed schools, wlLh abouL a flfLh of all avallable seaLs ln schools LhaL were Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon. 1he near norLheasL had a slmllarly hlgh proporLlon of seaLs ln lower raLed schools, wlLh 17 of offered seaLs ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon. 560$'<%1%'.$+4%#$&J'!6",*%&:' Nombet of 5toJeot cbolces
SLudenLs could selecL up Lo 3 cholces. Cn average, sLudenLs selecLed 2.8 cholces (sd=1.6). lL ls lmporLanL Lo noLe LhaL Lhls ls Lhe average number of cholces among Lhose sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe cholce process (l.e., among sLudenLs who made greaLer Lhan zero cholces). 1he number of cholces dld vary by sLudenL characLerlsLlcs, however. ln parLlcular, sLudenLs ln LranslLlon grades (deplcLed ln red) made, on average, nearly one more cholce Lhan dld sLudenLs ln oLher grades (deplcLed ln blue, see llgure 9). 13
1able 2 presenLs Lhe number of sLudenL cholces by oLher sLudenL characLerlsLlcs. SLudenLs who quallfled for free or reduced lunch made sllghLly more cholces, on average, Lhan sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy. Whlle Lhls dlfference ls sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL, lL ls qulLe small ln magnlLude and unllkely Lo be of pracLlcal slgnlflcance. 8lack sLudenLs made slgnlflcanLly more cholces Lhan sLudenLs from oLher raclal/eLhnlc groups. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy made more cholces, on average, Lhan sLudenLs from all oLher reglons of Lhe clLy. 1hls ls noL unexpecLed, as many sLudenLs ln Lhls reglon do noL have a slngle defaulL nelghborhood school. llnally, Lhe number of cholces made varled by Lhe School erformance
lramework (Sl) raLlng of Lhe sLudenL's currenL school. SLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were raLed as Cn robaLlon made Lhe mosL cholces, on average. 1hey Lended Lo one more cholce, an average, Lhan sLudenLs ln schools earnlng a ulsLlngulshed raLlng. SLudenLs ln ulsLlngulshed schools made Lhe fewesL cholces. 1hey made slgnlflcanLly fewer cholces Lhan sLudenLs ln all oLher groups excepL sLudenLs currenLly enrolled ln schools Cn rlorlLy WaLch. ' @0>8%'KB'L+/>%1'"D'!6",*%&'M04%'>2'.$+4%#$'!6010*$%1,&$,*&N !' 0(%1%@*+1)$*)@& 3& \+%2&V95W& 9)62)L)@%2@+& >1++^?+,/@+,&;/2@(& l(1,14741)=61.34 *
uo noL Cuallfy a 4782 2.62 (1.36)
Cuallfy b 9961 2.84 (1.63) ?%@+^7*(2)@)*#& l(3,22730)=79.88 * 8lack, noL Plspanlc a 2833 3.23 (1.62) Plspanlc b 11810 2.74 (1.62) WhlLe, noL Plspanlc b 6406 2.72 (1.37) CLher b 1683 2.89 (1.61) ?+6)42& l(4,20313)=143.13 * lar norLheasL a 4434 3.33 (1.32) near norLheasL b 3224 2.76 (1.38) norLhwesL b 2933 2.72 (1.60) SouLheasL b 3970 2.78 (1.64) SouLhwesL b 3827 2.62 (1.64) 9@(44"&A+1L41:%2@+&?%*)26&4L&0/11+2*&9@(44" & l(6,22727)=42.23 * ulsLlngulshed a 1002 2.42 (1.36) MeeLs LxpecLaLlons b 7141 2.70 (1.60) AccredlLed on WaLch b,c 3936 2.82 (1.62) AccredlLed on rlorlLy WaLch a,b,c 736 2.72 (1.38) AccredlLed on robaLlon d 1000 3.43 (1.33) noL 8aLed b,c 923 2.82 (1.63) noL CurrenLly Lnrolled ln a uS School c 7994 2.86 (1.63) ! Subgroups wlLh dlfferenL superscrlpLs are slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL from one anoLher aL p<.0001. * p<.0001
8ecause Lhe characLerlsLlcs presenLed ln 1able 2 are all assoclaLed, mulLlvarlaLe analyses were run Lo deLermlne lf each varlable made an lndependenL conLrlbuLlon Lo predlcLlng Lhe number of cholces sLudenLs made. 1wo regresslons were run. 1he flrsL, uslng Lhe whole sample, lncluded dummy varlables for Plspanlc, lar norLheasL reglon, ulsLlngulshed school and school Cn robaLlon. 1he overall model was slgnlflcanL, 14 buL lL only explalned a 4 of Lhe LoLal varlance ln number of cholces. 1he parameLer esLlmaLes for all predlcLors were slgnlflcanL, lndlcaLlng LhaL each varlable made a slgnlflcanL lndependenL conLrlbuLlon, Lhough small ln magnlLude. A second regresslon was conducLed omlLLlng sLudenLs who were new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL and lncludlng free and reduced lunch sLaLus as an addlLlonal predlcLor. 1hls model was also
14 l (4,22733)=213.48, p<.0001 18
slgnlflcanL and explalned [usL 4 of Lhe LoLal varlance ln number of cholces. 13 Cnce agaln, all of Lhe parameLer esLlmaLes for Lhe lndlvldual predlcLors were slgnlflcanL, lndlcaLlng LhaL all of Lhe varlables made an lndependenL, Lhough small, conLrlbuLlon Lo explalnlng Lhe number of cholces sLudenLs made. 5cbools 5toJeots cbose
lL ls useful Lo undersLand whlch schools sLudenLs were mosL and leasL llkely Lo requesL. 1here were mulLlple opLlons for how Lo express Lhls lnformaLlon, each wlLh lLs own sLrengLhs and weaknesses. Lxpresslng demand for schools as a raLlo of Lhe number of requesLs Lo Lhe number of seaLs offered was selecLed Lo provlde a more even playlng fleld for smaller and larger schools. AnoLher lssue faced was wheLher Lo focus solely on Lhe LranslLlon grades because Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs were ln Lhese grades, or Lo focus on all grades. lor compleLeness, we presenL Lhe hlghesL and lowesL demand schools uslng calculaLlons based on all grades below. 16 1he resulLs for LranslLlon grades appear ln Lhe Appendlx. When examlnlng Lhese daLa, lL ls lmporLanL Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL unlque feaLures of parLlcular schools can affecL Lhe resulLs uslng Lhese dlfferenL meLhods of calculaLlng demand. lor example, a number of schools offer Lhelr LCL and/or klndergarLen ln one of Lwo LC cenLers (SLephen knlghL or LscalanLe-8lggs). As a resulL Lhe demand" for Lhose grades ls lncluded wlLh Lhe LC cenLer and noL Lhe school lLself. Some schools, parLlcularly new schools, were maklng an efforL Lo expand ln cerLaln non-LranslLlon grades. 1hese schools may have offered a large number of seaLs ln non-LranslLlon grades, whlch had relaLlvely few SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs. We have noLed Lhese nuances wherever posslble ln Lhls reporL. 8efore drawlng concluslons abouL oLher schools from daLa ln Lhe Appendlx, readers should conslder Lhe unlque conLexL of Lhe school and how lL may have affecLed lLs demand.
lor Lhe 103 schools offerlng seaLs for Lhe elemenLary grades (LCL-3), 90 of Lhem (86) recelved aL leasL one requesL per avallable seaL. 1able 3 presenLs Lhe Len schools wlLh Lhe mosL requesLs per avallable seaL for grades LCL-3. 1hese schools recelved beLween 3 and 18 requesLs for every avallable seaL. Palf of Lhem were locaLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL and half were locaLed ln Lhe SouLheasL. 1hree of Lhe schools ln Lhe Lop Len had earned a ulsLlngulshed raLlng and Lwo had earned Lhe MeeLs LxpecLaLlons raLlng. 1he Len schools earnlng Lhe mosL flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL lncludes seven of Lhe same schools (1able 4). 1hese schools recelved beLween 2 and 8 flrsL cholce requesLs for every avallable seaL. Agaln, Lhese schools were concenLraLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL and SouLheasL reglons of Lhe clLy. lour of Lhese schools had earned a raLlng of ulsLlngulshed, 2 had earned Lhe raLlng of MeeLs LxpecLaLlons, and Lhe remalnlng schools had noL yeL been raLed.
13 l(3,14739)=138.43, p<.0001 16 1he appendlx lncludes Lhe number of LoLal requesLs and flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL for all schools. 19
1able 3 presenLs Lhe Len schools wlLh Lhe fewesL requesLs for grades LCL-3. 1hese schools had beLween 1.23 and 3 avallable seaLs for every requesL Lhey recelved. 1hese schools were dlsLrlbuLed falrly evenly across Lhe clLy. Cf Lhe slx schools LhaL had been raLed wlLh Lhe Sl, mosL had earned a raLlng of Cn WaLch. Cne school was raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons and one 20
was Cn robaLlon. 1wo schools on Lhls llsL are schools LhaL wlll open Lhelr doors for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012, whlch may explaln why Lhey were less popular cholces. 1wo of Lhese schools, kl MonLbello and kl Sunshlne eak, only offered seaLs for flfLh grade, a grade wlLh relaLlvely few sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce, whlch llkely affecLed Lhelr relaLlvely low demand. 1he daLa ln 1able 3 for CreaLlvlLy Challenge CommunlLy (C3) only reflecLs grades 1-2 because Lhls schools' klndergarLen ls locaLed aL SLephen knlghL CenLer for Larly LducaLlon. uaLa for klndergarLen seaLs and requesLs were lncluded wlLh SLephen knlghL CenLer lnsLead of wlLh C3. Whlle Lhe requesLs for grades 1-2 were relaLlvely low, lL ls lmporLanL Lo noLe LhaL C3 offered 23 klndergarLen seaLs aL SLephen knlghL CenLer and recelved 133 LoLal requesLs and 33 flrsL cholce requesLs for Lhose seaLs, lndlcaLlng LhaL Lhls school ls ln relaLlvely hlgh demand for klndergarLen.
