12.09 America's Best and Worst Cities for School Choice

Transcript

1 Amer ica’s Amer ica’s Best (And Worst) Cities for December 2015 School Choice PRISCILLA WOHLSTETTER & DARA ZEEHANDELAAR WITH DAVID GRIFFITH Nor m ber M. J. Petrilli thern a nd Mi chael d Forewor by A

2 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is the nation’s leader in advancing educational excellence for every child through quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as on-the-ground action and advocacy in Ohio. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this publication is a joint project of the Foundation and the Institute. For further information, please visit our website at www.edexcellence.net or write to the Institute at 1016 16th St. NW, 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20036. The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.

3 Contents SECTION SEVEN foreword i 34 City Profiles by Rank executive iv summary leans New Or 01 35 02 39 W ashington, D.C. SECTION ONE | INTRODUCTION Den 43 ver 03 Choice in America Today 1 04 Indianapolis 7 4 Columbus, OH 51 05 SECTION TWO 06 Milw aukee 55 What Makes a City 59 ark New 07 Choice-Friendly? 5 08 Oakland 63 SECTION THREE Atlant 7 6 09 a Methods & Data Sources 8 10 71 Detroit Area I 10 : Political Support 11 Chicago 7 5 Area II : Policy Environment 11 B 12 79 oston Area III 12 : Quantity & Quality ork City 12 83 New Y 87 Philadelphia 14 SECTION FOUR Los Angeles 91 15 City-Level Results 14 95 16 Minneapolis 16 The T op Ten 99 Baltimore 17 The Middle of the P 1 9 ack , MO Kansas City 18 103 22 ottom Ten The B 19 Houston 107 111 San F 20 rancisco SECTION FIVE Nash 21 115 ville 25 Taking a Closer Look 9 22 Jackson ville 11 23 San Diego 123 SECTION SIX | CONCLUSION 127 24 Tulsa Making America’s Cities 25 Dallas 131 More Choice-Friendly 29 Seattle 135 26 27 lotte 139 Char 32 endnotes Pittsburgh 1 43 28 Austin 47 29 1 foreword Alban 151 30 y Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli AUTHORS: sections six - executive summary, one APPENDIX A AUTHORS: Priscilla Wohlstetter and Dara Zeehandelaar 155 Detailed Methods CONTRIBUTORS: Julie Casper, Eric Chan, Solana Chehtman, Jane Griesinger, David Houston, and Christopher Lim APPENDIX B section seven 166 City Scores by Area AUTHOR: David Griffith

4 i Foreword Foreword Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli report once again on one of focuses Fordham’s core issues—school choice. This one that we’ve learned quite a bit about over the last decades. And it’s Key lessons? Quantity does not equal quality. Plus: The among those right for choice to flourish. must Good intentions only take conditions be so far; sturdy plants grow when seeds are planted in fertile ground. you The best teacher s be riend Rick Hess. at last lesson ha en our of th They settled on three “buckets” of indicators that, taken f ears ago, we teamed up with him on a study that explored together, provide a robust and multi-faceted picture of school Five y the ideal conditions for school reform at the city level. What choice in a given city: factors in America’s major metropolises fostered the spirit and support Political 1. , which gauges the stance of key players reality of innovation and enterprise such that reform might take relative to school choice, including the mayor, city council, America’s Best (and Worst) Cities root and thrive? That effort, school board, superintendent, parent groups, and the media. , found that too few of our big cities possess for School Reform the talent, leadership, infrastructure, culture, and resources to Policy , which includes the strength of 2. environment beckon enterprising reformers and then help them succeed. state charter laws; funding and facilities access for charter starters; non-profit, business, and philanthropic support; But we also found some innovators on that list of cities, many vital consumer tools, such as school report cards and pupil of which served as “proof points” and role models for stodgier transportation; and quality control mechanisms, such as places. (Especially notable were New Orleans, Washington, D.C., policies for closing weak and fading schools. and New York City). And the report led to many fruitful conver- sations with school, city, business, and philanthropic leaders all and , which addresses the types Quantity quality 3. over the place about how to fan the flames of “edupreneurship .” of choice options that are presently available in a city and the mechanisms for helping people to access them (such as America’s Best Now w e’re back with a targeted follow up. voucher and open enrollment programs); the portion of is not a replica—it focuses (and Worst) Cities for School Choice market share occupied by charters and other specialized on school choice rather than innovation writ large and considers schools; and the quality of the choice sector in that city. some additional questions. But it again demonstrates vividly the spectrum of receptivity to fundamental education reform The first buc ket incorporates the informed opinions of several when one looks across cities. “insiders” in each community. Gaining a nuanced perspective about a city’s choice climate is impossible without asking close To lead the work this time, we approached Priscilla (Penny) observers and participants. This small but carefully chosen group Wohlstetter, Distinguished Research Professor at Columbia Uni- of respondents included a leader of the city’s largest school versity’s Teachers College. Penny is well known for her scholar- district (superintendent or other central office official); a ship on the politics of education, and on school choice, including representative of a local organization that supports choice; research on charter schools, charter management and a member of the business community. We do not claim that organizations, and parental involvement in schools of choice. their views are representative of others in the city, but they do Penny and a talented troop of graduate students joined forces represent the informed judgment of a small group with deep with Fordham National Research Director Dara Zeehandelaar knowledge of respective locales. and Research and Policy Associate David Griffith to define what it means to be “choice-friendly,” gather and analyze copious amounts of data, and write up the results of this ambitious investigation.

5 ii Foreword The use of this insider questionnaire, coupled with inclusion of Observe that all three cities with “honors grades” (New Orleans, a broader definition of school choice and varied data sources, Washington, D.C., and Denver) are thriving, growing, and gentri- means that our study’s metrics differ in non-trivial ways from fying places. Is that coincidence? If there’s a causal relationship, Education which direction does it go? Do choice-friendly conditions boost those used in the Brookings Institution’s respected 1 Choice and Competition Index . (See page 24 for more.) a city’s vitality or vice versa? Or both? It sure seems harder to enact big-time education reform of any sort in cities that are After combining more than one hundred data points into 2 struggling economically (like Albany and Baltimore). nearly fifty indicators of choice friendliness, here’s what our ace analysts found: New Orleans and Washington, D.C. continue Meanwhile, the South is showing newfound strength. This to earn top spots, just like last time. But Denver has come away includes New Orleans, of course, but also Atlanta. And keep an eye on Nashville, with its small but high-quality (and growing) with the bronze medal, while New York City has fallen into the charter sector. The history of segregation has always complicated mediocre middle. (Blame the “de Blasio effect.”) Unsurprisingly, Albany and Pittsburgh are near the bottom. But there were school choice below the Mason-Dixon Line, but perhaps not for much longer. also curveballs like Atlanta, which is notorious for its recent cheating scandal but turns out to attain a respectable ninth rank for choice friendliness. hope is that Our across the country will look at these rankings and work cities catch up with New Orleans, Washington, and Denver. (Although reformers to love to bicker over which of this trio may be the “best” model for school reform, not tower over the all rest.) But we’re keenly aware that progress is three necessarily a permanent condition. New York City, in particular, reminds us that this whole enterprise is frighteningly fragile. Some us don’t like to get down and dirty with the politics of school choice, of preferring instead on cleaner technocratic issues (like common to focus enrollment systems, fairer funding, facilities financing, and stronger authorizing). Those are all well and good. Indeed, this report shows how important are. But if the politics crater, all they of it can crumble. So to our reform friends and allies in cities nationwide we say: Keep building smarter the policies. But keep your eyes on politics, too. footnotes 1 Grover Whitehurst and Ellie Klein, The 2014 Education Choice and Competition 2 See, for instance, http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bs-bz-census-update- Index (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, February 2015). 20150917-story.html and http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/news/2015/09/17/ albany-area-private-sector-job-rate-growth-lags.html.

6 iii Foreword Acknowledgments This report was made possible through the generous support of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Walton Family Foundation, as well as our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Many people had a hand in this report. In particular, we are grateful to author Penny Wohlstetter for her thoughtful approach to tackling a daunting project, and to contributors Julie Casper, Eric Chan, Solana Chehtman, David Houston, Jane Griesinger, and Christopher Lim--all graduate students from Teachers College, Columbia University. They contributed to all aspects of the report, including developing the metric, collecting and analyzing data, and designing and administering the questionnaire. On the Fordham side, we thank co-authors Dara Zeehandelaar and David Griffith for rolling up their sleeves and seeing the many pieces of this project through to completion. Thanks also to Chester E. Finn, Jr. for carefully reviewing drafts. Research and administrative assistance was ably provided by interns Ashley Council, Megan Lail, Andrew McDonnell, Elizabeth McInerney, Melissa Reynolds, Damien Schuster, Stephen Shehy, Jane Song, and Kate Stringer. Kudos also to: Alyssa Schwenk for funder relations and report dissemination; Shep Ranbom and Ellen Alpaugh for media outreach; and Kevin Mahnken and Jonathan Lutton for report production. Additionally, we thank Shannon Last for copy editing and Bethany Friedericks, Kristin Redman and Cricket Design Works for their nifty layout design. Last, though certainly not least, we extend our sincere gratitude to the many individuals who helped ensure that the information contained in this report was as timely and accurate as possible, including our local respondents and reviewers. A special thank you to Jim Griffin at Momentum Strategy and Research, and researchers at the National Charter School Resource Center, for their assistance on charter facilities.

7 iv Executive Summary Executive Summary determine major American cities to how thirty paper examines This today. Selected for their size “choice-friendly” geographic they are and cities reveal both the best and conditions for the diversity, worst to take root and grow. school choice “School choice” is defined broadly to incorporate a wide range 3. Quantity and Quality addresses the types of of public and private options, including charter, magnet, and school choice options that are available; the mechanisms for private schools, as well as mechanisms for accessing these accessing those options, such as voucher and open enrollment programs; the portion of market share occupied by charters options, including open enrollment, vouchers, and tax and other specialized schools; and the quality of the choice credit scholarships. sector. These topics are particularly relevant to students and Data on these options were collected from public databases and families, and they are weighted most heavily (50 percent). other sources, including district and state websites, newspaper articles, and education insiders in each city. We used these data Based on how they measured up, cities were awarded scores and ranks, overall and for each of the three areas above. The final to construct nearly fifty indicators of choice friendliness, then results are displayed on the following two pages (Tables ES-1 assessed the relative merits and drawbacks of each city’s choice atmosphere relative to three areas: and ES-2). Although we opted against assigning cities “official” grades in the report, we assigned them unofficially in the tables measures the views of various Support Political 1. that follow as a rough indication of each city’s performance level. individuals and groups as they pertain to school choice. These players include the mayor, city council, school board, superintendent, and governor, as well as unions, parent groups, and the local media. Because this area is merely a means to an end (high-quality choices), it receives the least weight (15 percent). Policy Environment addresses topics such as the 2. strength of state charter laws; funding and facilities access; non-profit, business, and philanthropic support; consumer supports, including report cards and transportation; and quality control mechanisms, such as policies for closing schools. Because policies that enable school choice are an important precursor to a robust choice sector, this area is weighted more heavily (35 percent).

8 v Executive Summary TABLE ES-1 | HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS YOUR CITY? City Grade Score Rank 84.73 New Orleans 1 A- 2 Washington, D.C. 82.62 B+ Denver 74.61 3 B- Indianapolis 4 C+ 73.54 C+ 72.51 5 Columbus Milwaukee C+ 71.57 6 C 70.18 Newark 7 Oakland 70.07 8 C C 9 Atlanta 69.85 Detroit C 69.10 10 C 68.88 11 Chicago Boston C 12 68.66 C 68.66 New York City 12 Philadelphia C 67.64 14 Los Angeles C- 67.21 15 Minneapolis C- 16 66.51 C- 17 Baltimore 65.58 Kansas City, MO D+ 64.24 18 D+ 63.23 19 Houston San Francisco D+ 20 62.71 D+ 62.67 Nashville 21 Jacksonville D+ 62.59 22 San Diego D 59.41 23 Tulsa D 24 57.94 D 57.91 Dallas 25 Seattle D 57.53 26 Charlotte D 56.79 27 Pittsburgh 56.39 28 D- Austin D- 55.08 29 Albany F 53.52 30 GRADING SCALE: A: 85–100 (A+: 97–100; A-: 85–87); B: 75–84 (B+: 82–84; B-: 75–77); C: 65–74 (C+: 72–74; C-: 65–67); and D: 55–64 (D+: 62–64; D-: 55–57); F: below 55.

