Complicating Effects of School Choice on Metro-Area School Integration Efforts

• In Event: Are Parental School Choices and Education Policy Goals Compatible?

Abstract

This paper is a qualitative case study investigating the relationship between integration policy and the school choice environment in Minnesota. School desegregation/integration programs are guided by Minnesota State Statutes and Administrative Rules, with the stated purposes of supporting ideals of integration, preventing segregation, promoting school choice, and providing equitable access to resources with the goal of addressing academic achievement (Minnesota Administrative Rules, 3535.0100).
Minnesota’s reputation as an early implementer of charter schools, and its statewide open enrollment regulations, complicate integration efforts. Charter schools are not subject to the requirements of the Rule, even when located in districts where the public schools are required to establish desegregation programs. Since the passage of the statewide Open Enrollment Rule in 1991, families may elect to send their children to any school with an open seat, including those outside students’ home districts. This voluntary participation in integration activities reflects a prevailing climate of “choice” in Minnesota’s education system, yet makes achieving true desegregation through legislative action extremely difficult.
Minnesota’s school choice climate has for years created a unique situation, one which ideally breeds innovation and sharing of ideas, but perhaps with the negative side effect of competition for limited financial resources. This is particularly evident in the Metro Area inter-district magnet schools that are designed for urban-suburban integration. They rely on a complex funding system that is potentially fragile in the face of threats to designated transportation funding and legislative attempts to eliminate integration revenue altogether.
Although magnet schools have been shown by research to be one of the most effective ways to enroll diverse student bodies and encourage cross-district movement, the reality is that when the federal magnet dollars run out it seems unlikely that all of the programs will be sustainable. The current state education budget woes would require a major commitment of all participating districts in order to sustain the program.
The emphasis on choice can undermine integration, yet a commitment to school choice is defined in Part D of the Rule itself, which recognizes that “…providing parents a choice regarding where their children should attend school is an important component of Minnesota’s education policy". A negative association between school choice and desegregation, however, has existed since the Brown era, when resistance of white parents was witnessed in the establishment of private “academies” to avoid the integrated public schools. Today, hundreds of private, parochial and charter schools in the Twin Cities metro area compete for students but are not subject to the state Desegregation/Integration Rule.
This study draws our attention to some f the broader policy systems that both support and constrain parent choice and particularly focuses our attention on the central tension between parent choice and integration efforts. Through document analysis and interviews with district leaders and statewide actors, this study provides insight into the potential future of urban-suburban integration efforts in Minnesota. In addition, the case of Minnesota raises questions about the challenges in aligning two policy goals: school integration and a commitment to expanded parent choice.

Author

• Allison Mattheis, University of Minnesota - Twin Cities