Whlle overall demand for Lhe schools ln 1able 3 was low, ln some cases, demand varled greaLly by grade. ln parLlcular, WyaLL-Ldlson recelved 1.06 requesLs for every klndergarLen seaL, kalser recelved 1.2 requesLs per LCL seaL and 1.1 requesLs per klndergarLen seaL, Creenlee recelved 1.7 requesLs for every LCL seaL, and 8ocky MounLaln rep recelved 2.3 requesLs for every LCL seaL. 1hese schools were subsLanLlally harder for younger sLudenLs Lo geL maLched wlLh Lhan for sLudenLs ln grades 1-3.
@0>8%'RB'.*6""8&'<,$6'$6%'T%<%&$'G%P+%&$&'7%1'?-0,80>8%'.%0$'D"1'E104%&'(!(QR' ?%2=& 9@(44"& _& ?+`/+$*$& _&9+%*$& TLL+1+,& ?+`/+$*$& B+1& !]%)"%K"+& 9+%*& O1%,+$& 9+1]+,& ?+6)42& 9A>--a& 4L& A4)2*$& 7%12+,& 9A>&0%*+641#& 1 >%)1:42*& 79 236 0.33 LCL-8 nW 40 Cn WaLch 2 DcAA&\42*K+""4&04""+6+& A1+B& 43 110 0.39 3-6 lnL noL 8aLed 3 <1+])$*%& 110 242 0.43 LCL-8 nW 33 Cn robaLlon 4 '#%**-7,)$42&0(%1*+1& 103 203 0.30 k-8 nnL 30 Cn WaLch 3 D%)$+1& 143 234 0.62 LCL-3 SW 41 Cn WaLch 6 9b%2$+%& 131 232 0.63 LCL-3 nnL 44 Cn WaLch 7 DcAA&9/2$()2+&A+%=& !@%,+:#& 79 110 0.72 3-6 SW 69 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons 8 01+%*)])*#&0(%""+26+& 04::/2)*#&V0PW& 72 100 0.72 1-2 SL new School 9 O1++2"++& 130 166 0.78 LCL-3 nW 41 Cn WaLch 10 ?4@=#&\4/2*%)2&A1+B& 128 161 0.80 LCL-1 SL new School ! 1hls school offers klndergarLen aL Lhe SLephen knlghL CenLer. klndergarLen seaLs and requesLs for Lhose seaLs are lncluded ln SLephen knlghL CenLer. " 1hls school has been open and offerlng grades 3-8, buL ls a new school for grades k-4. 21
1he Len schools earnlng Lhe fewesL flrsL cholce requesLs lncludes slx of Lhe same schools (1able 6). 1hese schools had beLween 3 and 9 avallable seaLs for every flrsL cholce requesL Lhey recelved. 1he dlsLrlbuLlon of schools across Lhe reglons was less even Lhan was observed for LoLal number of requesLs. lnsLead, Lhese schools were more heavlly concenLraLed ln Lhe near norLheasL and norLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy. Palf of Lhe schools were raLed as Cn WaLch. 1he llsL lncluded one school LhaL wlll open for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012.
Cf Lhe 39 schools offerlng seaLs for Lhe mlddle school grades, 43 (76) recelved aL leasL one requesL per avallable seaL. 1able 7 dlsplays Lhe Len schools wlLh Lhe mosL requesLs for grades 6-8. 1hese schools recelved beLween abouL 3 and 37 requesLs for every avallable seaL. 1he ma[orlLy of Lhese schools, seven ouL of 10, were ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy. none were ln Lhe near norLheasL. Palf of Lhe schools had earned a raLlng of MeeLs LxpecLaLlons, Lwo were raLed as ulsLlngulshed. 1able 8 dlsplays Lhe schools wlLh Lhe mosL flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL. Seven of Lhe same schools appeared on Lhls llsL. 1hese schools recelved beLween 1.4 and abouL 7 flrsL cholce requesLs for every avallable seaL. Palf of Lhese schools were locaLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL. All of Lhem had been raLed wlLh Lhe Sl, wlLh four earnlng Lhe ulsLlngulshed raLlng and flve earnlng Lhe MeeLs LxpecLaLlons raLlng. ' 22
1able 9 presenLs Lhe schools wlLh Lhe fewesL requesLs for grades 6-8. 1hese schools had beLween 1.3 and 3 seaLs for every requesL Lhey recelved. 1wo were schools LhaL wlll open Lhelr doors for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012 and one of Lhese new schools, Slms layola, was noL lncluded ln Lhe LnrollmenL Culde, whlch may have lmpacLed Lhe number of requesLs lL recelved. Whlle all of Lhese schools were ln relaLlvely low demand across Lhe grades, flve of Lhem had subsLanLlally more requesLs per seaL for 6 Lh grade. ln parLlcular, per avallable 6 Lh grade seaL, WyaLL-Ldlson CharLer had 2.12 requesLs, lalrmonL had 1.1 requesLs, WhlLLler had 1.83 requesLs, uora Moore had 1.23 requesLs, and WesL CeneraLlon Academy had 1.27 requesLs. 1hese schools were subsLanLlally harder for 6 Lh grade sLudenLs Lo geL maLched wlLh Lhan for 7 Lh
and 8 Lh grade sLudenLs. 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe schools were ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon. 1hree were locaLed ln Lhe norLhwesL reglon. Palf of Lhe schools had earned Lhe raLlng of Cn WaLch. Cne school was on robaLlon.
1able 10 dlsplays Lhe schools wlLh Lhe fewesL flrsL cholce requesLs for grades 6-8. Seven of Lhe same schools appeared on Lhls llsL. 1hese schools had beLween abouL 3 and 30 seaLs for every flrsL cholce requesL Lhey recelved. Cnce agaln, Lhe ma[orlLy of Lhe schools were locaLed ln Lhe near norLheasL. 1he ma[orlLy had recelved a raLlng of Cn WaLch. 1hls llsL also lncluded Lwo schools LhaL wlll open for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012. ' ' @0>8%'XB'.*6""8&'<,$6'$6%'T%<%&$'G%P+%&$&'7%1'?-0,80>8%'.%0$'D"1'E104%&'UQW' ?%2=& 9@(44"& _& ?+`/+$*$& _&9+%*$& TLL+1+,& ?+`/+$*$& B+1& !]%)"%K"+& 9+%*& O1%,+$& 9+1]+,& ?+6)42& 9A>--a& 4L& A4)2*$& 7%12+,& 9A>&0%*+641#& 1 <1+])$*%& 28 81 0.33 LCL-8 nW 33 Cn robaLlon 2 9:)"+#& 178 462 0.39 6-8 nnL 30 Cn WaLch 3 '#%**-7,)$42&0(%1*+1& 43 93 0.43 k-8 nnL 30 Cn WaLch 4 A)42++1& 21 44 0.48 LCL-8 nnL 44 Cn WaLch 3 >%)1:42*& 14 22 0.64 LCL-8 nW 40 Cn WaLch 6 '()**)+1& 29 43 0.67 LCL-8 nnL 31 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons 7 04"/:K)2+& 9 13 0.69 LCL-6 nnL 42 Cn WaLch 8 9):$&>%#4"%& 86 120 0.72 6, 9 lnL new School 9 541%&\441+& 82 113 0.73 LCL-8 nnL 60 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons 10 '+$*&O+2+1%*)42&!@%,+:#& 232 300 0.77 6, 8, 9 nW new School ' 24
Cf Lhe 31 schools offerlng hlgh school seaLs, 23 (74) had aL leasL one requesL for every seaL offered. 1he Len hlgh schools recelvlng Lhe mosL requesLs per avallable seaL are presenLed ln 1able 11. 1hese schools recelved beLween 2 and 27 requesLs for every avallable seaL. Palf of Lhe schools were locaLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL. 1wo had earned a raLlng of ulsLlngulshed and four were raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. LlghL of Lhese Len schools were among Lhe schools recelvlng Lhe mosL flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL (see 1able 12). 1hese schools recelved beLween .74 Lo 8 flrsL cholce requesLs for every avallable seaL. 1hey were concenLraLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL and near norLheasL reglons of Lhe clLy. 1he schools LhaL had been raLed uslng Lhe Sl were falrly evenly dlsLrlbuLed among Lhe raLlngs of ulsLlngulshed, MeeLs LxpecLaLlons and Cn WaLch. 1he llsL lncluded one school LhaL wlll open for Lhe flrsL Llme ln lall 2012. ' 23
10 DcAA&5+2]+1&04""+6)%*+& 74 100 0.74 9-12 SW 40 Cn WaLch ' 1able 13 dlsplays Lhe Len schools wlLh Lhe fewesL requesLs for grades 9-12. 1hese schools had beLween abouL 1 and 13 seaLs for every requesL Lhey recelved. 1he llsL lncludes Lhree schools LhaL are scheduled Lo open for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012, lncludlng one school, Slms layola, LhaL was noL lncluded ln Lhe LnrollmenL Culde. WesL only offered seaLs for grades 10-12, grades wlLh relaLlvely few sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce, whlch llkely affecLed lLs relaLlvely low demand. Whlle all of Lhese schools were ln relaLlvely low demand across Lhe grades, Lwo of Lhem had subsLanLlally more requesLs per seaL for 9 Lh grade. ln parLlcular, per avallable 9 Lh
grade seaL, venLure rep Plgh School had 2.6 requesLs and 1homas !efferson had 1.8 requesLs. 1hese schools were subsLanLlally harder for 9 Lh grade sLudenLs Lo geL maLched wlLh Lhan for 10 Lh -12 Lh grade sLudenLs. 1hese schools were falrly evenly dlsLrlbuLed across Lhe clLy. lour of Lhe seven schools LhaL had been raLed wlLh Lhe Sl had earned Lhe raLlng of Cn WaLch. 1wo were Cn robaLlon.