9 vi Executive Summary TABLE ES-2 | HOW DO CITIES STACK UP RELATIVE TO POLITICAL SUPPORT, POLICIES, AND THE QU ANTITY AND QUALITY OF SCHOOL CHOICE? Ranks and Scores Area III: Quantity & Quality Area II: Policy Environment Area I: Political Support City Score Rank Rank Score Rank Rank Score 47.50 28.62 12 8.61 New Orleans 1 2 1 1 2 49.34 5 25.94 21 7.34 Washington, D.C. 3 Denver 11.95 1 25.79 6 36.88 11 4 4 Indianapolis 9.72 9 24.45 9 39.38 4 4 5 Columbus 6.67 24 26.47 39.38 45.63 3 19.86 25 6.09 Milwaukee 6 26 21 38.75 7 Newark 10.28 5 21.14 7 23.20 38.75 7 8 Oakland 8.13 15 14 2 14 8.20 Atlanta 9 34.38 27.27 17 39.38 16 4 22.37 18 7.36 Detroit 10 11 20 Chicago 10.14 6 25.62 7 33.13 12 36.88 11 Boston 8.47 13 23.31 12 26.72 36.11 13 12 New York City 5.83 26 3 10 38.13 9 29 5.28 Philadelphia 14 24.24 15 8 35.00 16 Los Angeles 7.08 22 25.13 16 Minneapolis 7.63 14 16 13 35.63 23.25 16.69 11.39 10 Baltimore 17 29 2 37.50 19 17 7.57 Kansas City, MO 18 35.16 21.52 15 33.75 25 18 20.03 10 9.45 Houston 19 20 18 San Francisco 5.78 28 23.18 15 33.75 21 30.63 23 Nashville 10.00 7 22.04 18 21.42 30.63 23 22 Jacksonville 10.55 4 20 22 31.25 21 18 7.36 San Diego 23 20.80 23.79 24 27.34 28 Tulsa 6.81 23 11 8 28 30.00 26 25 Dallas 9.86 18.05 22.20 4.86 25 Seattle 17 26 30 30.47 20.31 25.78 30 3 10.70 Charlotte 27 23 20.12 24 28.91 27 28 Pittsburgh 7.36 18 19.77 Austin 26.25 29 29 9.07 11 27 Albany 16.43 31.25 21 5.83 26 30 30 TOP TEN MIDDLE OF THE PACK BOTTOM TEN

10 vii Executive Summary Some cities’ overall rankings come as no surprise: New Orleans, These patterns inform our recommendations for cities seeking Washington, D.C., and Denver are well-known reform hot spots to become more choice-friendly. They include the following: and clearly deserve their honor grades. Seattle, especially in light with charters Provide resources, equitable of recent events, is an important (if depressing) cautionary tale. including equitable facilities and funding. However, other cities’ rankings are more unexpected. For example, New York City fails to crack the top ten (blame the “de Blasio school Expand public by establishing more choice effect”), while Atlanta ranks a surprising ninth overall (in part robust open enrollment programs and increasing the due to the right of first refusal that Georgia confers to charter number of magnet and CTE schools. schools when districts have surplus facilities). parents Make choice user-friendly for more Let’s take a quick look at the high- and low-performers in each by providing them with more and better information, area. Denver ranks first for political support, thanks in part to incorporating magnet and charter schools into common the unusually strong backing that school choice receives from application systems, offering equitable transportation to the local superintendent and school board; while Seattle ranks all types of schools of choice, and ensuring that charter thirtieth, in part because of a dearth of support from these and homeschooled students have access to district same groups. New Orleans ranks first on policy environment, extracurricular activities. reflecting its strong charter law, flexible teacher policies, and support Keep choice mobilizing for by rallying choice-friendly transportation (among other strengths); while external stakeholders to put pressure on state and local Albany ranks last in this area, reflecting its stingy facilities officials to go further, faster. policies, lack of philanthropic support, and unwillingness to close under-enrolled district schools. Finally, with a healthy supply of high-quality charter schools and popular voucher and open enrollment programs, Washington, D.C. ranks first on quantity and quality; while Charlotte, which has no voucher pro- gram, no open enrollment, and a tiny charter sector, ranks last. Our results reveal notable patterns across cities. For example, the amount of intradistrict choice is surprisingly high, thanks to the growth of open enrollment programs. However, further proliferation of private school choice is constrained by the limits imposed on voucher and tax credit scholarship programs. Support mechanisms for consumers of choice, such as common applications and publicly provided transportation, are also inadequate in most cities. And in nearly every jurisdiction, there is still an unmet need for better facilities to house new and existing charter schools. Finally, cities like Washington, D.C., New Orleans, and Detroit show that charter market share need not come at the expense of quality, implying that the movement can be bigger and better at the same time given adequate accountability for schools and authorizers.

11 viii SECTION ONE | INTRODUCTION Choice in America Today The case for school choice goes something like this: All children deserve accessible, high-quality schools. The right to choose a school is vital because it permits families to select an option that meets the needs of their children in accordance with their education values and priorities. Further, choice allows students to exit failing schools (which is particularly important for the disadvantaged children most likely to attend them). Thus, choice helps to level the playing field by broadening access to high-quality schools whose doors would otherwise be open mostly to higher-income families. Because school choice resonates as a fundamental right to many Americans, it continues to gain traction in its myriad forms, even while it is under assault nationwide. Nevertheless, from the perspective of parents, what matters most is not the latest politics surrounding Washington, D.C.’s voucher program or the striking down of charters in Washington State, but rather the schooling options available in the city in which they live. This paper examines thirty major American cities to determine how “choice-friendly” they are today. These findings will be of particular interest to civic leaders who want to strengthen high-quality educational opportunities in their cities and attract talented entrepreneurs who can help to make that happen. They will also interest school operators and other choice providers trying to determine where to move next. And they will give families who live (or may soon live) in these cities some orientation as to what they can expect there—and why.

12 2 Introduction | Choice in America Today Choice in America Today specific groups of students, none has been as expansive as As of 2012–13, more than twelve million of the 56.5 million Nevada’s. This move comes on the heels of considerable growth schoolchildren in America did not attend a traditional public school (Figure 1). Some are choosing district-sponsored in the number of states that permit private school choice. Eight new programs were added in 2013 alone. And as of the 2013–14 specialized options like magnet or career and technical school year there are thirty-nine mechanisms for private school education schools. Others opt for charters: since 1991, when Minnesota passed the first charter school law, the number of choice (vouchers, scholarship tax credit programs, education charter schools—and the students taking advantage of them— savings accounts, and tuition tax credits) across eighteen has exploded (page 3, Figure 2). Now all but eight states different states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Louisiana, 2 have charter laws, and during the 2013–2014 school year, providing $1.2 billion in funding for 308,000 students. approximately 2.7 million children attended 6,440 of these Even traditional district schools are becoming schools of choice, 1 independently operated public schools of choice. as more and more districts are removing strict enrollment zones and redefining what it means to be a “neighborhood school.” On the private side, many parents are choosing religious or So it’s no surprise that as of 2012, nearly 37 percent of parents secular schools, sometimes with the assistance of state programs like vouchers, tax credit scholarships, and academic savings reported having some type of public school choice available to accounts. In 2015, the Nevada legislature went so far as to give them (and 30 percent considered schools other than their 3 Moreover, families that can afford to all parents in the state the right to choose to keep their children neighborhood school). do so choose schools by relocating into zoned neighborhoods. in public schools of their choice, or to pull them out and use their accompanying state funding for a variety of education services, Indeed, in 2012, 19 percent of public school parents reported including attending a private institution of their choosing. that they actually moved to their current neighborhood 4 While other states—including Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, because of the local school. and Tennessee—have implemented similar programs to benefit 5 MILLION STUDENTS IN AMERICA IN THE 2012-13 SCHOOL YEAR, OF THE 56. FIGURE 1 | WELVE MILLION DID NOT ATTEND A TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL. MORE THAN T 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 NUMBER OF STUDENTS 500,000 0 NON-SECTARIAN CHARTER VOCATIONAL MAGNET OTHER SPECIAL CATHOLIC ALTERNATIVE PRIVATE EDUCATION RELIGIOUS PRIVATE Notes: Private school data are from the 2011–12 school year (latest available). Magnet and charter schools are also included under special education, vocational, or alternative schools as appropriate. Data do not include all forms of choice (e.g, families exercising residential choice, students in cities with district-wide lotteries, students using attendance waivers, etc). 5 Source: NCES tables 205.20, 216.50, and 206.10.

13 3 Introduction | Choice in America Today BET WEEN 1999 AND 2014, THE NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS MORE THAN QUADRUPLED. FIGURE 2 | 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 0 09-10 07-08 06-07 05-06 04-05 03-04 02-03 01-02 00-01 99-00 08-09 13-14 12-13 11-12 10-11 6 Source: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Yet even as school choice expands around the land, it continues Specifically, we examine these three areas: to come under fierce assault. In 2015, the Washington State Political How strong is the desire for school Support: 1. Supreme Court overturned that state’s charter school law, choice in the city? How willing are local officials and other despite its having been approved by both the legislature and community leaders to use their political capital to support the voters. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down Douglas school choice? To what degree do local media support it? County’s voucher program. And an Arizona appellate court ruled in 2014 that it’s perfectly legal for charters to receive Policy 2. Does school choice have the Environment: substantially less revenue than traditional district schools. potential to grow and thrive in this city? Do policies and practices support or hinder providers and consumers of school choice? But do such attacks characterize the choice ethos in any particular place? Or are they merely isolated examples that don’t and Quality: How real is school choice for 3. Quantity tell us much about the environment for educational options? families today? What options are available, how many students are taking advantage of them, and what is their quality? That’s where this study comes in. It answers a fundamental question: how choice-friendly are America’s major cities? We thirty analyze large cities—mostly We examine a broad array of school choice options in the public and private sectors, including charter schools, magnet metro and mid-sized some also but areas schools, private schools, and mechanisms for accessing these options—including open enrollment, vouchers, and tax Our results show which smaller locales. credit scholarships. are running cities torch, choice the with are which which and forward, inching collapse. are near

14 4 Introduction | Choice in America Today Organization The remainder of this report is organized as follows. First, we present our rationale for each area of our metric (Section 2), then we turn to matters of methodology, including a description of the data that comprise our scores (Section 3). Overall scores and city-level findings are presented in Section 4. (Readers primarily interested in the results can skip to this section, which begins on page 14.) City results are followed by a closer look at some key policy issues, such as whether students can enroll in other traditional public schools beyond their neighborhood and how simple (or difficult) it is for families to find information about schools of choice, apply to them, and get to them once enrolled (Section 5). We conclude in Section 6 by offering recommendations for local and state policymakers who want to advance school choice in their jurisdictions. Detailed profiles for each of the thirty cities begin on page 34. We examine a broad array of school choice options in the public and private sectors, including charter schools, magnet schools, private schools, and mechanisms for accessing these options—including open enrollment, vouchers, and tax credit scholarships.

15 5 SECTION TWO What Makes a City Choice- Friendly? More than twelve million American students exercise some form of school choice by not attending a traditional public school and instead going to (for example) a charter, magnet, or private 7 school, or opting for homeschooling. Countless others are exercising choice using district-wide lotteries, attendance waivers, or interdistrict transfers to attend public schools Flavors of School other than the one in their neighborhood (see Choice, on page 7). But what does it mean to be choice-friendly? Under what conditions can choice take root and thrive? This section provides a brief rationale for the three areas that comprise the choice-friendly measure: political support, policy environment, and the quantity and quality of school options.

16 6 What Makes a City Choice-Friendly? Support Political Quality and Quantity Research and experience show that the types of school choice A city cannot truly be choice-friendly unless there are options— and those options produce positive outcomes for students. available in a city can be shaped by local actors, such as mayors, Research shows that public school choice has benefits. In city councils, and parent organizations. Consider New York City, where two consecutive mayors, Bloomberg and de Blasio, had Chicago, for instance, a 2005 study found that roughly half of the city’s high school students attended a district school other vastly different stances relative to helping (or hindering) charter 8 than the one they were assigned, and those students were much school access to facilities. Teachers’ unions also tend to be more likely to graduate than those who attended school near influential and opposed to charter schools as well as private 18 Similarly, a review of studies on magnet schools and home. school vouchers, which can create a hostile environment for choice providers and may dissuade parents from availing interdistrict school choice suggests that these programs have a 19 generally positive, if modest, impact on student achievement. themselves of these options. And governors matter, too. Recall, for instance, Bobby Jindal’s spirited support for the Louisiana And charter students in a number of cities show stronger 20 academic growth than their district peers. Scholarship Program, which was enacted and launched in 2008 9 after a protracted battle. Finally, the media play an important There is also a clear demand for private school choice, and a role: studies show that news consumers tend to be more active choice-friendly city should have mechanisms to assist parents, 10 politically and that media bias can impact voter decisions. because tuition rules it out for many families. As of the 2013–14 Case in point: Washington, D.C. has one of the largest charter school year, thirty-nine mechanisms are in place for private Washington school sectors in the nation and benefits from the school choice (e.g., vouchers, scholarship tax credit programs, Post ’s unwavering support of charters over the last two decades. education savings accounts, and tuition tax credits) across 21 Because private schools are often eighteen different states. Policy not subject to the same accountability requirements as public Environment schools, the benefits for all private school students are largely For school choice to exist and grow, a city must have in place a unknown. But voucher students in Cleveland, Milwaukee, policy environment that supports providers, instead of placing and Washington, D.C. show modest gains over their district restrictions on them. Charter schools are currently legal in peers; special education students report better provision of forty-two states and the District of Columbia, but twenty-one services; and parents overall report higher satisfaction with states place a cap on the number of charter schools; other states 22 their child’s school. prohibit virtual (i.e., online) charter schools, forbid failing district schools from converting to charters, offer limited options a short, choice-friendly cities have In for charter authorizing, and/or give charters significantly less 11,12 funding per student than traditional public schools. On the favorable climate, political fertile policies, other hand, a majority of states currently have policies that wide array of high-quality and school a provide charter schools with access to facilities, such as the right of first refusal to purchase or lease facilities from the options for children. 13 district at or below fair market value. A choice-friendly environment also provides parents with 14 supports. Some research shows that many public school information parents make school decisions without seeking any about the schools themselves, and that when they do they usually 15 seek information from friends, neighbors, and other parents. Other studies find that parents use academic achievement data when it is available and accessible, and that, given adequate information, they choose schools that meet the academic and 16 Finally, parents report that other needs of their child. transportation (or lack thereof) is a significant issue when selecting schools for their children, and many end up selecting 17 schools based entirely on proximity.