Slx of Lhese schools were also among Lhose recelvlng Lhe fewesL flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL (see 1able 14). 1hese schools had beLween 4 and 70 seaLs for ever flrsL cholce requesL Lhey recelved. lour were ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon, Lhree were ln Lhe norLhwesL reglon, and Lwo were ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon. 1he llsL lncludes Lwo schools LhaL wlll open for Lhe flrsL Llme ln fall 2012 and Lwo LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. 1he remalnlng schools all earned raLlngs of Cn WaLch, Cn rlorlLy WaLch or Cn robaLlon.
Some schools serve sLudenLs across Lhe elemenLary, mlddle and hlgh school years. LxamlnaLlon of 1ables 3-14 reveals LhaL ln some cases, demand was slmllar for Lhese schools across Lhe grade levels and ln some cases lL was noL. lor example, Cdyssey School and Slaves serve boLh Lhe elemenLary and mlddle grades. 1hls school was among Lhe mosL requesLed per avallable seaL for boLh Lhe elemenLary and mlddle grades. Slmllarly, uenver School of Lhe ArLs serves boLh mlddle and hlgh school grades. lL was among Lhe mosL requesLed schools for boLh of Lhese grade levels. 1revlsLa, Columblne, lalrmonL, and WyaLL-Ldlson were among Lhe leasL requesLed schools per avallable seaL for boLh Lhe elemenLary and mlddle grades, Lhough Lwo of Lhese schools, lalrmonL and WyaLL-Ldlson, had somewhaL hlgher demand for Lhe LranslLlon grades Lhan Lhey dld for oLher grades. Lscuela 1laLelolco serves sLudenLs from k-12. 1hey recelved relaLlvely few requesLs for Lhelr 33 elemenLary seaLs, a relaLlvely hlgh number of requesLs for Lhelr 7 mlddle school seaLs, and relaLlvely few requesLs for Lhelr 24 hlgh school seaLs. 1hls lndlcaLes LhaL demand for Lhls school varles by grade level. Many fewer seaLs were offered for grades 6-8, whlch played a role ln maklng Lhls school more compeLlLlve Lo geL lnLo for Lhe mlddle school grades. 1he paLLerns of requesLs were more compllcaLed for a few schools. ln parLlcular, kl MonLbello College rep and kl Sunshlne eak Academy boLh offered seaLs sLarLlng ln flfLh grade. nelLher of Lhese schools experlenced a hlgh number of requesLs per avallable seaLs ln flfLh grade. Powever, ln slxLh grade, Lhe more common LranslLlon grade ln uenver schools, 28
Lhese Lwo schools experlenced much hlgher demand. 1hey were among Lhe mosL requesLed schools per avallable mlddle school seaL. Ate 5toJeots cbotoctetlstlcs AssocloteJ wltb tbe 5ll kotloq of tbe 5cbools tbey cboose?
1he analyses [usL descrlbed shed llghL on whlch sLudenLs make Lhe mosL cholces and whlch schools are mosL ln demand. Powever, lL ls also of lnLeresL Lo examlne Lhe Lypes of cholces dlfferenL sLudenLs make. 1o address Lhls, sLudenL characLerlsLlcs were examlned ln relaLlon Lo Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhelr flrsL cholce school. 1wo seLs of analyses were conducLed. llrsL, for schools LhaL had been raLed wlLh Lhe Sl, sLudenL characLerlsLlcs were examlned ln relaLlon Lo Lhe LoLal percenLage of Sl polnLs earned by Lhelr flrsL cholce schools. 1hls seL of analyses sheds llghL on wheLher dlfferenL Lypes of sLudenLs are more llkely Lo selecL hlgher raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces. Second, sLudenL characLerlsLlcs were examlned ln relaLlon Lo wheLher or noL sLudenLs' flrsL cholces were schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. 1hls seL of analyses sheds llghL on wheLher dlfferenL Lypes of sLudenLs are more llkely Lo selecL a new school as Lhelr flrsL cholces. 1here was a slgnlflcanL assoclaLlon beLween sLudenLs' grade level (l.e., elemenLary, mlddle or hlgh school) and Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhelr flrsL cholce schools (see 1able 13). SLudenLs ln Lhe mlddle grades Lended Lo choose hlgher-raLed schools, on average, for Lhelr flrsL cholces. Plgh school sLudenLs Lended Lo choose flrsL cholce schools wlLh lower average raLlngs. 1hls ls noL surprlslng when one conslders LhaL fewer hlgher quallLy seaLs were avallable for hlgh schools (see llgure 8). SLudenLs ln Lhe non-LranslLlon grades Lended Lo choose hlgher-raLed schools for Lhelr flrsL cholces Lhan dld sLudenLs ln Lhe LranslLlon grades. SLudenLs who dld noL quallfy for free or reduced lunch Lended Lo choose hlgher-raLed schools on average Lhan sLudenLs who quallfled for free or reduced lunch. 1he Sl raLlng of flrsL cholce schools dlffered by sLudenLs' race/eLhnlclLy as well. WhlLe sLudenLs Lended Lo choose hlgher raLed schools on average Lhan sLudenLs of oLher races and eLhnlclLles. Plspanlc sLudenLs Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools Lhan sLudenLs from Lhe oLher raclal and eLhnlc groups. 1hese Lwo assoclaLlons are llkely due, ln parL, Lo geographlcal lssues. 1he SouLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy has Lhe lowesL proporLlon of sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce who quallfy for free or reduced lunch, [usL 11, and Lhe lowesL proporLlon of Plspanlc sLudenLs, [usL 9. 1hls reglon also Lends Lo have more seaLs avallable ln hlgher-raLed schools (see llgures 6-8). Conversely, Lhe SouLhwesL reglon has one of Lhe hlghesL concenLraLlons of sLudenLs quallfylng for free and reduced lunch (26) and Lhe hlghesL concenLraLlon of Plspanlc sLudenLs (31) parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce. 1he SouLhwesL reglon also has hlgher concenLraLlons of seaLs avallable ln lower-raLed schools. When lnLerpreLlng Lhese flndlngs abouL economlc and eLhnlc dlfferences ln cholces, lL ls crlLlcal Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL because of Lhe geographlcal dlsLrlbuLlon 29
of demographlc subgroups and seaLs ln hlgher-raLed schools across Lhe clLy, some demographlc subgroups have less access Lo hlgher-raLed seaLs LhaL are relaLlvely close Lo Lhelr homes. 30
' @0>8%'ARB'9%1*%#$0H%'"D'.9T'9",#$&'(01#%4'>2'T,1&$'!6",*%'.*6""8&'>2'.$+4%#$'!6010*$%1,&$,*&N !' 0(%1%@*+1)$*)@& 3& \+%2&V95W& 9)62)L)@%2@+& O1%,+&;+]+"& l(2,17738)=410.18 * LlemenLary a 10687 0.60 (0.13) Mlddle b 4338 0.67 (0.18) Plgh c 2664 0.34 (0.10) <1%2$)*)42&O1%,+& l(1,17738)=103.49 * non-LranslLlon grade a 3443 0.63 (0.16) 1ranslLlon grade b 14294 0.60 (0.16) >1++^?+,/@+,&;/2@(& L(11341)=13.72 *
uo noL Cuallfy a 3960 0.63 (0.14)
Cuallfy b 7383 0.39 (0.16) ?%@+^7*(2)@)*#& l(3,17733)=376.93 * 8lack, noL Plspanlc a 2198 0.61 (0.16) Plspanlc b 9213 0.37 (0.16) WhlLe, noL Plspanlc c 3008 0.66 (0.14) CLher a 1317 0.61 (0.16) ?+6)42& l(4,13928)=138.33 * lar norLheasL a 2642 0.63 (0.18) near norLheasL a 4036 0.63 (0.13) norLhwesL b 2737 0.38 (0.13) SouLheasL a 3263 0.64 (0.14) SouLhwesL c 3229 0.36 (0.16) 9@(44"&A+1L41:%2@+&?%*)26&4L&0/11+2*&9@(44" & l(6,17733)=222.93 * ulsLlngulshed a 769 0.71 (0.13) MeeLs LxpecLaLlons b 6136 0.63 (0.14) AccredlLed on WaLch c 3027 0.34 (0.16) AccredlLed on rlorlLy WaLch c 602 0.32 (0.16) AccredlLed on robaLlon d 373 0.39 (0.22) noL 8aLed a 431 0.67 (0.17) noL CurrenLly Lnrolled ln a uS School d 6196 0.61 (0.13) ! Subgroups wlLh dlfferenL superscrlpLs are slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL from one anoLher aL p<.0001. * p<.0001
8eglon of Lhe clLy was slgnlflcanLly assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Sl raLlng of flrsL cholce schools. SLudenLs ln Lhe lar norLheasL, near norLheasL and SouLheasL Lended Lo selecL hlgher raLed schools, on average, as Lhelr flrsL cholces Lhan sLudenLs from Lhe norLhwesL and SouLhwesL areas of Lhe clLy. SLudenLs from Lhe SouLhwesL area selecLed schools for Lhelr flrsL cholces LhaL were Lhe lowesL among Lhe reglons of Lhe clLy. 1he Sl raLlng of flrsL cholce schools varled by Lhe Sl raLlng of currenL schools as well. SLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were raLed as ulsLlngulshed or noL yeL raLed Lended Lo requesL hlgher-raLed flrsL cholce schools Lhan all oLher sLudenLs. SLudenLs 31
currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were Cn WaLch or Cn rlorlLy WaLch selecLed lower-raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces, on average, Lhan oLher sLudenLs parLlclpaLlng ln SchoolCholce. 1able 16 presenLs Lhe percenLage of sLudenLs selecLlng a school LhaL had noL yeL been raLed as Lhelr flrsL cholce, by sLudenL characLerlsLlcs. Cverall, ln Lhe sample as a whole, 22 of sLudenLs chose one of Lhese newer schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces. AbouL 40 of hlgh school sLudenLs selecLed an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. 1hls ls somewhaL surprlslng when one conslders LhaL only abouL a flfLh of Lhe offered hlgh school seaLs were ln schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed (see llgure 8). SLudenLs ln LranslLlon grades were more llkely Lo selecL an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce Lhan sLudenLs ln non-LranslLlon grades.