17 7 What Makes a City Choice-Friendly? FLAVORS OF SCHOOL CHOICE access for mechanisms public school choice Charter schools others. Magnet programs are semi-autonomous, allows students to attend a Open enrollment are publicly funded, independently sometimes free-standing (entire schools), managed, and semi-autonomous schools of traditional district school other than the one that choice. They do not charge tuition and are held to sometimes co-located with a traditional district is closest to them. Intradistrict open enrollment policies allow a student to attend a school within the same academic accountability measures as school, and sometimes “schools within schools.” his or her school district, regardless of where traditional public schools. In theory, charters have Magnets are typically open to all students within a district or geographic region. more freedom over budgets, staffing, curricula, the student lives. The most “open” form is a and other operations than do district-operated district-wide lottery, in which students can attend Career and technical education programs any school in the district (or, said another way, schools. In exchange, they must deliver academic provide students with technical and academic in which no school has an attendance zone). results and satisfy community demand in order knowledge and skills based on what employers Interdistrict open enrollment policies allow a to remain open. Depending on state law and value. Some programs are their own autonomous student to attend a school outside his or her home school policy, charter schools may be open to schools, and others are semi-autonomous any students in the state, or only to students district, subject to space availability, and often programs or academies embedded within a in the district in which the charter is located. require that both sending and receiving districts larger traditional district school. agree to participate. are free public elementary and secondary Magnets allow students to work with their Virtual schools schools of choice that are operated by school Dual enrollment programs —also known as dual curriculum and teachers via the Internet; some districts or a consortia of districts. They have a credit, concurrent enrollment, postsecondary also offer brick-and-mortar facilities for testing focused academic theme and aligned curricula enrollment options, and so on—allow high school and/or supplemental instruction. Virtual schools in science, technology, engineering, and students the opportunity to earn college credit are often charter schools, although some states mathematics (STEM), fine and performing arts, while still in high school, sometimes at no cost and districts offer this option as well. International Baccalaureate, world languages to the student or student’s family. (immersion and non-immersion), and many access mechanisms for school private choice , also known Tax credit scholarship programs Most families pay for private school out of Private schools (sometimes called independent as tuition tax credits, allow individuals and pocket, and/or tuition (or the school itself) schools) are fully autonomous educational corporations to allocate a portion of their owed is subsidized by a religious or philanthropic - institutions run independently of the govern state taxes to private, nonprofit organizations organization. There are also some public policy ment; these schools typically charge tuition. that award scholarships to participating programs that can provide families assistance A private school’s focus can be religious-based, students. Scholarships allow students to choose in accessing private schools, including: academic-intensive, and/or specialized for among private schools—and sometimes public specific groups of students. There are also School vouchers , also referred to as opportunity schools outside the district—that have been accredited online tuition-based private schools. scholarships, are publicly funded scholarships approved by the scholarship organization. that pay for students to attend private rather is an alternative form of Homeschooling Education savings accounts give funds directly than public school. Private schools must meet education typically carried out by parents within to families, which parents can direct toward minimum standards established by legislatures the home itself. Homeschooling is regulated education services and products of their choice. in order to accept voucher recipients. Most differently from state to state. In some states, This can include private school tuition, tutoring, voucher programs are established at the parents or tutors are able to create their own fee-based online programs, textbooks, and state level. curricula, while in others, the state requires individualized interventions for students with standardized tests, curriculum approval, a learning disabilities. minimum education level of the parent or other education provider, and/or that families submit to a review by the state.

18 8 SECTION THREE Methods & Data Sources As indicated, choice friendliness has three components. First, the desire for school choice in the city; second, the potential for it to thrive via supportive policy and practices; and third, the reality 23 More specifically: of choice on the ground (actual options). QUANTITY AND QUALITY: 3. 1. POLITICAL SUPPORT: 2. POLICY ENVIRONMENT: How do families in the city How strong is the desire Does school choice have the experience the reality of for school choice in the city? potential to grow and thrive school choice? What options How willing are local officials in the city? Do policies and are available to families, how practices in the city support and other stakeholders to many students are taking providers and consumers of use their political capital advantage of them, and are school choice, or hinder them? to support school choice? they high quality? To what degree does the local media support choice in the community?

19 9 Methods & Data Sources City Selection TARGETED QUESTIONNAIRE Locales were chosen based on size and geographic diversity. Using the 2010 Census, cities were categorized into mega Most of the information in the metric is gleaned from (population of 1,000,000+), large (population of 500,000 to extant data sources. Yet gaining a nuanced perspective 999,999), and medium (population between approximately about a city’s choice climate is impossible without asking 100,000 and 499,999). Selection favored larger cities where insiders on the ground. To that end, we developed a we had reason to believe that education reform has gained seventeen-item questionnaire to be administered to a small (but carefully chosen) group of respondents traction—or is attempting to do so. The choice of cities also working in or with each city. Three critical perspectives attempted to maximize the geographic distribution of cities were identified: a leader of the city’s largest school across states and include a mix of choice environments (e.g., district (superintendent or other central office official, cities where choice is well established versus those where it particularly someone focused on school choice); a is emerging). The final list of thirty includes seven of the nine representative of a local organization that supports American mega cities, fourteen of twenty-five large cities, choice (e.g., Stand for Children local offices, Education 24 Cities members, etc.); and a member of the local and nine of forty-two medium-sized cities. business community, presumably with a vested interest in the academic success of students in their city. Respondents offered their opinions on the available Defining and Measuring the Three Areas financial and political support for school choice and the quality of choice options in their city. All three This study uses a variety of data to characterize a city’s respondents in each city completed the questionnaire. choice friendliness. Information was collected from publicly The questionnaire was administered June to November available federal, state, and local education databases and from 26 2014, online and by phone. organizations that maintain relevant databases, such as the data dashboard and legislative analyses from the National Alliance for We make no claims, of course, that these views are representative of others in the city. Rather, respondents Public Charter Schools. Data collection also involved a review of shared their own perceptions on behalf of a small group primary source information on district websites and in state pol - with knowledge of choice in their respective cities. These icies, speeches, and newspaper editorials, and a small but care - data inform a bit more than one-fifth of the metric. Targeted fully targeted questionnaire of insiders in each city (see ). After data collection and analysis were complete, Questionnaire insiders in each city reviewed their city’s profile; any errant data were corrected or updated if identified issues could be verified 25 through publicly available sources. Initial data collection began in December 2013 and was completed in November 2014; external verification was conducted between July 1 and September 15, 2015. What follows describes in greater detail the three areas analyzed for each city and corresponding indicators. For additional information on scoring, data sources, and calculations related to missing data, see Appendix A on page 155.

20 10 Methods & Data Sources Area I: Political Support Area I contains nine indicators, each of which is worth a Desire for change is crucial to setting the agenda for education reform and making it happen, especially for school choice. maximum of four points, for a total of thirty-six possible points. Area I assesses the extent of state and local support for choice Nearly all data in Area I are gleaned from the local questionnaire. among key elected officials (e.g., the governor, mayor, and school Political support lays the foundation for school choice to occur. board) as well as important stakeholders (e.g., teachers’ unions to enact and implement Yet in the end, if policymakers choose not and parents). Also included is the tone of each city’s media— key policies (Area II) and make choice a reality (Area III), it can - pro or con—about the city’s climate for school choice. Editorial not flourish. For this reason, Area I receives the least weight in a and op-ed articles from each city’s principal newspaper were city’s overall score (15 percent) and Areas II and III more. analyzed to gauge the amount of support. Media scores are also informed by responses to the questionnaire, where respondents were asked whether mass media (i.e., newspapers, television news, etc.) support school choice in their city. TABLE 1 | TO WHAT EXTENT IS THERE SUPPORT FOR CHOICE AMONG KEY ELECTED OFFICIALS, STAKEHOLDERS, AND THE MEDIA? POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent is the mayor willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.B To what extent is the city council willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1.C To what extent is the superintendent willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1 – Official Support 1.1.D To what extent is the school board willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 1.2.A To what extent are the teachers’ unions willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent are parent groups willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2 – Community Support 1.2.C To what extent are the media willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of the city’s principal newspaper? Desire for change is crucial to setting the agenda for education reform and making it happen, especially for school choice.

21 11 Methods & Data Sources Area II: Policy Environment The potential for robust school choice rests on the policies and informed decisions? Are students in schools of choice eligible for practices that states and cities adopt to enable different types publicly funded transportation and/or extra-curricular activities? of school choice to grow and thrive. Area II includes supports for Area II contains twenty-six indicators, each of which is worth providers (i.e., schools) and consumers (i.e., parents) of choice. a maximum of four points, for a total of 104 possible points. On the provider end: To what extent do public and private entities Data are gleaned from a combination of questionnaire, extant, offer help—funding, in-kind donations, or technical assistance— and public sources. to schools of choice? Are policies in place that provide equitable funding and facilities for charter schools? Are there restrictions As indicated, policies that enable school choice are an important on the number of charters, or on the autonomies granted to precursor to a robust choice sector, and represent the all- them? On the consumer side: Is there a common application important step between the bully pulpit and actual options. For process? Do families have the information they need to make this reason, Area II (35%) is assigned more weight than Area I (15%). TABLE 2 | WHAT DOES A CHOICE-FRIENDLY POLICY ENVIRONMENT LOOK LIKE? AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT 2.1.A To what extent does the state’s charter law restrict the number of charter schools? 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in the city? 2.1 – Public Policies 27 2.1.C Is the city’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 2.2.A Does the state have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 – Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 2.3.A In what ways do public entities (school district, city government, state education agency, and/or state government agencies) support schools of choice in the city? 2.3 – Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding? 2.3.C Does state law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.4.A In addition to public, business, and philanthropic organizations, is there any other state or local organization (e.g. an NGO) that supports school choice in the city? 2.4 – NGO Support 2.4.B In what ways do NGOs support schools of choice in the city? 2.5.A Is there business-community support (money, in-kind donations, and/or technical support) in the city for schools of choice? 2.5 – Business Support 2.5.B In what ways does the business community in the city support schools of choice? 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support (money, in-kind donations, and/or technical support) in the city for schools of choice? 2.6.B In what ways does the philanthropic community in the city support schools of choice? 2.6 – Philanthropic Support 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, Walton) how many support schools of choice in this city? 2.7.A Are charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 2.7 – Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with the authority to sanction authorizers? 2.8.B What is the average “quality score” for charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, and operational performance 2.8 – Quality Control data to make merit-based renewal decisions?) 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and does it have a history of closing such schools? ENVIRONMENT CONSUMER 2.9 – Accountability 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in the state’s accountability system? 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice? 2.10 – Information 2.10.A In what ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents? 2.11 – Application 2.11.A Is there a common application for schools of choice? 2.12 – Transportation 2.12.A Is transportation to public schools of choice provided or subsidized on equal terms as transportation to district-assigned schools? 2.13.A Are homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, such as music or sports? 2.13 – Extracurriculars

22 12 Methods & Data Sources Area III: Quantity & Quality Area III contains ten indicators (or pairs of indicators), each of When sound policies and practices are in place, school consumers are more likely to have a wide variety of quality school options. which is worth a maximum of four points. Data in Area III are Area III gauges the reality of school choice by measuring the gleaned from a combination of extant and public data and the authors’ own analyses. accessibility of schools for families (e.g., charter magnet, career and technical education, private, independent, Catholic, and Area III is truly where the rubber meets the road: In order for virtual schools, as well as homeschooling), the share of the local a city to be choice-friendly, it must have choice in place now, education market they account for, and their quality relative to at scale, and with quality. This area is therefore considered the - the district schools in the same city. It also examines mecha most important of the three and assigned the most weight (50%) nisms that allow students access to different types of schools, in our analysis. such as voucher programs that increase private school choice, and dual and open enrollment policies that expand public choice. WHAT IS THE QUANTITY & QUALITY OF CHOICE IN CHOICE-FRIENDLY CITIES? TABLE 3 | AREA III: QUANTITY AND QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A/B Public schools of choice: Are charter and/or magnet or CTE schools available to families? 3.1.C/D Private schools of choice: Are independent and/or Catholic schools available to families? 3.1 – Types of Schools 3.1.E/F Other options: Are online/virtual schools and/or homeschooling available to families? 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a district-wide lottery? 3.2.B/C External enrollment mechanisms: Are there interdistrict enrollment options? Can “receiving” districts opt out? Are there dual enrollment options? Can “sending” districts opt out? 3.2 – Access 3.2.D Does the state have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program specifically for students in the city? 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools are schools of choice (charter, magnet, and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 – Market Share 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students enroll in charter schools? 3.4 A What is the marginal impact of attending a charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 – Quality 3.4 B What is the marginal impact of attending a charter school on learning gains in math? When sound policies and practices are in place, school consumers are more likely to have a wide variety of quality school options.