SLudenLs who quallfled for free or reduced lunch were also slgnlflcanLly more llkely Lo selecL a school LhaL had noL yeL been raLed as Lhelr flrsL cholce Lhan sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy for free or reduced lunch. 1he llkellhood of selecLlng an unraLed school as a flrsL cholce was noL assoclaLed wlLh race/eLhnlclLy. SLudenLs from all raclal and eLhnlc groups were equally llkely Lo selecL Lhese newer schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces.
1he llkellhood of selecLlng a newer school varled dramaLlcally across Lhe reglons of Lhe clLy. 1hls ls noL a surprlslng flndlng. 1he proporLlon of seaLs offered ln new schools also varles qulLe dramaLlcally across Lhe clLy. ln Lhe lar norLheasL, 44 of offered seaLs were ln schools LhaL had noL yeL been raLed. roporLlons of offered seaLs ln unraLed schools for Lhe norLhwesL, SouLheasL, SouLhwesL, and near norLheasL were 14, 11, 9, and 4, respecLlvely. Clven Lhe large proporLlon of seaLs ln newer schools LhaL were offered ln Lhe lar norLheasL, lL ls noL unexpecLed LhaL a large percenLage of sLudenLs ln Lhe lar norLheasL selecLed newer schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces (see 1able 16). Powever, ln splLe of Lhe facL LhaL Lhe near norLheasL had Lhe smallesL percenLage of offered seaLs ln new schools, Lhls reglon had Lhe second hlghesL proporLlon of sLudenLs chooslng newer, unraLed schools, 22. 1he norLhwesL had one of Lhe hlghesL percenLages of offered seaLs ln newer schools, yeL Lhls reglon had Lhe smallesL proporLlon of sLudenLs chooslng an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce, [usL 7.
llnally, Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe school currenLly aLLended by Lhe sLudenL was assoclaLed wlLh Lhe llkellhood of selecLlng a newer school as one's flrsL cholce. noL surprlslngly, sLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were noL yeL raLed were more llkely Lo selecL an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. Cver half of Lhese sLudenLs chose an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. SelecLlng an unraLed school as flrsL cholce was also a popular opLlon for sLudenLs currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon. SLudenLs ln schools LhaL had earned Lhe raLlng of MeeLs LxpecLaLlons were leasL llkely Lo selecL an unraLed school as Lhelr flrsL cholce. 5,$6'56,*6'.*6""8&'4,4'.$+4%#$&'E%$'M0$*6%4:' 5toJeots MotcbeJ wltb cbolces
Cverall 83 of sLudenLs were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. SevenLy percenL of sLudenLs were maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. SevenLy-nlne percenL were maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL or second cholce, and 83 were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr Lop Lhree cholces. 1o address Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhe llkellhood of geLLlng a cholce was assoclaLed wlLh sLudenL characLerlsLlcs, 33
Lhese proporLlons were dlsaggregaLed by grade, free/reduced lunch sLaLus, race/eLhnlclLy, reglon, and Sl raLlng of Lhelr currenL school. Crade
1he proporLlons of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr cholces dlsaggregaLed by grade level are presenLed ln 1able 17. 1he proporLlon of sLudenLs maLched wlLh any one of Lhelr cholces Lended Lo be lower for sLudenLs enLerlng LCL and Lhe non-LranslLlon grades. Slnce school aLLendance ls noL mandaLory for preschool-aged chlldren, schools do noL need Lo provlde enough LCL seaLs Lo accommodaLe all chlldren. 1he lower proporLlon of LCL sLudenLs recelvlng a cholce ls llkely due, ln parL, Lo Lhe overall demand for LCL exceedlng Lhe capaclLy ln addlLlon Lo Lhe demand for cerLaln schools exceedlng Lhe capaclLy. lor sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen, slxLh grade and nlnLh grade, proporLlons were hlgher (ln Lhe 90 range). A slmllar paLLern of effecLs was apparenL when looklng aL Lhe proporLlon recelvlng Lhelr flrsL cholce, flrsL or second cholce and one of Lhelr Lop Lhree cholces. ' @0>8%'AVB'91"7"1$,"#'"D'.$+4%#$&'M0$*6%4'<,$6'@6%,1'!6",*%&F'>2'E104%' O1%,+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& !2#&0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*&0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*&41&9+@42,& 0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*N&9+@42,N&41& <()1,&0(4)@+& 707& 77 61 70 74 D)2,+16%1*+2& 93 81 88 91 F-I& 71 36 63 68 S& 92 76 88 91 [-X& 38 41 30 33 Z& 90 73 86 89 Ff-FG& 73 66 73 73
lree or 8educed Lunch SLaLus
1able 18 presenLs Lhe proporLlon of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr cholces by free or reduced lunch sLaLus. SLudenLs who quallfled for free and reduced lunch were sllghLly more llkely Lo geL maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces Lhan sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy. 1he percenL of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce school was flve percenL hlgher for sLudenLs quallfylng for free or reduced lunch Lhan for sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy. ' @0>8%'AWB'91"7"1$,"#'"D'.$+4%#$&'M0$*6%4'<,$6'@6%,1'!6",*%&F'>2'T1%%[G%4+*%4'\+#*6'.$0$+&' & a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& !2#&0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*&0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*&41&9+@42,& 0(4)@+& a&\%*@(+,&b)*(& >)1$*N&9+@42,N&41& <()1,&0(4)@+& g/%")L#&L41&>1++&41& ?+,/@+,&;/2@(& 90 78 86 89 34
54&34*&g/%")L#& 86 73 82 83
8ace/LLhnlclLy
1he proporLlon of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr cholces by race/eLhnlclLy ls presenLed ln 1able 19. Plspanlc sLudenLs were mosL llkely Lo be maLched wlLh any cholce, whlLe sLudenLs were leasL llkely Lo be maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. 1hls paLLern ls repeaLed, buL Lhe dlfferences beLween groups are larger when one conslders Lhe percenL of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce.
1he proporLlon of sLudenLs maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces was falrly conslsLenL across reglons of Lhe clLy (see 1able 20). 8eLween 83 and 89 of sLudenLs resldlng ln each reglon were maLched wlLh aL leasL one of Lhelr schools. Powever, Lhe dlfferences beLween reglons were larger when one examlnes Lhe proporLlon of sLudenLs maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce schools by reglon. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe norLhwesL and SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy were mosL llkely Lo be maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe oLher reglons of Lhe clLy were 8 Lo 13 less llkely Lo be maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce school.
1able 21 presenLs Lhe proporLlon of sLudenLs who were maLched wlLh Lhelr cholces, by Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhelr currenL school. lor sLudenLs who were currenLly ln a uS school LhaL had been raLed uslng Lhe Sl, Lhe proporLlons of sLudenLs belng maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces ls remarkably slmllar for all Sl raLlngs. 8eLween 89 and 90 of sLudenLs ln Lhese schools were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. ln conLrasL, only abouL Lhree-quarLers of sLudenLs who were noL currenLly enrolled ln a uS school were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. 1he proporLlon of sLudenLs from schools LhaL were noL yeL raLed who recelved one of Lhelr cholces was sllghLly lower, 83. lor sLudenLs noL yeL enrolled ln a uS school, Lhe proporLlon was even lower. !usL abouL Lhree-quarLers of Lhese sLudenLs recelved one of Lhelr cholces.
1he paLLern of resulLs dlffered sllghLly for Lhe proporLlon geLLlng maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. Cnce agaln, sLudenLs new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL were leasL llkely Lo geL Lhelr flrsL cholce (38). 1he nexL lowesL group was sLudenLs ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon. AbouL Lwo-Lhlrds of Lhese sLudenLs recelved Lhelr flrsL cholce, whereas abouL Lhree-quarLers of sLudenLs ln hlgher raLed schools recelved Lhelr flrsL cholce.
Across all of Lhe columns ln 1able 21, sLudenLs who are new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL are leasL llkely Lo recelve Lhelr cholces. 1hls ls noL surprlslng when one examlnes Lhe composlLlon of Lhls group of sLudenLs. lorLy-elghL percenL of Lhese sLudenLs were enLerlng LCL, a grade level aL whlch sLudenLs were less llkely Lo geL one of Lhelr cholces (see 1able 17). AnoLher 32 of sLudenLs ln Lhls group were enLerlng klndergarLen and Lhese sLudenLs represenLed abouL 44 of klndergarLeners parLlclpaLlng ln cholce overall. Whlle Lhe overall raLe of belng maLched wlLh any cholce was qulLe hlgh for klndergarLeners (93, see 1able 17), furLher analysls revealed LhaL Lhls dlffered slgnlflcanLly by wheLher or noL Lhe sLudenL was already enrolled ln uS 36
school. 17 nlneLy-seven percenL of sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen who were already enrolled ln a uS school goL one of Lhelr cholces compared wlLh 88 of sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen who were noL already enrolled ln a uS school. 1hls was ln splLe of Lhe facL LhaL enLerlng klndergarLen sLudenLs who were new Lo uS made more cholces on average Lhan conLlnulng enLerlng klndergarLeners. 18 8esulLs were slmllar when examlnlng Lhe proporLlon maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. 19 nlneLy percenL of sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen who were already enrolled ln a uS school were maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce compared wlLh [usL 69 of sLudenLs enLerlng klndergarLen who were noL already enrolled ln a uS school.
Ate 5toJeots cbotoctetlstlcs AssocloteJ wltb tbe 5ll kotloq of tbe 5cbools wltb wblcb 1bey ote MotcbeJ?
So far, Lhls reporL has deLalled how sLudenL characLerlsLlcs are assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Sl raLlng of sLudenLs' cholces and Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey geL one of Lhelr cholces. Also of lnLeresL ls wheLher cerLaln Lypes of sLudenLs are more llkely Lo acLually geL maLched wlLh hlgher raLed schools. 1o address Lhls lssue, analyses were run uslng sLudenL characLerlsLlcs as predlcLors of Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe school wlLh whlch Lhey were acLually maLched. 8ecause sLudenLs need Lo requesL hlgher raLed schools ln order Lo be maLched wlLh Lhem, Lhe average Sl raLlng of Lhe schools Lhey requesLed was lncluded ln Lhe analyses as a covarlaLe. As a resulL, Lhese analyses shed llghL on wheLher, oftet tokloq loto occooot tbe types of cbolces stoJeots moJe, sLudenL characLerlsLlcs are assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Sl polnLs earned by Lhe schools Lo whlch Lhey were acLually maLched. PeurlsLlcally, Lhese analyses address Lhe quesLlon of wheLher sLudenLs from dlfferenL demographlc groups who requesL schools wlLh slmllar Sl raLlngs end up belng maLched wlLh schools LhaL have slmllar Sl raLlngs. Crade level was noL slgnlflcanLly assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe schools wlLh whlch sLudenLs were acLually maLched. 20 1haL ls, afLer Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe schools LhaL sLudenLs requesLed, elemenLary, mlddle and hlgh school sLudenLs were maLched wlLh schools wlLh slmllar Sl raLlngs on average. 1here was a slgnlflcanL effecL for LranslLlon grade. 21 Powever, afLer ad[usLlng for Lhe Sl raLlngs of sLudenLs' requesLs, Lhe dlfference ln Lhe means for Lhe Lwo groups was raLher small, and unllkely of any pracLlcal slgnlflcance. SLudenLs ln LranslLlon grades were maLched wlLh schools earnlng, on average, 38 of Lhe posslble polnLs. SLudenLs ln non-LranslLlon grades were maLched wlLh schools earnlng, on average 37 of Lhe posslble polnLs.
17
2 1=191.73, p<.0001 18 l(1,3820)=123.37, p<.0001, mean for new klndergarLeners=3.01, sd=1.64, mean for conLlnulng klndergarLners=2.34, sd=1.61 19
1he effecLs for free/reduced lunch sLaLus, race/eLhnlclLy, and reglon of Lhe clLy were also non- slgnlflcanL. 22 AfLer ad[usLlng for Lhe average Sl raLlng of Lhe schools LhaL sLudenLs requesLed, membershlp ln Lhese subgroups was noL assoclaLed wlLh Lhe Sl raLlngs of Lhe schools Lo whlch sLudenLs were maLched. 560$'4"%&'$6%'!6",*%'3#D"1/0$,"#'@%88'Z&'0>"+$'=%/0#4'D"1'.*6""8&:' & ls uemooJ fot o 5cbool AssocloteJ wltb lts cbotoctetlstlcs?
1o address Lhls quesLlon, Lhe assoclaLlons beLween Lhe number of LoLal requesLs and flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL wlLh school characLerlsLlcs from Lhe Sl were examlned (see 1able 22). ' lor Lhe elemenLary grades, Lhe composlLlon of Lhe school was sLrongly assoclaLed wlLh Lhe number of LoLal and flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL. Schools wlLh a greaLer proporLlon of lree/8educed lunch sLudenLs, mlnorlLy sLudenLs, Lngllsh language learners, and speclal educaLlon sLudenLs Lended Lo geL fewer requesLs per avallable seaL. lor Lhe mlddle school and hlgh school grades, Lhere were fewer assoclaLlons. lor mlddle school, Lhe proporLlon of lree/8educed Lunch sLudenLs was negaLlvely assoclaLed wlLh Lhe number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL. ln addlLlon, schools wlLh a hlgher percenLage of speclal educaLlon sLudenLs Lended Lo geL fewer LoLal and flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL for mlddle school Lhan schools wlLh a smaller percenLage of speclal educaLlon sLudenLs. lor Lhe hlgh school grades, Lhe percenL of free and reduced lunch sLudenLs and Lhe percenL of speclal educaLlon sLudenLs were boLh negaLlvely assoclaLed wlLh Lhe LoLal number of requesLs and Lhe number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL.
1here was a sLrong paLLern of assoclaLlons beLween Lhe LoLal percenLage of Sl polnLs earned and Lhe LoLal number of requesLs and Lhe number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL. llve ouL of Lhe slx correlaLlons were large and sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL. Schools earnlng a greaLer proporLlon of posslble polnLs on Lhe Sl Lended Lo geL more requesLs per avallable seaL. lor Lhe elemenLary school grades, all componenLs of Lhe Sl were slgnlflcanLly assoclaLed wlLh boLh Lhe LoLal number and number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL. lor mlddle school, Lhe LoLal number of requesLs per avallable seaLs was largely unrelaLed Lo Lhe Sl areas. Powever, Lhe number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL was slgnlflcanLly assoclaLed Sl polnLs ln Lhe areas of growLh, sLaLus, sLudenL engagemenL, and parenL saLlsfacLlon. lor hlgh
22 lree/reduced lunch: l(1,10227)=0.08, n.s., race/eLhnlclLy: l(3,13300)=2.40, n.s., reglon of Lhe clLy: l(4,13866)=2.38, n.s. 38
school, boLh LoLal and flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL were slgnlflcanLly assoclaLed wlLh Sl polnLs earned ln Lhe areas of growLh, sLaLus, readlness sLaLus, and sLudenL engagemenL. 39
' @0>8%'KKB'!"11%80$,"#&'>%$<%%#'G%P+%&$&'D"1'.*6""8&'0#4'.*6""8'!6010*$%1,&$,*&']0#4'#&^ ! ' # of 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL LCL-3 # of llrsL Cholce 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL LCL-3 # of 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL 6-8 # of llrsL Cholce 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL 6-8 # of 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL 9-12 # of llrsL Cholce 8equesLs per Avallable SeaL 9-12 1oLal LnrollmenL aL School -.13 (93) -.11 (93) -.13 (48) -.08 (48) .01 (23) .08 (23)
1he school composlLlon varlables llsLed ln 1able 22 are hlghly correlaLed wlLh Sl raLlngs. 23
lurLher analyses were conducLed Lo deLermlne lf Lhe school composlLlon varlables were assoclaLed wlLh requesLs per avallable seaL afLer Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe percenL of Sl polnLs earned. arLlal correlaLlons were compuLed beLween free/reduced lunch percenL and Lhe requesL per avallable seaL varlables, conLrolllng for Lhe percenL of Sl polnLs earned by Lhe school. 1hese parLlal correlaLlons descrlbe Lhe assoclaLlon beLween free/reduced lunch percenL and requesLs LhaL ls above and beyond whaL ls explalned by Lhe facL LhaL lower raLed schools Lend Lo have a greaLer proporLlon of sLudenLs quallfylng for free or reduced lunch. 1he parLlal correlaLlons were slgnlflcanL for Lhe elemenLary grades, buL noL for mlddle and hlgh school. ln elemenLary grades, afLer conLrolllng for Lhe percenLage of Sl polnLs earned, Lhe LoLal number of requesLs was assoclaLed wlLh Lhe free/reduced lunch percenLage aL -.46. AfLer conLrolllng for Lhe percenLage of Sl polnLs earned, Lhe number of flrsL cholce requesLs was correlaLed wlLh free/reduced lunch percenL aL -.33. 8oLh of Lhese correlaLlons were sLaLlsLlcally slgnlflcanL. 24 A slmllar paLLern of resulLs was found when we examlned parLlal correlaLlons wlLh percenL mlnorlLy, percenL LLL, and percenL speclal educaLlon. 23 When examlnlng all of Lhese assoclaLlons, lL ls lmporLanL Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL Lhe exlsLence of a correlaLlon does noL necessarlly lmply a causal mechanlsm.