23 13 Methods & Data Sources Calculating the Scores Each data point is coded on a 0–4 scale, with 4 indicating more (For information on how missing data were addressed, favorable choice elements and 0 least favorable. For each area, see Appendix A on page 155.) the city’s points are divided by the total possible points. This Table 4 demonstrates how the score for one city (Dallas) fraction is multiplied by that area’s weight, yielding the city’s is calculated. area score. The area scores are added for the total score. SCORING EXAMPLE TABLE 4 | Fraction x Weight Area Score Earned Points ⁄ Possible Points Possible points Earned points Area Weight 23.67 / 36 = = 9.86 0.6575 0.6575 x 15 9.86 15 of 15% Area I: Political Support 23.67 23.67 ⁄ 36 = 0.6575 36 18.05 = = 35 18.05 53.63 / 104 of 0.5156 0.5157 x 35 Area II: Policy Environment 53.63 104 35% 0.6000 50 30.00 = 0.6000 x 50 of 24.00 / 40 30.00 = Area III: Quantity and Quality 50% 24 ⁄ 40 = 0.6 40 24.00 TOTAL : 9.86 + 18.05 + 30.00 = 57.91 of 100 possible After all cities were scored, they were ranked. With its score of 57.91 points, Dallas ranks twenty-fifth out of the thirty cities on our list. Limitations Choice friendliness is a moving target. Mayors and superinten - We make no claims that these areas or dents resign or lose elections; legislatures and governors enact measures are flawless, or that they capture policies that favor, constrain, or exclude various forms of school choice; and unwritten traditions or customs on the ground every choice-relevant detail of every city. facilitate or deter access in ways that are difficult to measure (much less track). If gathered today, our data would likely reveal As with any effort to rank cities, this slightly different results. Further, as could be said of any study, exercise relies on judgments about what we are limited by imperfect and missing data. For example, high-quality research is available on the academic quality of matters and how to measure and weight charter versus traditional district schools, but not on any other the available data. school type. Similarly, data exist on whether a particular state has a voucher program, but not on the number of students enrolled in that program in any given city in that state. Consequently, the metric tends to contain more information about public schools of choice, especially charter schools, than about other forms of choice.

24 14 SECTION FOUR City-Level Results 28 Table 5 on the This section summarizes city scores and ranks. following page displays the final rankings of the thirty cities in our sample. Top-ranked, middle-ranked, and bottom-ranked cities appear in green, yellow, and red, respectively. Some of the cities’ rankings come as no surprise: New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Denver, and Indianapolis—all traditionally known as hot spots of reform—rank high. Not unexpectedly, Albany, Austin, and Pittsburgh are near the bottom. Other cities’ rankings perhaps do not align with expectations. New York City, for example, which is typically deemed choice-friendly, fails to crack the top ten in the rankings, in part due to the present lack of political support. (To see how our ranks stack up against the How is this Report Different? , on page 24. ) work of others, see We begin with a description of the cities that ranked highest and work down from there.

25 15 City-Level Results TABLE 5 | CITIES BY OVERALL CHOICE-FRIENDLY RANK AND SCORE Scores and Ranks Area I: Political Support Area II: Policy Environment OVERALL Area III: Quantity & Quality City Rank Score Rank Score Rank Score Score Rank 28.62 47.50 2 12 1 8.61 1 84.73 New Orleans Washington, D.C. 5 49.34 1 82.62 2 7.34 21 25.94 1 25.79 6 36.88 Denver 74.61 3 11.95 11 9.72 24.45 9 39.38 4 Indianapolis 73.54 4 9 24 4 4 39.38 6.67 Columbus 72.51 5 26.47 6.09 19.86 26 45.63 3 6 71.57 Milwaukee 25 10.28 Newark 21.14 21 38.75 7 70.18 7 5 8 15 23.20 14 38.75 7 Oakland 70.07 8.13 8.20 14 2 34.38 17 69.85 Atlanta 9 27.27 7.36 22.37 16 39.38 4 10 69.10 Detroit 18 10.14 6 25.62 7 33.13 20 Chicago 68.88 11 12 8.47 23.31 12 36.88 11 Boston 68.66 13 5.83 36.11 26.72 3 12 13 New York City 68.66 26 14 29 24.24 10 38.13 9 67.64 Philadelphia 5.28 15 7.08 22 25.13 8 35.00 16 Los Angeles 67.21 16 66.51 23.25 13 35.63 14 Minneapolis 7.63 16 11.39 65.58 29 37.50 10 Baltimore 2 17 16.69 17 15 19 35.16 7.57 Kansas City, MO 64.24 18 21.52 9.45 20.03 25 33.75 18 19 63.23 Houston 10 5.78 28 23.18 15 San Francisco 18 62.71 20 33.75 21 7 22.04 18 30.63 23 Nashville 62.67 10.00 10.55 30.63 21.42 20 22 23 Jacksonville 62.59 4 23 18 20.80 22 31.25 21 59.41 San Diego 7.36 24 6.81 23 23.79 11 27.34 28 Tulsa 57.94 25 57.91 18.05 28 30.00 26 Dallas 9.86 8 4.86 30.47 22.20 17 26 25 Seattle 57.53 30 27 3 20.31 23 25.78 30 56.79 Charlotte 10.70 28 7.36 18 20.12 24 28.91 27 Pittsburgh 56.39 29 11 19.77 27 26.25 29 9.07 Austin 55.08 30 5.83 26 16.43 30 31.25 21 Albany 53.52 TOP TEN MIDDLE OF THE PACK BOTTOM TEN

26 City-Level Results 16 Ten Top The The top ten on the list includes many familiar names; New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Denver, and Indianapolis have all gained attention in school reform circles. However, Atlanta is a bit surprising. It receives high marks for its policy environment, as do most of the cities in this group (though Newark and Milwaukee fare poorly in this area). Interestingly, only three of these ten score well on political support (Denver, Newark, and Indianapolis). Columbus, Milwaukee, and Washington, D.C., on the other hand, all score poorly on political support despite ranking near the top on quantity and quality of choice, perhaps implying that vigorous, active political support is simply no longer necessary in these cities (or perhaps that choice is now seen as threatening and that political rhetoric has turned negative). Finally, eight of the ten rank high on quantity and quality; only Denver and Atlanta are not at the very top of the list in this area. OR LE ANS N EW D.C. WASHINGTON, , New Orleans’ Recovery Established in 200 3 The nation’s capital has acquired a reform- rst School District (RSD) grew into the nation’s fi friendly reputation in recent years, due to the 02 01 all-charter system, attracting the attention of continued growth of its charter sector. Of the reformers and policymakers across the country thirty cities in our study, Washington, D.C. ranks rst-place ranking in the process. The city’s fi the highest on quantity and quality of choice is partly attributable to its high marks for the (49.3 out of 50 possible points; ranking first out 7.5 out of quantity and quality of school choice (4 of thirty), reflecting the wide range of options 50 possible points; ranking second out of thirty). available to families. The city’s high-performing More than 90 percent of New Orleans students charter sector accounts for almost half of public enroll in charter schools, which outperform school enrollment; a robust intradistrict open comparable district schools by a wide margin in enrollment program provides students with both reading and math. However, New Orleans additional public options; and the Opportunity also receives high marks for its policy environ- Scholarship program offers a limited number of ment (28.6 out of 35; ranking first), thanks to students access to private schools. The District its strong NGO, business, and philanthropic receives high marks for its policy environment support; clear and accessible information for (25.9 out of 35; ranking fifth), reflecting a num- ollment parents; unified application and enr ber of choice-friendly policies (such as those that system; choice-friendly transportation and exempt charters from collective bargaining and teacher policies; and the RSD’s willingness to teacher certification requirements). However, it 29 close district schools with low enrollments. scores poorly on political support (7.3 out of 15; ranking twenty-first), perhaps reflecting recent squabbles over public and private school choice.

27 17 City-Level Results DENVER COLUMBUS, OH Denver tops the rankings for political support - Columbus ranks high in two areas: policy envi (12.0 out of 15 possible points; ranking first out ronment (26.5 out of 35 points; ranking fourth 05 03 of thirty), thanks to the unusual number of local out of thirty) and quantity and quality of choice officials who have pushed for more school choice. (39.4 out of 50; fourth). Students in Columbus In 2013, Denver Public Schools elected four benefit from several private choice mechanisms, new school board members, all of whom have (such as the Educational Choice Scholarship Pro - joined other state and local officials supporting gram), in addition to a number of public choice Superintendent Boasberg’s charter-friendly mechanisms (such as an intradistrict lottery). policies, many of which are reflected in the city’s Moreover, Columbus has taken a number of steps high score for policy environment (25.8 out of to support consumers of school choice, such as 35 points; ranking sixth). Denver also receives establishing a choice-friendly transportation high marks for business and philanthropic system. However, although charter schools support, the percentage of charter schools that account for a large share of public enrollment, are located in district facilities, and a common on average they perform no better than district application that includes neighborhood, magnet, schools, perhaps thanks to a lack of quality and charter schools. However, it fares worse control at the state level (which recently passed when it comes to the quantity and quality of legislation aims to correct). However, the city’s school choice (36.9 out of 50 points; ranking score on political support is poor (6.7 points out eleventh), due to the lack of private school choice of fifteen; twenty-fourth), with local officials and mechanisms in the city and the comparatively parents expressing minimal support for choice. modest share of students who enroll in charters (though charters outperform district schools in both reading and math). MILWAUKEE Milwaukee has a long history of school choice - reform, which blossomed under then-Superin 06 INDIANAPOLIS tendent Howard Fuller. In 1990, it became the Indianapolis is the only city that ranks in the first major city in the United States to participate top ten in all three areas. The city’s high score in a district-wide voucher program—extended 04 for quantity and quality (39.4 out of 50 points; exclusively to low-income, predominantly ranking fourth out of thirty) reflects the multiple minority students. And since that time, the school choice mechanisms at work there—in - program has been expanded to include families cluding interdistrict and dual enrollment pro - with incomes up to 300 percent of the poverty grams (which give families access to a variety of line. It’s no surprise that Milwaukee does very public options), as well as voucher and tax credit well on quantity and quality of choice (45.6 points scholarship programs (which provide them with out of 50; third out of thirty). However, many greater access to private options). Indianapo - challenges remain, including a decided lack of lis’s charters also account for a comparatively political support (6.1 out of 15; twenty-fifth), as large share of public enrollment, in addition to well as a poor policy environment for consumers outperforming district schools in both reading and providers (19.9 out of 35; twenty-sixth out of and math. Finally, the city’s relatively favor - thirty). Inequitable funding for charter schools and able policy environment (24.5 out of 35 points; a lack of public transportation to schools of choice ranking ninth) and political climate (9.7 out of top the list of areas in need of improvement. 15; also ninth) may be a testament to the work of organizations like The Mind Trust and Stand for Children, which have played a crucial role in bringing organizations such as Teach for America and TNTP to the region, in addition to supporting advocates for school choice in local elections.

28 18 City-Level Results ATLANTA NEWARK National media attention on Atlanta has Newark made headlines for the implementation focused on the test-cheating scandal, with choice of “One Newark,” a citywide plan promoting 09 07 - receiving little attention. Yet, upon closer ex choice, charter schools, and accountability amination, Atlanta possesses some unexpected led by former Superintendent Cami Anderson, strengths. The policy environment is extremely who previously served as executive director for choice-friendly (27.3 points out of a possible 35; Teach for America and chief program officer for second out of thirty). For example, in addition to - New Leaders for New Schools. When our ques placing no restrictions on the number of charter - tionnaire was administered, respondents indi schools in the state, Georgia law grants them the cated strong political support for school choice - “right of first refusal” to surplus district facili in the city (10.3 out of 15 possible points; ranking ties. Moreover, the city receives high marks for fifth out of thirty). But in the past year there has NGO, business, and philanthropic support, fund - been a growing backlash. Newark also ranks well ing for charter authorizers, and its willingness to on quantity and quality (38.8 out of 50; seventh), close schools with low enrollment. Last year, the although it lacks private-school-choice mecha - Atlanta Board of Education, in conjunction with nisms. However, the city receives low marks the new superintendent, Meria Carstarphen, for its policy environment (21.1 out of 35; submitted a letter of intent indicating they twenty-first). While the district has closed would apply to the state for Atlanta Public schools with low enrollments and many charters Schools to become a charter system. Still, the are located in district facilities, New Jersey city scores in the middle of the pack on the law does not exempt charters from collective quantity and quality of choice (34.4 out of 50; bargaining or teacher certification requirements. seventeenth) and political support (8.2 out of 15; fourteenth), showing there is room for growth in both areas. OAKLAND Political support for choice in Oakland is lukewarm (8.1 points out of 15; fifteenth out of 08 DETROIT thirty), and the city’s policy environment is a Compared to other cities, a high percentage of mixed bag (23.2 out of 35; fourteenth). Oakland Detroit’s public schools are schools of choice, receives high marks for its philanthropic 10 and roughly 54 percent of public school students support, common application for enrollment, enroll in charters, which outperform the city’s and willingness to close schools with low abysmal district schools in both reading and enrollments. However, funding for charter math. Thanks to these strengths, the city ranks schools is well below that of district schools. near the top on quantity and quality of choice Despite these weaknesses, Oakland fares well (39.4 out of 50 possible points; ranking fourth in terms of the quantity and quality of school out of thirty). Unfortunately, political support choice (38.8 out of 50; seventh). A comparatively for choice is weak (7.4 out of 15; eighteenth). high percentage of students enroll in charters, Although parent groups and local media support which outperform district schools in both choice, the superintendent, school board, and reading and math. Still, Oakland has few magnet teachers’ union do not. Similarly, the policy schools or other district schools of choice, and environment (22.4 out of 35; sixteenth) provides because California does not have a voucher or few supports for providers or consumers of tax credit scholarship program, private options choice. In particular, Detroit does not provide remain out of reach for many students. - families with a common application or transpor tation to schools of choice, and charter schools receive far less funding than district schools.