wbot kole uoes locotloo lloy lo 5cbool cbolce?
Analyses were conducLed Lo shed llghL on Lhe exLenL Lo whlch sLudenLs selecLed schools ln Lhe same reglon of Lhe clLy as Lhelr resldence. 8oLh Lhe percenLage of cholces made LhaL were ln Lhe same reglon and wheLher Lhelr flrsL cholce selecLlons were ln Lhe same reglon as Lhelr resldences were examlned. Cn average 66 of sLudenLs' cholces were ln Lhe same reglon of Lhe clLy as Lhelr home. 1here was conslderable varlablllLy around Lhls mean, however. 26 nearly a quarLer of sLudenLs (23) made no cholces ln Lhe same reglon of Lhe clLy as Lhelr home. Cver half (33) of sLudenLs only selecLed schools wlLhln Lhelr home reglon. When looklng aL [usL flrsL cholces, Lwo-Lhlrds (67) of sLudenLs selecLed schools wlLhln Lhelr home reglon as Lhelr flrsL cholces. Analyses were also conducLed Lo examlne Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhe locaLlon of cholces made varled by sLudenL and Lhe Sl raLlng of schools belng chosen were examlned.
23 CorrelaLlons wlLh percenL of Sl polnLs earned are as follows: l8L percenL r=-.33, mlnorlLy percenL r=-.30, LLL percenL r=-.31 and speclal educaLlon percenL r=-.38. All are slgnlflcanL aL p<.0001 24 p<.0001 and p<.001, respecLlvely. 23 arLlal correlaLlons for percenL mlnorlLy wlLh elemenLary grade requesLs, conLrolllng for percenL of Sl polnLs earned, were as follows: LoLal requesLs, r=-.42, p<.0001, flrsL cholce requesLs, r=-.31, p<.01. arLlal correlaLlons for percenL LLL wlLh elemenLary grade requesLs, conLrolllng for percenL of Sl polnLs earned, were as follows: LoLal requesLs, r=-.29, p<.01, flrsL cholce requesLs, r=-.20, n.s. arLlal correlaLlons for percenL speclal educaLlon wlLh elemenLary grade requesLs, conLrolllng for percenL of Sl polnLs earned, were as follows: LoLal requesLs, r=-.24, p<.03, flrsL cholce requesLs, r=-.26, p<.03. 26 sd=.42, range 0-1 41
SLudenL CharacLerlsLlcs
Analyses were conducLed Lo deLermlne wheLher locaLlon of cholces varled by sLudenL grade, free/reduced lunch sLaLus, race/eLhnlclLy, reglon of Lhe clLy ln whlch Lhey reslded, and Sl raLlng of currenL school (see 1able 23). SLudenLs enLerlng Lhe non-LranslLlon hlgh school grades (l.e., grades 10-12) made a slgnlflcanLly smaller proporLlon of cholces ln Lhe same reglon as Lhelr home Lhan sLudenLs ln all oLher grades. Cn average, only sllghLly over a Lhlrd of Lhelr cholces were wlLhln Lhe same reglon where Lhey llve. SLudenLs enLerlng LCL and klndergarLen Lended Lo make Lhe smallesL proporLlon of cholces ouLslde of Lhe reglon where Lhey llve. Cn average, over Lwo-Lhlrds of Lhese sLudenLs' cholces were wlLhln Lhe same reglon as Lhelr homes. SLudenLs quallfylng for free or reduced lunch Lended Lo make a slmllar proporLlon of cholces wlLhln Lhe same reglon as Lhelr homes as dld sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy for free or reduced lunch.
Plspanlc sLudenLs made, on average, Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of cholces wlLhln Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llve, abouL Lhree-quarLers. WhlLe sLudenLs and Lhose ln Lhe oLher race/eLhnlclLy caLegory made Lhe fewesL cholces wlLhln Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llve, sllghLly over half.
SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy made Lhe smallesL percenLage of cholces ln Lhelr home reglon. Cn average, only abouL half of Lhese sLudenLs' cholces were ln Lhe same reglon ln whlch Lhey reslde. 1hls may be, ln parL, due Lo Lhe capaclLy lssues ln Lhls reglon aL Lhe lower grades. As dlscussed earller, Lhe number of sLudenLs requesLlng LCL and klndergarLen seaLs ln Lhls reglon exceeded Lhe number of seaLs offered by a wlde margln (see 1able 1). ln conLrasL, sLudenLs ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy made nearly all of Lhelr cholces wlLhln Lhelr reglon. Cn average, 88 of Lhe schools selecLed by Lhese sLudenLs were ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon.
llnally, Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe sLudenL's currenL school was relaLed Lhe proporLlon of cholces Lhey made from wlLhln Lhelr home reglon. SLudenLs currenLly enrolled ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon made, on average, Lhe largesL proporLlon of cholces from wlLhln Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llved. Cver Lhree-quarLers of Lhe schools selecLed by Lhese sLudenLs were from Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llved compared wlLh abouL Lwo-Lhlrds of cholces from sLudenLs ln schools earnlng oLher raLlngs.
Cuallfy 10339 .60 (.43) ?%@+^7*(2)@)*#& l(3,22730)=287.39 * 8lack, noL Plspanlc a 2833 .66 (.40) Plspanlc b 11810 .73 (.40) WhlLe, noL Plspanlc c 6406 .33 (.44) CLher c 1683 .39 (.43) ?+6)42& l(4,20313)=886.43 * lar norLheasL a 4434 .88 (.26) near norLheasL b 3224 .49 (.42) norLhwesL c 2933 .74 (.37) SouLheasL c 3970 .83 (.31) SouLhwesL d 3827 .77 (.36) 9@(44"&A+1L41:%2@+&?%*)26&4L&0/11+2*&9@(44" & l(6,22733)=43.09 * ulsLlngulshed a,b 1002 .67 (.40) MeeLs LxpecLaLlons b 7141 .64 (.42) AccredlLed on WaLch a,c 3936 .71 (.39) AccredlLed on rlorlLy WaLch a,b,c 736 .68 (.41) AccredlLed on robaLlon d 1000 .82 (.32) noL 8aLed a,b,c 923 .68 (.44) noL CurrenLly Lnrolled ln a uS School a,b 7994 b .63 (.44) ! Subgroups wlLh dlfferenL superscrlpLs are slgnlflcanLly dlfferenL from one anoLher aL p<.0001. * p<.0001
Sl 8aLlng of Schools
1he proporLlon of requesLs and Lhe proporLlon of flrsL cholce requesLs recelved by each school from sLudenLs who llved wlLhln Lhe school's reglon was also examlned. Cn average, 69 of requesLs and 71 of flrsL cholce requesLs came from sLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe same reglon as Lhe school was locaLed (LoLal requesLs sd=.24, flrsL cholce requesLs sd=.28). 1ables 24 and 23 presenL Lhese proporLlons by Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe schools. lor boLh LoLal requesLs and flrsL 43
cholce requesLs, Lhere were no slgnlflcanL dlfferences by Lhe Sl raLlng, lndlcaLlng LhaL schools wlLh hlgher Sl raLlngs are noL more llkely Lo draw sLudenLs from ouLslde of Lhelr reglons.
Cver 22,000 sLudenLs parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of Lhese sLudenLs were enLerlng grades when sLudenLs Lyplcally LranslLlon Lo a new school (l.e., LCL, klndergarLen, 6 Lh and 9 Lh grades). 1he group of sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln SchoolCholce was slmllar Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL as a whole ln Lerms of race/eLhnlclLy and free/reduced lunch sLaLus.
ln general, capaclLy was avallable ln every reglon Lo accommodaLe cholce parLlclpanLs. A noLable excepLlon Lo Lhls was Lhe near norLheasL reglon, where Lhere were many more parLlclpanLs enLerlng LCL Lhan Lhere was capaclLy. 1he number of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs enLerlng klndergarLen ln Lhls reglon also exceeded Lhe number of avallable seaLs.