29 19 City-Level Results The Middle of the Pack The middle of the pack includes several large cities that are traditionally thought of as choice-friendly, including Chicago, New York City, Boston, and Houston. However, each of these cities is missing some aspect of the choice landscape and receives low scores in at least one area. For several of - these cities, district-wide lotteries are the primary way that families exer cise school choice—a necessary phase, perhaps, in the transition to a system with more specialized options like magnets, charters, and private schools. CHICAGO BOSTON ( tied ) Boston’s scores are uniformly mediocre Chicago has a track record of reform, so it’s not across our three areas. Political support for surprising that it scores well on political support 12 11 choice is mixed (8.5 points out of 15; thirteenth (10.1 out of 15 possible points; ranking sixth out out of thirty), as is its policy environment of thirty). Paul Vallas, former chief executive (23.3 out of 35; twelfth). For example, the city officer of Chicago Public Schools, heavily receives high marks for its NGO, business, promoted the opening of magnet and charter and philanthropic support, and for providing schools under former Mayor Daley’s administra - transportation to schools of choice on equal tion. And more recently, Mayor Rahm Emanuel has continued to push for charter schools. terms with district-run schools. However, This consistent political support is tied to a Massachusetts charters lack the “right of first refusal” to district facilities, and few Boston favorable policy environment (25.6 out of 35; seventh), which has attracted high-performing charters are housed in them. The city’s scores for quantity and quality highlight its untapped charter management organizations, such as the potential (36.9 out of 50; eleventh). Boston has Chicago International Charter School. However, despite continued progress, the quantity and the highest-performing charter sector in the quality of options in the city leaves much to be nation, but a state charter cap keeps it small. desired (33.1 out of 50; twentieth). True, there has been a six-fold increase in charter school enrollment between 2003 and 2013. But the state caps the number of charters in the city, so most of Chicago’s public school options are magnet (or “magnet cluster”) schools. And although the Archdiocese of Chicago runs the largest private school system in the US, with 240 schools throughout the Chicago area, there are no voucher or tax credit options for students to access these schools.

30 20 City-Level Results ( tied ) LOS ANGELES NEW YORK CITY New York City scores well for its policy environ Like New York City, Los Angeles has a - choice-friendly policy environment (25.1 out ment (26.7 out of 35 possible points; ranking 15 12 of 35 points; ranking eighth). In 2009, the third out of thirty). The city receives high marks for its business and philanthropic support and Los Angeles Unified School District launched its Public School Choice Initiative, which allows common application (for district schools), as teams of internal and external stakeholders well as the availability of district facilities for charter schools. Unfortunately, there has been (such as local educators, community members and charter school operators) to compete to run an unmistakable decline in political support new or low-performing schools in the district. for choice (5.8 out of 15; twenty-sixth), since However, although the city’s charter sector is the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio, and his growing, like New York’s it remains relatively appointment of traditionalist Carmen Fariña small compared to the district, and overall the as schools chancellor. Though New York City is city ranks in the middle of the pack on quantity known as a public school choice hotspot, thanks to its citywide lottery, the quantity and quality of and quality of choice (35.0 out of 50; sixteenth). choice has room for improvement (36.1 out of 50; Finally, also as it is in New York, political support thirteenth), in part because a comparatively low for choice is fairly low in Los Angeles (7.1 out of 15; twenty-second) reflecting the protracted percentage of its million-plus students actually battles waged by the movement’s supporters enroll in charters, and in part because of the lack of private choice mechanisms in the city. and opponents. PHILADELPHIA MINNEAPOLIS Minneapolis’s commitment to school choice is Philadelphia receives high marks for the exemplified by two policies: a district-charter quantity and quality of school choice in the 14 16 city (38.1 points out of 50; ranking ninth compact signed in 2010 in which the two sectors out of thirty) and for its policy environment agreed to expand “successful schools” in the (24.2 out of 35; tenth). However, its score for form of charters; and “The Choice Is Yours” program, which provides low-income families political support is abysmal (5.3 out of 15; twenty-ninth). Questionnaire respondents with increased access to suburban schools indicated a lack of political support across the and select magnet schools. However, this board, and the city has been divided by the commitment has yet to lift the city to the top prospect of new charter schools, with unions of our list in any of our three areas (sixteenth, - thirteenth, and fourteenth out of thirty, respec and many parents on the one side and choice tively). Although families have a range of public proponents (such as StudentsFirst and the (but not private) choice mechanisms, the city Gates Foundation), on the other. Despite these lacks charter-friendly policies for facilities and political barriers, Philadelphia’s charter sector transportation, and charters are not exempt is one of the largest in the country, accounting from teacher certification requirements. for at least 30 percent of public enrollment. And the city’s students also benefit from a number of choice-friendly state policies and programs, including a recently enacted voucher program.

31 21 City-Level Results HOUSTON BALTIMORE As the birthplace of two of the most celebrated Baltimore earned one of the highest scores for charter management organizations, YES Prep political support (11.4 points out of 15; second 17 19 and KIPP Public Charter Schools, Houston might out of thirty). However, so far this has not translated into a choice-friendly policy be expected to rank higher than nineteenth overall. Yet its policy environment is markedly environment (16.7 out of 35; twenty-ninth). choice-unfriendly (20.0 points out of a possible For example, the city’s charter schools are still bound by collective bargaining agreements and 35; ranking twenty-fifth out of thirty). Many of the city’s public choice options are magnet teacher certification requirements, and there is no publicly provided transportation for the schools, not charters, and its policies reflect this - fact—magnet students have access to transpor students attending them. Yet Baltimore’s tation and a common application, while charter dismal policy environment is not reflected in the quantity and quality of choice in the city students do not. Political support for choice is relatively strong (9.5 out of 15; tenth). However, (37.5 out of 50; tenth)—at least when it comes the quantity and quality of choice leaves much to to the number of public options, which is be desired (33.8 out of 50; eighteenth). As is the surprisingly large at the high school level. case in other mega-cities, Houston enrolls many students in charter schools—but many more in schools run by the district. KANSAS CITY, MO Kansas City’s mix of strong and weak factors resulted in the city ranking middling-to-low 18 in each area (seventeenth, nineteenth, and SAN FRANCISCO fifteenth out of thirty). On the choice-friendly Political and media support for choice is low in San Francisco (5.8 points out of 15; twenty-eighth side, the city receives high marks for NGO and 20 business support; charters are exempt from out of thirty) and the policy environment is collective bargaining agreements; and choice mixed (23.2 out of 35; fifteenth). Although there schools have a high market share (though this is a district-wide lottery, the city usually does not provide transportation to students who attend may be partly attributable to interdistrict choice and the district’s loss of accreditation, which a district school other than their neighborhood school, and the same lack of transportation has motivated families to leave district schools). applies to charters. Additionally, San Francisco’s However, the city lacks a common application, charter sector (though high-performing) is small, “right of first refusal” for charters to access district facilities (many of which sit empty), and there is no voucher or tax credit scholarship program in the city—both factors that negatively and voucher or tax credit programs for private school choice. Charters also receive significantly impact its score for quantity and quality (33.8 out of 50; eighteenth). less funding than district schools.

32 22 City-Level Results The Bottom Ten The lowest-ranking cities in our sample aren’t much of a surprise. After all, Tulsa and Pittsburgh aren’t exactly hotbeds of school choice, and the atmosphere in Seattle is downright hostile to it. A few cities—Nashville, Jacksonville, Dallas, and Charlotte—seem to want school choice (all four rank high on political support). However, none of the cities in this group have choice-friendly policy environments, and they fare even worse when it comes to the quantity and quality of choice. NASHVILLE SAN DIEGO Nashville might best be described as a city with In 2013, San Diego Unified was a finalist for the great potential. Charter networks have a strong Broad Prize for Urban Education. However, the 21 23 presence there, with KIPP, LEAD, and RePublic - city as a whole fares poorly in our rankings. Po Schools all running schools in the city. The city’s litical support is lukewarm (7.4 points out of 15; potential is reflected in its scores, which place ranking eighteenth out of thirty), and the policy it near the bottom for quantity and quality of environment is not choice-friendly (20.8 out of - choice (30.6 points out of 50; ranking twen 35; twenty-second). The city receives high marks ty-third out of thirty), in the middle for policy for its accountability system and the number environment (22.0 out of 35; eighteenth), and of charters located in district facilities, but low near the top for political support (10.0 out of marks for the lack of charter funding equity and 15; seventh). On average, Nashville’s charters choice-friendly transportation. Finally, because outperform their district counterparts in both it has comparatively few public schools of choice reading and math. However, despite their rapid and no voucher or tax credit scholarship programs, growth, they account for just a small fraction of San Diego receives low marks for quantity and total public enrollment. quality (31.3 points out of 50; twenty-first). JACKSONVILLE TULSA The amount of school choice in Jacksonville Tulsa’s policy environment is mixed (23.8 points has skyrocketed, with the fraction of students out of 35; ranking eleventh out of thirty). On the 22 24 enrolled in charter schools growing 344 percent one hand, the city’s charters benefit from state in the past five years. Duval County has worked laws exempting them from collective bargaining to forge partnerships between traditional and and teacher certification requirements, and many charter schools and has made a concerted effort are located in district facilities. But on the other to provide high quality information to parents. hand, there is no common application for schools Political support for choice is high (10.6 points of choice, and the district (which authorizes about out of 15; fourth out of thirty), but the policy half of the city’s charters) does not engage in many environment (21.4 out of 35; twentieth) is still a - of the practices associated with quality autho work in progress, and the quantity and quality of rizing, according to the National Association of choice leaves much to be desired (30.6 points out Charter School Authorizers. With little political of 50; twenty-third). Jacksonville is the only city support (6.8 out of 15; twenty-third), at least at the in our sample where district schools outperform local level, Tulsa’s choice sector faces challenges, charter schools. - which are reflected in the city’s low rank on quan tity and quality (27.3 out of 50; twenty-eighth).

33 23 City-Level Results CHARLOTTE DALLAS Dallas is an example of a city in which support As Charlotte demonstrates, strong political for choice is mostly talk—we see little action. support for choice (10.7 points out of 15; ranking 25 27 third out of thirty) doesn’t always translate into Questionnaire respondents indicated strong a choice-friendly reality. In fact, when it comes political support for choice, and the city’s high rank in this area reflects that support (9.9 points to the quantity and quality of choice, Charlotte ranks last (25.8 out of 50; thirtieth). While the out of 15; ranking eighth out of thirty). However, city offers a wide variety of choices, charter the policy environment is not particularly schools account for just six percent of total favorable for either providers or parents (18.1 public enrollment (though the city does have out of 35; twenty-eighth). Funding for charters schools is inequitable, transportation is not a number of magnet schools). This disconnect is most likely attributable to Charlotte’s policy choice-friendly, and most schools of choice are not included in Dallas’s common application environment, which is also unfriendly to choice (20.3 out of 35; twenty-third). Because all charter system. These weak supports may explain why schools must be authorized by the state, local the quantity and quality of choice in Dallas is so low (30.0 out of 50; twenty-sixth). support for choice does not mean as much as it might. SEATTLE PITTSBURGH Even before the state Supreme Court declared Washington’s charter law unconstitutional, Although there is still minimal political 26 Seattle was one of the least choice-friendly support for choice in Pittsburgh (7.4 points out 28 cities on our list. (Note that data for Seattle of 15; ranking eighteenth out of thirty) district are accurate as of July 2015, to be consistent enrollment is nevertheless in decline, due to competition from charter schools. The district with the remaining cities in the study, and recent tried to address the issue by creating an open implications of the Supreme Court hearing are not reflected in our findings.) Granted, the city enrollment system for high schools in 2013. has a long tradition of philanthropic support However, in general there are still few public options for students, and Pittsburgh ranks for choice, with Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Alice Walton serving as vocal champions. poorly on quantity and quality of choice (28.9 out of 50; twenty-seventh). The policy However, even prior to the court’s decision, it environment is not particularly choice-friendly still ranked dead last on political support (4.9 either (20.1 out of 35; twenty-fourth). Although points out of 15; ranking thirtieth out of thirty) - Pennsylvania law exempts charters from collec and near the bottom on quantity and quality tive bargaining agreements and most teacher (30.5 out of 50; twenty-fifth). Although Seattle certification requirements, charters receive far has a district-wide lottery for “options schools” less public funding than district schools and and traditional public schools, private school choice is nonexistent for families who cannot cannot easily locate in district facilities. pay for it themselves.