1he quallLy of avallable seaLs across Lhe dlsLrlcL was also examlned uslng Lhe Sl raLlng as Lhe measure of quallLy. Across Lhe dlsLrlcL, abouL half of elemenLary and mlddle school seaLs were ln hlgher-raLed schools. AbouL half of Lhe avallable hlgh school seaLs were ln schools raLed as Cn WaLch. Cenerally speaklng, Lhe SouLheasL Lended Lo have Lhe hlghesL proporLlon of hlgher- raLed seaLs across grade levels. Plgher proporLlons of lower-raLed seaLs were found ln Lhe near norLheasL, norLhwesL, and SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy. 44
uemand for schools was assoclaLed wlLh Lhe characLerlsLlcs of currenLly enrolled sLudenLs (e.g., percenL free/reduced lunch, percenL speclal educaLlon). LlemenLary schools wlLh a greaLer proporLlon of free and reduced lunch sLudenLs, mlnorlLy sLudenLs, Lngllsh language learners and speclal educaLlon sLudenLs Lended Lo recelve fewer LoLal requesLs and fewer flrsL cholce requesLs, even afLer school quallLy was Laken lnLo accounL. 1he percenLage of Sl polnLs earned was sLrongly and conslsLenLly assoclaLed wlLh Lhe LoLal number of requesLs and number of flrsL cholce requesLs per avallable seaL for all grade levels. Schools scorlng hlgher on Lhe Sl Lended Lo geL more requesLs per avallable seaL.
When requesLlng schools, sLudenLs used sllghLly over half of Lhe cholces avallable Lo Lhem, on average, [usL 2.8 ouL of a posslble 3 cholces. SLudenLs ln LranslLlon grades made more cholces Lhan sLudenLs ln oLher grades. ln addlLlon, black sLudenLs and sLudenLs from Lhe norLheasL reglon of Lhe clLy Lended Lo make more cholces Lhan sLudenLs from oLher groups. SLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln schools raLed as ulsLlngulshed Lended Lo make Lhe fewesL cholces, whlle sLudenLs enrolled ln schools LhaL were Cn robaLlon Lended Lo make Lhe mosL cholces.
A large proporLlon of sLudenLs were maLched wlLh one of Lhe schools Lhey requesLed. Cver Lwo-Lhlrds of sLudenLs overall were maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce. 1hese proporLlons Lended Lo be lower for sLudenLs enLerlng LCL or one of Lhe non-LranslLlon grades Lhan lL was for klndergarLen, 6 Lh and 9 Lh grades. SLudenLs who quallfled for free or reduced lunch were sllghLly more llkely Lo geL one of Lhelr cholces and more llkely Lo geL Lhelr flrsL cholce Lhan sLudenLs who dld noL quallfy. Plspanlc sLudenLs were mosL llkely of Lhe raclal and eLhnlc groups Lo be maLched wlLh any cholce and Lhelr flrsL cholce, whlLe sLudenLs were Lhe leasL llkely. 1he proporLlon geLLlng maLched wlLh one of Lhelr requesLed schools was falrly conslsLenL across reglons of Lhe clLy. Powever, when Lhe proporLlon geLLlng maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce school was examlned, Lhls varled by reglon. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe norLhwesL and SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy were mosL llkely Lo be maLched wlLh Lhelr flrsL cholce.
lnLeresLlngly, sLudenLs ln Lhese same subgroups (l.e., quallfy for free or reduced lunch, Plspanlc, llve ln Lhe norLhwesL or SouLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy) all Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces, on average. SLudenLs who quallfled for free and reduced lunch and Plspanlc sLudenLs were more llkely Lo llve ln reglons of Lhe clLy LhaL Lended Lo have fewer seaLs ln hlgher raLed schools and more seaLs ln lower-raLed schools, whlch may explaln why Lhey Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools as Lhelr flrsL cholces. noneLheless, Lhe facL LhaL Lhey Lended Lo choose lower raLed schools may explaln, aL leasL ln parL, why Lhey were more llkely Lo geL Lhelr flrsL cholces, as Lhe Sl raLlng of schools was sLrongly relaLed Lo Lhe demand for 43
schools. AfLer Laklng lnLo accounL Lhe Sl polnLs earned by Lhe schools LhaL sLudenLs requesLed, we found LhaL demographlc characLerlsLlcs were largely unrelaLed Lo Lhe Sl raLlngs of Lhe schools wlLh whlch sLudenLs were acLually maLched. 1haL ls, any apparenL demographlc dlfferences ln Lhe Sl raLlngs of schools wlLh whlch sLudenLs were maLched are acLually due Lo Lhe dlfferences ln Lhe Lypes of schools LhaL sLudenLs from dlfferenL demographlc groups requesL. 1hls hlghllghLs Lhe falrness of Lhe maLchlng procedure buL also ralses quesLlons abouL Lhe exLenL Lo whlch all sLudenLs are maklng requesLs LhaL reflecL Lhelr Lrue preferences. 1he old sysLem for cholce ln uS provlded lncenLlves for some sLudenLs Lo mlsrepresenL Lhelr cholces. 1he new procedure ellmlnaLes Lhls need, buL Lhese resulLs ralse quesLlons abouL Lhe exLenL Lo whlch parenL behavlor has changed along wlLh Lhe SchoolCholce process.
1he llkellhood of geLLlng maLched wlLh a cholce dld noL vary subsLanLlally by Lhe Sl raLlng of Lhe school where Lhe sLudenL was currenLly enrolled. AbouL 90 of sLudenLs enrolled ln uS schools were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. Powever, only abouL Lhree-quarLers of sLudenLs who were new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL were maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces. LlghLy percenL of Lhls group of sLudenLs was enLerlng LCL or klndergarLen. Cur analysls revealed LhaL LCL sLudenLs and klndergarLeners new Lo Lhe dlsLrlcL were leasL llkely Lo be maLched wlLh one of Lhelr cholces.
AbouL Lwo-Lhlrds of sLudenLs' requesLs were for schools ln Lhe same reglon of Lhe clLy as Lhey reslded. SLudenLs ln Lhe non-LranslLlon grades requesLed schools ouLslde Lhelr home reglon more ofLen Lhan sLudenLs enLerlng oLher grades. Plspanlc sLudenLs Lended Lo choose schools wlLhln Lhelr home reglon more ofLen Lhan sLudenLs of oLher races/eLhnlclLles. SLudenLs resldlng ln Lhe near norLheasL reglon made Lhe smallesL percenLage of cholces ln Lhelr home reglon. llnally, generally speaklng sLudenLs who were currenLly enrolled ln lower-performlng schools Lended Lo make more cholces from wlLhln Lhelr reglon Lhan sLudenLs ln hlgher performlng schools.
School characLerlsLlcs were examlned ln relaLlon Lo Lhe proporLlon of requesLs for schools from wlLhln Lhe same reglon. 1here were no slgnlflcanL effecLs. Schools wlLh hlgher Sl raLlngs are noL more llkely Lo draw sLudenLs from ouLslde of Lhelr reglons.
ln sum, many sLudenLs parLlclpaLed ln Lhe SchoolCholce process. lL ls lmposslble from Lhese daLa Lo deLermlne lf Lhose who dld noL parLlclpaLe lnLended Lo choose Lo aLLend Lhelr nelghborhood school or lf more markeLlng ls needed Lo engage more sLudenLs ln Lhe process. lor Lhose LhaL dld parLlclpaLe, Lhe process dld noL appear Lo dlsadvanLage mlnorlLy or low- lncome sLudenLs. 1here was evldence LhaL famllles showed a preference for hlgher-performlng schools, buL LhaL Lhe sLrengLh of LhaL preference varled by demographlc characLerlsLlcs, 46
lncludlng where ln Lhe clLy sLudenLs reslded. lL ls clear from Lhese analyses LhaL demographlc characLerlsLlcs, reglon of Lhe clLy ln whlch sLudenLs reslde, Lhe exLenL Lo whlch Lhey requesL hlgher-raLed schools, and Lhelr wllllngness Lo aLLend a school ouLslde of Lhe reglon ln whlch Lhey llve are all facLors LhaL are hlghly assoclaLed wlLh one anoLher and wlLh Lhe school wlLh whlch a sLudenL was ulLlmaLely maLched. 1he vasL ma[orlLy of sLudenLs dld recelve one of Lhelr cholces, buL Lhls was lower among sLudenLs enLerlng LCL, hlghllghLlng a capaclLy lssue LhaL should be addressed.
1hls reporL represenLs an lmporLanL flrsL sLep ln undersLandlng how Lhe SchoolCholce process worked ln lLs flrsL year. 1he daLa analyzed here are rlch and furLher analyses should be conducLed Lo undersLand Lhe process on a deeper level. Such analyses could look more closely how Lhe quallLy of sLudenLs' currenL schools, demographlc characLerlsLlcs, and Lhe cholces Lhey work ln comblnaLlon Lo predlcL Lhe quallLy of Lhe schools wlLh whlch Lhey are ulLlmaLely maLched. lurLher analyses could also shed llghL on Lhe SchoolCholce process dlffers for schools wlLh dlfferenL characLerlsLlc. lor example, lL may be useful Lo lnvesLlgaLe dlfferences beLween schools LhaL span a wlde grade range (e.g., k-8 schools and mlddle hlgh schools) and schools LhaL serve Lhe more common grade ranges (l.e., LCL-3, 6-8, 9-12) or newer schools and more esLabllshed schools. llnally, lL would be useful lf furLher research examlned Lhe sLudenLs who dld noL parLlclpaLe ln Lhe SchoolCholce process Lo shed llghL on how Lhey may be slmllar or dlfferenL from sLudenLs who chose Lo parLlclpaLe. 47
1here were mulLlple opLlons for how Lo express demand for schools, each wlLh lLs own sLrengLhs and weaknesses. Lxpresslng demand for schools as a raLlo of Lhe number of requesLs Lo Lhe number of seaLs offered was selecLed Lo provlde a more even playlng fleld for smaller and larger schools. AnoLher lssue faced was wheLher Lo focus solely on Lhe LranslLlon grades because Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of SchoolCholce parLlclpanLs were ln Lhese grades, or Lo focus on all grades. lor compleLeness, we presenLed Lhe hlghesL and lowesL demand schools uslng calculaLlons based on all grades ln Lhe maln body of Lhe resporL. 1he resulLs for LranslLlon grades appear ln Lhls Appendlx. When examlnlng Lhese daLa, lL ls lmporLanL Lo keep ln mlnd LhaL unlque feaLures of parLlcular schools can affecL Lhe resulLs uslng Lhese dlfferenL meLhods of calculaLlng demand.
1able C1 presenLs lnformaLlon abouL Lhe number of requesLs per avallable LCL seaL. All buL Lhree of Lhe 82 schools offerlng LCL seaLs had aL leasL one requesL per offered seaL. When examlnlng Lhe schools wlLh Lhe mosL requesLs per offered LCL seaLs, Lhe resulLs are slmllar Lo Lhose reporLed for all seaLs ln 1able 3. Slx of Lhe Len schools llsLed wlLh Lhe mosL requesLs per offered LCL seaL (see 1able C1) were also among Lhe mosL requesLed schools for LCL-3 (1able 3). 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools for LCL were ln Lhe lar norLheasL and SouLheasL reglons of Lhe clLy. Palf of Lhem were hlgher-raLed schools (l.e., ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons). 1hree were noL raLed. 1he Len mosL requesLed schools for LCL also lncluded one school LhaL was Cn robaLlon and one LhaL was Cn WaLch.
1he resulLs for Lhe leasL requesLed schools were also slmllar Lo whaL was reporLed ln 1able 3. lour of Lhe slx schools wlLh Lhe fewesL requesLs per LCL seaL (see 1able C1) also appeared on Lhe llsL of leasL requesLed schools for LCL-3 (1able 3). 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe Len schools wlLh Lhe fewesL requesLs per LCL seaL were locaLed ln Lhe SouLhwesL or norLhwesL reglons of Lhe clLy. MosL of Lhese schools were lower-raLed schools. 1wo were Cn robaLlon, one was Cn rlorlLy WaLch and slx were Cn WaLch. @0>8%'!AB'G%P+%&$&'7%1'?-0,80>8%'.%0$'D"1'(!(' ?%2=& 9@(44"& _& ?+`/+$*$& _&9+%*$& TLL+1+,& ?+`/+$*$& B+1& !]%)"%K"+& 9+%*& ?+6)42& 9A>--a& 4L& A4)2*$& 7%12+,& 9A>&0%*+641#& 1 SLeck 193 18 10.72 SL 96 ulsLlngulshed 2 LscalanLe-8lggs Academy 393 36 10.63 lnL noL 8aLed 3 SwlgerL lnLernaLlonal School 611 61 10.02 lnL noL 8aLed 4 WesLerly Creek 363 70 8.04 lnL 73 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons 3 SLephen knlghL CenLer for Larly LducaLlon 1742 218 7.99 SL noL 8aLed 6 Carson 143 19 7.63 SL 78 MeeLs 60
1able C2 presenLs Lhe requesLs per offered klndergarLen seaL. nlneLy-four of Lhe 100 schools offerlng klndergarLen seaLs recelved aL leasL one requesL per klndergarLen seaL. lour of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools ln 1able C2 were among Lhe mosL requesLed for LCL-3 (see 1able 3). As wlLh LCL, nearly all of Lhese schools were locaLed ln Lhe lar norLheasL or SouLheasL reglons of Lhe clLy. 1he ma[orlLy of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools had earned hlgher raLlngs, four were raLed as ulsLlngulshed and four were raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. 1he Len mosL requesLed schools per avallable klndergarLen seaL lncluded one school Cn WaLch and one Cn robaLlon.
When examlnlng Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools per avallable klndergarLen seaL, Lhe resulLs were qulLe slmllar Lo Lhe resulLs of analyses examlnlng LCL-3 as a whole (1able 3). Seven of Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools for klndergarLen (ln 1able C2) also appeared ln Lhe llsL of leasL requesLed schools for LCL-3. nearly half of Lhe leasL requesLed schools for klndergarLen were ln Lhe norLhwesL reglon. Palf of Lhem were Cn WaLch, Lwo were Cn robaLlon. 1wo schools had noL yeL been raLed. @0>8%'!KB'G%P+%&$&'7%1'?-0,80>8%'.%0$'D"1'`,#4%1H01$%#' ?%2=& 9@(44"& _& ?+`/+$*$& _&9+%*$& TLL+1+,& ?+`/+$*$& A+1& !]%)"%K"+& 9+%*& ?+6)42
1able C3 presenLs Lhe requesLs per offered slxLh grade seaL. All of Lhe schools offerlng slxLh grade seaLs recelved aL leasL one requesL per offered seaL. 1he resulLs for slxLh grade seaLs alone were slmllar Lo Lhose for grades 6-8 (see 1ables 7 and 9). Seven of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools ln 1able C3 were among Lhe mosL requesLed for 6-8 (see 1able 7). Palf of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools for slxLh grade were ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon. Palf were raLed as MeeLs LxpecLaLlons. lL should be noLed LhaL all Len of Lhe mosL requesLed schools for 6 Lh grade offered relaLlvely few, less Lhan 30, seaLs.
When examlnlng Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools per avallable slxLh grade seaL, slx of Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools for slxLh grade (ln 1able C3) also appeared ln Lhe llsL of leasL requesLed schools for grades 6-8 (1able 9). MosL of Lhe schools recelvlng Lhe fewesL requesLs per avallable slxLh grade seaL were locaLed ln Lhe norLhwesL or near norLheasL reglons of Lhe clLy. nearly all of Lhem were lower-raLed schools (6 Cn WaLch, 1 Cn rlorlLy WaLch, and 1 on robaLlon).
1able C4 presenLs Lhe requesLs per offered nlnLh grade seaL. 1wenLy-flve ouL of Lhe 29 schools offerlng 9 Lh grade seaLs recelved aL leasL one requesL per offered seaL. 1he resulLs presenLed ln Lable C4 are qulLe slmllar Lo Lhe resulLs for 9-12 grades (see 1ables 11 and 13). nlne ouL of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools ln 1able C4 were among Lhe mosL requesLed for grades 9-12 (see 1able 11). Palf of Lhe Len mosL requesLed schools for nlnLh grade were ln Lhe lar norLheasL reglon. Palf were hlgher-raLed schools earnlng raLlngs of ulsLlngulshed or MeeLs LxpecLaLlons.
When examlnlng Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools per avallable nlnLh grade seaL, seven of Lhe Len leasL requesLed schools for nlnLh grade (ln 1able C4) also appeared ln Lhe llsL of leasL requesLed schools for grades 9-12 (1able 13). 1he Len schools recelvlng Lhe fewesL requesLs per avallable nlnLh grade seaL were dlsLrlbuLed falrly evenly across Lhe clLy. MosL of Lhem were raLed as Cn WaLch. 1hree of Lhese schools had noL yeL been raLed. @0>8%'!SB'G%P+%&$&'7%1'?-0,80>8%'.%0$'D"1'X $6 'E104%' ?%2=& 9@(44"& _& ?+`/+$*$& _&9+%*$& TLL+1+,& ?+`/+$*$& B+1& !]%)"%K"+& 9+%*& ?+6)42& 9A>--a& 4L& A4)2*$& 7%12+,& 9A>&0%*+641#& F& uSS1 - SLapleLon Plgh School 473 20 23.73 lnL 82 ulsLlngulshed G& Lscuela 1laLelolco 47 4 11.73 nW 34 Cn rlorlLy WaLch P& uenver School of Lhe ArLs 370 34 10.88 nnL 73 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons H& uSS1 - Cv8 Plgh School 763 130 3.10 lnL 93 ulsLlngulshed I& uClS aL MonLbello 489 121 4.04 lnL noL 8aLed S& uenver CenLer for lnLernaLlonal SLudles 223 60 3.73 SW 60 MeeLs LxpecLaLlons [& Plgh 1ech Larly College 468 123 3.74 lnL noL 8aLed X& MarLln LuLher klng Larly College 313 144 3.38 lnL 47 Cn WaLch 71