34 24 City-Level Results ALBANY AUSTIN Despite its history as a proving ground for There is significant political support for school choice, today there is little about Albany that choice in Austin (9.1 points out of 15; eleventh 30 29 is choice-friendly. Questionnaire respondents out of thirty). However, for now the quantity and indicated that local politicians and media do not quality of choice is low (26.3 out of 50; twenty- support school choice (5.8 points out of a possi - ninth). Austin has few public schools of choice of any type (including magnets), and only a small ble 15; ranking twenty-sixth out of thirty), and fraction of the city’s students enroll in charter the policy environment is equally bleak (16.4 out - schools, which are academically no better than of 35; thirtieth). Charter schools cannot be lo cated in district facilities in Albany (a significant district schools. The policy environment in Austin is also unfriendly to choice (19.8 out of 35; burden since they receive less per-pupil funding twenty-seventh). Although charter schools are than district schools). Moreover, choice receives little NGO, business, and philanthropic support. funded equitably, there is no common applica - The city fares slightly better on the quantity and tion or transportation to schools of choice, and school report cards provide limited information quality (31.3 out of 50; twenty-first), thanks to its large charter sector. However, there are to parents. no online or virtual schools. HOW IS THIS REPORT DIFFERENT? For the past few years, the Brookings Institution Washington, D.C., and Denver have strong choice government databases, information from other has released its - environments (and that those in Albany and Education Choice and Compe - organizations, state and district websites, news papers, and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. tition Index, which uses a number of indicators Nashville leave much to be desired). Yet Brookings Third, this report adopts a holistic approach to to measure choice friendliness (including a few gives Indianapolis a D grade and Atlanta an 30 the school choice environment. For example, it that are included in this report). F, whereas they rank fourth and ninth in our Despite some includes charter-facilities access, teacher policy, report, respectively, reflecting the comparatively similarities, however, the methods (and goals) of as well as charter and authorizer quality. Finally, the two reports are quite different. choice-friendly state policy environments in which they are located. Conversely, New York and when data overlap in the two reports, they are First, this report’s definition of “school choice” is assigned different weights. In particular, while Houston receive an A- and a B from Brookings, very broad. The metric captures several forms of five of Brookings’ thirteen indicators address the whereas we rank them twelfth and nineteenth. For choice that do not appear in the Brookings report, New York, this difference reflects the low level of accessibility and quality of information on school including interdistrict and intradistrict open and student performance, these measures account political support for choice. For Houston, it reflects enrollment, dual enrollment, and homeschooling. a variety of factors, such as the lack of voucher for just three of the fifty indicators in this report. Second, the two reports use different data sources. programs in Texas. It is therefore not surprising that the overall uses Education Choice and Competition Index, The primarily federal data supplemented with inter ranks differ in some ways and align in others. - Our findings are similar in that New Orleans, views of district staff, while this one uses multiple

35 25 SECTION FIVE Taking a Closer Look This section explores six key questions, focusing on those that can only be answered by combining data from multiple sources in new and unique ways; it also includes information too nuanced to be captured by the metric. 5. Are high-quality authorizers 3. How simple is it for families Is charter market share 1. available to prospective to find information about related to quality? charter applicants? schools of choice, apply to them, and access them once enrolled? 2. Can students enroll in other traditional public schools Can families access vouchers 6. besides their neighborhood 4. Do charters have access or tax credit scholarships for school? to district facilities? private school choice regardless of their socioeconomic status?

36 26 Taking a Closer Look Is charter market share related Can students enroll in other 2. 1. traditional public schools besides to quality? their neighborhood school? Eight of the ten cities on our list with the highest charter market share also have information on charter quality relative to district - Even if they don’t offer the sort of diverse, specialized program - schools. In seven of these cities, charters outperform their dis ming that charter and magnet schools often do, traditional trict peers in both reading and math. (Columbus, where district “comprehensive” district schools can vary significantly in terms of their location, demographics, and performance. Thus, true and charter schools perform similarly in both subjects, is the ex - choice means parents can access other traditional schools in ception.) In contrast, though there are no data on charter quality addition to their neighborhood school. In its simplest form, this - for four of the ten cities on the list with the lowest charter mar sort of intradistrict choice involves a waiver exempting a student ket share, of the remaining six only three have charter schools - that outperform their district counterparts in both reading and from attending her zoned neighborhood school due to extraordi nary circumstances and granting her the right to attend a school math (Nashville, New York, and San Francisco). In the other elsewhere in the district (space permitting). In its most complex three (Austin, Atlanta, and Jacksonville), the quality of charters is mixed or poor. Specifically, district and charter schools in Atlanta (and empowering) form, it involves a district-wide lottery that allows families to rank their preferences of district schools perform at similar levels in reading, while in Austin they perform 32 at similar levels in both subjects, and in Jacksonville charters independent of location. actually perform worse in reading. Interestingly, New York and Most of the districts in the cities on our list allow for at least San Francisco operate under fairly restrictive charter caps, while 33 And in seventeen cities, the some form of intradistrict choice. Atlanta and Jacksonville are in states with no caps. Taken togeth - largest district has a lottery that allows families to rank their er, these data suggest that, while high market share does not preferred schools, although no two cities conduct their lotteries necessarily dilute quality (and in some cities, seems to encourage in exactly the same way. Nine of these seventeen have some sort it), market forces alone may be an ineffective guarantor of of “forced choice” system that requires families to rank their top 31 quality when charter market share is low. choices, while the other eight give them the option of participat - ing (but don’t require that they do so, and default them to their neighborhood school if they don’t). While almost every city with Taken together, these data a lottery gives first and second priority to continuing students and siblings of current students respectively, cities take various approaches after these preferences have been satisfied. In twelve suggest that, while high cities, children who live within a school’s attendance zone get next priority. In San Francisco, children living in the city with market share does not low average test scores get priority, while Chicago reserves a certain percentage of available seats at every “open enrollment” necessarily dilute quality or magnet school for students from different socioeconomic brackets (as defined by the district). Boston Public Schools gives each of its elementary and middle school families a list of ten (and in some cities, seems to to fourteen schools from which they may choose, but otherwise does not grant neighborhood priority. Finally, New Orleans gives encourage it), market forces no preference to students from particular neighborhoods or socioeconomic backgrounds. alone may be an ineffective In eight of our cities, the largest district grants enrollment waivers but does not have a district-wide lottery. However, in guarantor of quality when some cities, the district appears more favorably inclined toward such transfers than others. For example, Dallas ISD requires charter market share is low. families who live outside a school’s attendance zone to reapply for their enrollment waiver at the beginning of each school year.

37 27 Taking a Closer Look 36 bear substantial direct or indirect costs. Similarly, Baltimore, 3. How simple is it for families to find Charlotte, and Houston provide transportation to magnet information about schools of choice, schools, but not to charters. Even where charters are legally apply to them, and access them entitled to transportation, there is no guarantee they receive it. once enrolled? For example, although Minnesota’s school districts must provide IS INFORMATION ON SCHOOL CHOICE ACCESSIBLE? transportation to charters that request it, because many Minne - School choice means little if families aren’t aware of the options apolis charters operate on their own schedules, it is not practical available to them. Fortunately, our results suggest that in most or feasible for them to do so. Finally, in thirteen cities almost no cities information about school choice is accessible. For example, schools of choice receive the transportation that district schools in every city in our sample at least some information about receive, and there is no transportation subsidy. schools of choice is available on both district and state websites, and in at least twenty-five cities information is also available on the website of a nonprofit organization (such as GreatSchools. Do charters have access 4. org). In addition to these online resources, at least twenty-five to district facilities? cities have a school choice fair. Finally, in at least half our cities, community organizers or representatives from the choice sector Although there is no source for precise data on the percentage go door-to-door to promote schools of choice. Still, more may be of charters that are located or co-located in district facilities required. In a recent study, 33 percent of parents identified their at the city level, we were able to determine a rough estimate 37 confusion about which schools their children were eligible to for most cities. Thus, to the best of our knowledge, four of the 34 attend as a barrier to choice. thirty cities have no charters in district facilities: Albany, Dallas, Pittsburgh, and Seattle. Conversely, in twenty-five cities, one or HOW COMMON ARE COMMON APPLICATIONS? more charters are located in a district facility, and in thirteen of Completing a separate application for every school imposes a these cities more than one-quarter of charters are so located. major burden on parents (especially those with multiple children). Finally, more than half of charters are located in district facilities Of our thirty cities, only six—Baltimore, Denver, New Orleans, in six cities: Atlanta, Denver, Milwaukee, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C.—offer parents a - and Tulsa. (Note that, because of imprecise data, city counts rep streamlined application process that includes charter schools. resent minimums. For example: one or more charters are located (Denver, Newark, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. also include in a district facility in at least twenty-five cities out of the thirty.) charters in their district-wide lotteries.) Another thirteen cities offer parents a common application for all district-run schools, in - One factor that might account for the differences among cities cluding both traditional schools and magnets (but not for charters). is a “right of first refusal law,” granting charters the right to lease And eight cities have a common application for magnet schools or purchase a closed, unused, or underused district facility at only that does not include traditional district schools or charters. or below market value. Because districts are often reluctant to Only three cities (Austin, Detroit, and Kansas City) have no common share their resources with charters, many states have passed application for traditional district, magnet, or charter schools. such laws. Fourteen of our thirty cities are located in states or districts with a right of first refusal law, while sixteen are IS THERE TRANSPORTATION 38 We might expect in states with no such policy whatsoever. TO SCHOOLS OF CHOICE? cities where many charters are housed in district facilities to In a recent study, more than one-quarter of parents cited lack of be in states with a right of first refusal law. However, in Denver, transportation as a barrier to school choice, and our results also 35 Milwaukee, and Tulsa, more than half of charters are located in Just suggest this is an area where many cities could improve. district facilities, despite the fact that charters lack the right of nine cities provide the same transportation to public schools of first refusal. Of the thirteen cities where at least one-quarter choice that they offer to traditional district schools. However, of charter schools are located in district facilities, seven are in two of these cities (New York City and Washington, D.C.) mostly states without a right of first refusal policy, suggesting the reality rely on public transportation (subways, city buses, etc.) to serve of facilities access may be determined as much by other factors both district and charter students, leaving just seven cities— as by state law (such as the availability and location of empty Albany, Boston, Columbus, Newark, New Orleans, Philadelphia, or underutilized district schools, or whether charters receive and Pittsburgh—that are actively choice-friendly in this regard. dedicated facilities funding). In Denver, Jacksonville, and Seattle, transportation to schools of choice is subsidized by the state, but schools or families may still

38 28 Taking a Closer Look Can families access vouchers or Are high-quality authorizers 6. 5. available to prospective tax credit scholarships for private school choice regardless of their charter applicants? socioeconomic status? Over the past decade, the National Association of Charter School In eleven of our thirty cities, at least some students are eligible Authorizers (NACSA) has developed a list of twelve “essential for a voucher or tax credit scholarship program. However, with practices” for authorizers, which it uses to assign them a “quality - score” from zero to twelve. These include “using academic, finan the exception of the programs in Milwaukee and Washington, cial, and operational performance data to make merit-based re D.C. (which are specific to those cities) these are statewide - programs, which usually have enrollment limits of some kind. newal decisions” and other very basic quality control measures, Most of the vouchers or scholarships these programs provide are such as annual financial audits and reports as well as having staff within the organization assigned to authorizing. In twenty-sev - worth only a fraction of private tuition (or the amount spent per student in public schools). Finally, for most programs, eligibility en of the thirty cities, our weighted authorizer quality measure is also restricted to a particular type or class of student, such as suggests the “average” charter authorizer has adopted at least nine of NACSA’s essential practices, and in seventeen cities the low- or middle-income students, special education students, or 39 average authorizer has adopted at least eleven of the twelve. those from low-performing schools or districts. Indeed, of our Tulsa Public Schools (that city’s primary authorizer) is a clear thirty cities, only Atlanta has access to a voucher or tax credit outlier, however, having adopted just four of twelve practices. scholarship program that does not restrict eligibility based on any of these characteristics (though at 300 percent of the pover - Is there a relationship between authorizer quality and school ty line, the eligibility threshold for Milwaukee’s voucher program quality? Cities with high-performing charter sectors (such as is not terribly restrictive either). Boston, Washington, D.C., and New Orleans) have authorizers that scored well on the weighted authorizer quality measure, while in Jacksonville (where the district authorizer has adopted just nine of twelve practices) charters perform worse than tradi - tional district schools. However, there are also cities that receive high marks for authorizer quality and low marks for charter quality (such as Columbus), so by itself authorizer quality is not a sufficient condition for charter success. Most of the vouchers or scholarships these programs provide are worth only a fraction of private tuition (or the amount spent per student in public schools).

39 29 SECTION SIX | CONCLUSION Making America’s Cities More Choice-Friendly While school choice opportunities have increased nationwide, our results reveal considerable variation among cities. In those at the top of the list, school choice is the go-to reform strategy. The Recovery School District in New Orleans, for example, is frequently cited as a model of school improvement. Similarly, Washington, D.C., Denver, Indianapolis, Columbus, and Milwaukee have a variety of public and private options—and are largely seen as cities on the rise. At the other end of the spectrum, cities such as Austin, Pittsburgh, and Seattle have a long way to go before they are deemed choice-friendly, not only because they fail to provide many (or any) options, but also because they have few policies or supports that will allow more of them to take root and grow in the future. As evident from the rankings, political support and choice-friendly policies do not guarantee a robust reality of choice. New York, Los Angeles, and Atlanta have choice-friendly policy environments, but little actual choice, at least for their size. Similarly, Houston, Dallas, Jacksonville, and Nashville have strong political support for choice, but so far it hasn’t been enough to attract a sufficient quantity of high-quality options. On the other hand, Milwaukee, Detroit, Newark, and Baltimore appear to have beaten the odds. All have a robust choice sector on the ground, despite anti-choice policies or politics. Of course, there are some obvious ways to make cities more choice-friendly across the board: Expand voucher programs and relax their eligibility requirements. Decrease or eliminate restrictions on the number and type of charters. Tie an expanded pool of options to stronger accountability systems. Shut down low-performing schools, so we aren’t creating a market where bad schools recruit students. However, the data also suggest at least four less-obvious ways in which cities might improve.

40 30 Conclusion | Making America’s Cities More Choice-Friendly 2. 1. Provide resources for charters Expand intradistrict choice. that are truly equitable. “Choice” does not necessarily mean “charter” or “private.” For many families, a traditional comprehensive public school may be Cities’ poor scores on a number of indicators demonstrate that charters and other public schools are not treated equally. For the best fit, as long as it is high quality and meets other needs, example, in nearly every city there is a significant (often drastic) such as safety and location. However, in many places, it’s not easy for students to attend district schools other than the one to funding disparity between charter and district schools. This dis - - which they are assigned. Transferring between schools for rea parity is usually more than 20 percent, and in some cities (such sons other than a change in residence can be difficult, requiring as Milwaukee and Pittsburgh) it is close to 50 percent. Many states and cities also make it extremely difficult for charters to waivers that can be denied by the receiving school or district. In recent years, some districts have established open enrollment acquire adequate facilities because they do not grant them the - policies to expand access to traditional schools, making it easier right of first refusal to lease or purchase unused district build ings (which presents even more challenges, since charters do not (or at least possible) to attend a district school other than a receive sufficient funds). neighborhood school. However, only a few have district-wide lotteries that allow families to rank their preferred schools, The implicit expectation that charters “do more with less” is and these are often difficult to navigate, as well as optional unfair to the students and staff at these schools, even if it’s an (so parents might not even know about them). expectation that charters in many cities are managing to meet. Other families want a hybrid—specialized academics, such as a It’s true that in Baltimore, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, magnet or career and technical education program, within the Newark, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. charters are dra - matically outperforming district schools despite a funding gap structure of a larger traditional school and all that comes with it of more than 30 percent. But imagine what these schools could (like athletics and electives). Creating more of these programs— and making it easier to attend them via common applications accomplish if they were asked to do more with equal resources and transportation—is another way of expanding the number instead of more with less (and perhaps, at the same time, exempted all charters from teacher certification requirements and type of public school options in a district. that limit their human capital). Expanding intradistrict choice is particularly important for cities and districts in states with restrictive charter laws that do not allow charters, or severely limit their number and type. It is also a way to address the “big-city” challenge. Even though they have lots of charter schools, cities like Houston, Los Angeles, and New York City will struggle to meet the demand for charters— there are simply too many students. Magnets, career and tech - nical education schools, and even open enrollment are potential solutions to big-city problems. Imagine what these schools could accomplish if they were asked to do more with equal resources instead of more with less.

41 31 Conclusion | Making America’s Cities More Choice-Friendly 4. 3. Make choice more user-friendly Keep mobilizing external and for parents. stakeholder support for choice. The theory of action supporting school choice suggests that, if In most cities, the data reveal that parent groups and the media parents are given the freedom to select a school outside of their support choice. However, support from non-governmental neighborhood, they will choose a better-performing one. But organizations is low, while union, school board, and city council opposition is high. And a few cities on the list demonstrate how this notion relies on parents actually being able to identify such schools and then apply and physically access them. From what important these factors can be. For example, the large urban centers of Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York City all have we’ve seen, however, those conditions are in short supply and the theory falls flat. In many places, lots of school choice doesn’t choice-friendly policy environments, meaning that theoretically necessarily equate to a choice-friendly city. they are fertile places for choice to take root and grow. But they all rank well out of the top ten on both political support and the The shortcomings in many of the cities we examined reveal a quantity and quality of options, perhaps because local stakehold - number of ways to make parents’ tasks easier and improve the ers do not use their bully pulpit to support choice. Conversely, function of the education market. For example, most cities do Baltimore and Newark have weak policy environments, but not provide comprehensive report cards for all types of schools caliber of strong political support and a decent amount and of choice; many omit key pieces of information, such as student options, such that choice is thriving in a policy environment safety, teacher quality, and academic proficiency and growth not conducive to it. This bodes well for cities like Nashville, rates over time. Similarly, although twenty-seven cities have Jacksonville, Dallas, and Charlotte, all of which have political some sort of common application, none includes all types support, but unfavorable policy environments and few of schools of choice (e.g., many omit charters and/or online high-quality choices. schools). Only nine cities provide students with transportation to any public school of choice within district borders on the All of these recommendations carry same terms as a district-assigned school. Finally, in many cities, students who attend charter schools are excluded from district with them the fundamental imperative to extracurricular activities—an often overlooked dimension of better educational options and outcomes the school experience that is important to many families. And although eleven of our cities have some mechanism for facili - - for students. While this mission is import tating access to private schools—either a voucher or a tax credit scholarship program—the value of the program is far less than ant regardless of where children live, the cost of tuition. improving schools systems in major cities Providing comprehensive report cards, all-inclusive common is especially critical for those children, applications, access to transportation, extracurricular activities, and fairly funded private school options—these are the types often minority and/or living in poverty, of things that cities can do to make choice more user-friendly for parents. who are enrolled in schools that are chronically under-performing with no signs of progress. School choice, at least the high-quality kind, gives students a way to exit inadequate schools and a chance to avoid the lifelong consequences of a second-rate education. Cities should do all they can to foster more of it.

42 32 Endnotes endnotes 11 National Alliance for Public Paul Teske and Mark Schneider, 16 Council of Chief State School 1 National Alliance for Public Charter 6 “What Research Can Tell Policymakers Charter Schools (NAPCS), “A Growing Officers (CCSSO), “School Choice in the Schools (NAPCS), “Public Charter - about School Choice,” Movement: America’s Largest Charter Journal of Policy States: A Policy Landscape” (Wash Schools Dashboard: Total Number of Schools, 2013–2014” (Washington, ington, D.C.: CSSO, February 2013), Analysis and Management 20, no. 4 School Communities” (Washington, D.C.: NAPCS, 2014), http://dashboard. http://www.ccsso.org/Documents/2013/ - http://onlineli D.C.: NACPS, December 2014), (Fall 2001), 609–631 http:// publiccharters.org/dashboard/schools/ Choice_by_State_2013.pdf; Alison brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.1020/ www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/ . year/2014 ; Joseph Bast, “Can Parents Zgainer and Kara Kerwin, eds., “Charter abstract uploads/2014/12/2014_Enrollment_ - Choose the Best Schools For Their Chil Share_FINAL.pdf School Laws Across the States: 2015 . 7 NCES, Tables 205.20, 216.50, Economics of Education Review dren?” Rankings and Scorecards” (Washing - American Federation for Children 206.10. 2 23, no.4 (August 2004), 431–440, ton, D.C.: Center for Education Reform, (AFC), “Facts” (Washington, D.C.: AFC), http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ 2015), https://www.edreform.com/ 8 Carl Campanile, “Charter-school http://www.federationforchildren.org/ ; - article/pii/S0272775703001213 wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Charter Leaders: de Blasio Hasn’t Kept His . ed-choice-101/facts/ - Laws2015.pdf; Justine Hastings et al., “Preferences, Todd Ziebarth, “Measur Promises” New York Post , Sep - ing Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Information, and Parental Choice http://nypost. Note that these data are not totals tember 22, 2015, 3 Behavior in Public School Choice,” Charter School Laws” (Washington, - for parents who actually took advantage com/2015/09/22/charter-school-lead http:// D.C.: NAPCS, January 2014), National Bureau of Economic Research ers-de-blasio-hasnt-kept-his-promis - of school choice (see Figure 1)—just www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/ (NBER) Working Paper No. 12995 es/. those who reported having it. See (Cambridge, MA: NBER, March 2007), uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014. National Center for Education Statistics pdf. http://www.nber.org/papers/w12995. 9 - Friedman Foundation for Educa (NCES), Table 206.40: “Percentage of tional Choice, “School Choice: Louisiana students enrolled in grades 1 through 17 12 Charter schools, on average, Bosetti, “Determinants of School Scholarship Program” (Indianapolis, 12 whose parents reported having Choice”; Mark Schneider and Jack receive 28.4 percent less funding per http://www. IN: Friedman Foundation), public school choice, considered other Buckley, “What do Parents Want from student compared to traditional public edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/ schools, reported current school was Schools? Evidence from the Internet,” schools, which amounts to $3,814 louisiana-scholarship-program/. their first choice, or moved to their less per student. Meagan Batdorff et Educational Evaluation and Policy current neighborhood for the public al., “Charter School Funding: Inequity 24, no. 2 (2002), 133–144, Analysis Dietram Scheufele et al., “Who 10 school, by school type and selected http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/ Expands” (Fayetteville, AR: University Cares About Local Politics? Media child and household characteristics, . pub_dscr_teske_jul09_0.pdf of Arkansas School Choice Demonstra - - Influences on Local Political Involve - 2012” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart tion Project, April 2014), http://www. ment, Issue Awareness, and Attitude Julie Cullen et al., “The Impact of https://nces. ment of Education, 2014), 18 uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/ Strength,” Journalism & Mass Com - ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/ School Choice on Student Outcomes: charter-funding-inequity-expands.pdf. munication Quarterly 79, no. 2 (2002), Also, parents were An Analysis of Chicago Public Schools,” dt14_206.40.asp. 427–444, http://www.researchgate. Russ Simnick, “State Policy 13 Journal of Public Economics 89 (2005), only asked about public school choice, net/profile/Dietram_Scheufele/publica - not private options (which is, theoreti 729–760, Snapshot: School District Facilities and - http://www.grahamimac. tion/224818400_Who_cares_about_lo - com/housingandeducation/pdf/Cullen Public Charter Schools” (Washington, - cally, available to all of them). - cal_politics_Media_influences_on_lo D.C.: NAPCS, April 2015), JacobLevitt_2005.pdf . http:// cal_political_involvement_issue_ Ibid. 4 www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/ awareness_and_attitude_strength/ 19 Gary Miron et al., “The Impact uploads/2015/04/facilities_snapshopt. NCES, Table 206.10: “Number and 5 links/00b49529c0c7a92872000000. of School Choice Reforms on Student pdf. percentage of homeschooled students pdf; Dietram Scheufele, “Examining Achievement” (Tempe, AZ and Boulder, Differential Gains From Mass Media ages 5 through 17 with a grade CO: ASU Education Policy Research Unit 14 Ashley Jochim et al., “How Parents and Their Implications for Participatory equivalent of kindergarten through Experience Public School Choice” (Se and Education and the Public Interest - 12th grade, by selected child, parent, Behavior,” Communication Research Center), March 2008, http://epsl.asu. attle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public and household characteristics: 2003, 29, no. 1 (2002), 46–65 edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0803-262- Education (CRPE), December 2014), 2007, and 2012” (Washington, D.C.: http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/ EPRU.pdf. http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/ U.S. Department of Education, 2014), - crpe_how-parents-experience-pub cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/ Center for Research on Education 20 lic-school-choice_1_1.pdf. on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta819. Outcomes (CREDO), “Charter School d14/tables/dt14_206.10.asp; NCES, pdf ; James Druckman and Michael Performance in Michigan” (Stanford, Table 216.20: “Number and enrollment 15 Lynn Bosetti, “Determinants Parkin, “The Impact of Media Bias: - of public elementary and secondary https://cre CA: CREDO, January 2013), of School Choice: Understanding How Editorial Slant Affects Voters,” schools, by school level, type, and char - do.stanford.edu/pdfs/MI_report_2012_ How Parents Choose Elementary Journal of Politics 67, no. 4 (No - Journal of FINAL_1_11_2013_no_watermark.pdf; Schools in Alberta,” ter and magnet status: Selected years, http:// vember 2005), 1030–1049, 1990–91 through 2012–13” (Washing Education Policy 19, no. 4 (July 2004), Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd, “The - www.windsorsquare.ca/wp-content/ Impacts of Charter Schools on Student http://193.140.134.6/~gokturk/ ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, ; uploads/2010/10/editorialbias.pdf 2014), ; Ellen sbox2/rationalchoicetheory.pdf Achievement: Evidence from North https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ Stefano DellaVigna and Ethan Kaplan, ; Goldring and Kristie J. Rowley, “Parent digest/d14/tables/dt14_216.20.asp Carolina” (Durham, NC: Terry Sanford “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Preferences And Parent Choices: The Institute of Public Policy, August NCES, Table 205.20: “Enrollment and Voting,” Seminar Paper 748 (Stockholm, 2004), http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ percentage distribution of students Public-Private Decision about School Sweden: Stockholm University Institute Choice” (paper presented at the Annual ED493385.pdf; CREDO, “Urban Charter enrolled in private elementary and for Economic Studies, September 2006), School Study: Report on 41 Regions” secondary schools, by school orientation Meeting of the American Educational http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/ Research Association, San Francisco, (Stanford, CA: CREDO, 2015), http:// and grade level: Selected years, fall . diva2:189819/FULLTEXT01.pdf 1995 through fall 2011” (Washington, urbancharters.stanford.edu/overview. April 2008), http://www.vanderbilt. php. edu/schoolchoice/downloads/papers/ D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, goldring-rowley2006.pdf. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/ 2014), digest/d14/tables/dt14_205.20.asp .

43 33 Endnotes In this report, “city” and “district” 21 Ibid. 35 24 AFC, “Facts”; National Conference In addition to The Education Choice 30 and Competition Index, of State Legislatures (NCSL), “School are not always coterminous. Where there are other 36 From the perspective of a school - Voucher Laws: State-By-State Compar possible, data are from the city as a - ranking systems with similar (but dis and/or parent, receiving a subsidy for whole. For cities that include multiple ison” (Washington, D.C.: NCSL, 2015), tinct) goals. For example, in “Measuring transportation is not necessarily directly http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ up to the Model , ” the National Alliance districts within municipal boundaries, equivalent to receiving transportation voucher-law-comparison.aspx. we use data from the largest district in for Public Charter Schools ranks states itself. according to the strength of their charter the city when the indicator calls for such 22 Cecelia Rouse and Lisa Barrow, laws, but does not consider other forms a distinction (for example, enrollment 37 National Charter School Resource “School Vouchers and Student Achieve - data). For districts that extend beyond of school choice. Similarly, Students First Center (NCSRC) researchers and ment: Recent Evidence, Remaining assesses the state-level policy envi - the borders of a single city, we use data questionnaire respondents provided Questions,” Working Paper 2008–08 from the entire district if the city cannot ronment in its 2014 State Policy Report city-level estimates. These were then (Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, , but does not limit itself to school Card be separated from the larger district (for cross-checked against state-level data http://www.econstor.eu/ August 6, 2008), example, Jacksonville, Florida is located choice issues. Given these differences in from the NCSRC. See Jim Griffin et al., bitstream/10419/70492/1/585160147. focus (and the fact that both reports rank in the Duval County school district; “Finding Space: Charter Schools in ; Jay Green and Greg Forster, “Vouch - pdf states, rather than cities or districts), enrollment data for Jacksonville refers to District-Owned Facilities” (Houston, TX: ers for Special Education Students: An Duval County). the grades and rankings in these reports http://www.charter NCSRC, 2015), - Evaluation of Florida’s McKay Scholarship differ substantially from the ranks in schoolcenter.org/sites/default/files/files/ Program” (Washington, D.C.: Manhat - In these cases, data will not match 25 this report and in that of the Brookings field_publication_attachment/Find - http://www. tan Institute, June 2003), the cited extant data source. Institution. Data are accurate ing%20Space_0.pdf. manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_38.pdf ; Items are only counted if at least as of 2015. 26 Of the ten cities in our study with 31 Paul Peterson et al., “An Evaluation of two respondents provided answers for the Cleveland Voucher Program After Two the highest charter market share, four Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the 38 that city; for additional information on Years” (Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy are located in states with no charter Model.” how items are scored and combined, see School of Government, June 1999), http:// cap whatsoever (Indianapolis, Newark, Appendix A. New Orleans, and Philadelphia) and www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/ 39 To calculate “average” charter clev2ex.pdf five in states where the cap provides ; William Howell et al., “School authorizer quality for a city, the scores of 27 The Portfolio School District Network Vouchers and Academic Performance: ample room for growth. The tenth city, each authorizer in the city are averaged is a network of large school districts Columbus, is effectively cap-less, since Results from Three Randomized Field together, weighted by the number of that have committed to a “portfolio Trials,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Ohio law does not restrict the number schools in the city that they authorized. management” approach, as outlined of charters in low-performing districts 21, no. 2 (2002), 191–217, Management See Appendix A for complete details on by the Center on Reinventing Public (though individual authorizers are limited - http://courses.washington.edu/pbaf NACSA’s twelve essential practices. Education. At the heart of this approach ; Patrick Wolf et dl/528/pdf/Howell.pdf to one hundred schools). - is a commitment from the district to clos al., “Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity ing low-performing schools, regardless 32 In New Orleans, Denver, Newark, Scholarship Program: Final Report” of whether they are run by the district or and Washington, D.C., the district-wide (Washington, D.C.: National Center by charter organizations, and replacing lottery actually includes both charter and for Education Evaluation, June 2010), them with new high-performing schools. district schools. Similarly, some cities http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/ include some or all magnet schools in pdf/20104018.pdf. 28 Readers can find in-depth profiles of the lottery, while others have a separate individual cities in Section 7. A reorgani - lottery for such schools. The metric adopts a city-level 23 zation of cities by area scores and ranks focus to the extent data were available, appears in Appendix B. Districts can also facilitate interdis 33 - because families can exercise choice trict enrollment across boundaries. Eight - across neighborhoods and district bound 29 In addition to placing first in our cities are located in state where districts aries. Likewise, support for some forms rankings, New Orleans also places first must do so. In fifteen cities, the largest of choice—such as open enrollment, in the recent education reform rankings district does so on a voluntary basis. charters, online/virtual schools, vouchers, How is this produced by Brookings (see tax credit scholarships, and homes - Report Different? on page 24). CRPE, “Information, Transportation, 34 chooling—is beyond the boundaries of and Lack of Quality Schools are the traditional school districts. The choice Greatest Barriers to School Choice” (Se - is strategic: civic leaders need to think attle, WA: CRPE, July 2014), http://www. of education as a citywide concern, as crpe.org/news/information-transporta - they do with other more traditional civic tion-and-lack-quality-schools-are-great - - issues, including crime, economic devel est-barriers-school-choice. opment, employment, and transportation.

44 34 SECTION SEVEN City Profiles by Rank

45 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 35 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 44,699 New 4,152 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 01 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 40,547 Orleans CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 91% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEW ORLEANS? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for New Orleans and Prior to Hurricane Katrina, which struck land on August 29, 2005, the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, New Orleans Public Schools was one of the worst-performing state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and districts in the country, with roughly two-thirds of its schools a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- deemed “failing.” Up to that point, the statewide Recovery School ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, District—created in 2003 to take over the worst-performing quantity and policy environment, and quality. Cities received an aggregate score schools and convert them into charters—had authorized just for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average five charter schools. However, faced with both an unprecedented that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). natural disaster and a mismanaged and bankrupt district system, For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional the state gave control of 102 of 117 New Orleans schools to the neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, Recovery School District, with the Orleans Parish School Board private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other retaining control of the few remaining schools. Since then, choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. graduation and proficiency rates in New Orleans have soared as the new system has driven continued improvements in school Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local quality. Today, over 90 percent of the city’s public school students officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as are enrolled in charter schools, while others take advantage of well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. the state’s voucher program, launched in 2008. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 12 01 02 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

46 36 New Orleans Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY NEW ORLEANS RANKS TWELFTH out of AREA I POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score of nine points out of fifteen. This middling POLITICAL SUPPORT 47.5 ranking is largely due to the lukewarm support for school choice expressed by 8.6 local officials. Although the mayor has generally supported school choice, the city council, school board, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral, while the (severely depleted) teachers’ union has been 15 unsupportive. The picture is brighter at the state level, however, where the governor of Louisiana has publicly supported school choice. TOTAL POINTS Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS 50 84.7 out of NEW ORLEANS RANKS FIRST thirty cities on policy environment, with a out of 100 score of twenty-nine points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks in many areas, 35 including NGO, business, and philanthropic support; information on school choice; teacher policies; transportation; and its willingness to close schools with low enrollments in the wake of the hurricane. Nevertheless, there is still room for improvement. For example, there are gaps in New Orleans’s accountability AREA II POINTS system; for instance, school report cards do not include measures of student progress or POLICY ENVIRONMENT teacher quality. 28.6 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS NEW ORLEANS RANKS SECOND out of Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of forty-eight points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, UNSURPRISINGLY, NEW ORLEANS RANKS FIRST OVERALL , with including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, its high marks for policy environment and the quantity and quality and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Louisiana’s voucher program also gives of choice outweighing its middling scores for political support. low- and medium-income students greater access to private options. New Orleans charter New Orleans embodies many of the ideals of the school choice schools educate approximately 91 percent movement, with a system that is at once flexible, accountable, of the city’s students, by far the highest percentage of any city in the country. Finally, empowering, and efficient. Though there are still a few areas in students in New Orleans’s charter schools outperform comparable students by a wide which it could improve, New Orleans stands as a shining example margin in both reading and math, suggesting that—by and large—charter quantity has of what can be accomplished when the chokehold of traditional not come at the expense of charter quality. interest groups is broken and families are allowed to choose how and by whom their children are educated.

47 37 New Orleans Results POINTS a DATA HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEW ORLEANS? OUT OF 4* AREA POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) I: Agree 3.00 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 2.00 Neutral 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1 Official Support Neutral 2.00 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Yes 4.00 1.33 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.2 Community Support 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of New Orleans’s 1.00 Negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 20.67 AREA I S .61 8 = 15% CORE: x .67/36.00 20 POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 4.00 2.1.A To what extent does Louisiana charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? number of charter schools 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in New Orleans? Yes 4.00 2.1.C Is New Orleans’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Yes 4.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does Louisiana have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of New Orleans charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 2.96 7 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in New Orleans (of 9 possible)? Greater than 35% 0.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in New Orleans? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.C Does Louisiana law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in New Orleans? Yes, both 4.00 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in New Orleans support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 8 (of 9 possible) 3.63 Yes, for some types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in New Orleans for schools of choice? 2.33 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in New Orleans support schools of choice (of 7 possible)? 2.44 6 (of 7 possible)* Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in New Orleans for schools of choice? 2.67 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in New Orleans (of 9 possible)? 3.19 7 (of 9 possible) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in New Orleans? 4 (of 5) 4.00 4.00 2.7.A Are New Orleans charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 2.7 Teacher Policies No 4.00 2.7.B Are New Orleans charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for New Orleans’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 11.88 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? 4.00 Yes AREA II continued on next page...

48 38 New Orleans Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Louisiana’s accountability system? 2.67 schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/ Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for New Orleans schools of choice? comprehensive 8 (of 8 possible) 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in New Orleans (of 8 possible)? 3.79 Yes, for most public 3.00 2.11.A Does New Orleans have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice Yes 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does New Orleans provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 4.00 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are New Orleans homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 101.11) = 82.68 = 35% x 82.68/101.11 SCORE: II AREA 28.62 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) III: AREA Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in New Orleans? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in New Orleans? Yes Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in New Orleans? 4.00 3.1 Types of Schools 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in New Orleans? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in New Orleans? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in New Orleans? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in New Orleans? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 4.00 3.2 Access 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in New Orleans? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.2.D Does Louisiana have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program 2.00 Statewide program only specifically for New Orleans students? Comparably, a very high public schools in New Orleans are schools of choice (charter, 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 4.00 percentage magnet , and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high 4.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in New Orleans enroll in charter schools? percentage c 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a New Orleans charter school on learning gains in reading? V ery positive 4.00 3.4 Quality c 4.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a New Orleans charter school on learning gains in math? Very positive AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 38.00 38.00/40.00 x 50% = 47.50 AREA III SCORE: SCORE: + 47.50 = 84.73 TOTAL 8.61 + 28.62 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b For the definition of “schools of choice,” a * A few indicators may be worth less than four points due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, Because there are so few traditional district schools c November 30, 2014. References to elected officials we subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, left in New Orleans, students from the city’s charter in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. schools were matched with students from All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” New Orleans has only partial information for which can be applied to cities that have chancellors indicator 2.5.A, so we subtracted one point demographically similar schools from around the or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term state, rather than with students from the feeder from the 2.5.A and Area II denominators. “New Orleans” refers to the city as a whole, schools for a particular charter. New Orleans Public Schools, or the Recovery School District.

49 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 39 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 82,958 Washington, DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 46,393 02 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 36,565 D.C. CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 44% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY GTON, D.C. CHO OW IC E-F R I END LY IS WASHI ? N H ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Washington, D.C. ct of Columbia Sc hool Reform Act, In 1995, Congres s passed the Dis tri and the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from effectively requiring that the District adopt charter schools to put federal, state, and local governments with pressure on its chronically underperforming education system. proprietary data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stake- Since then, its charter sector has grown steadily under the holders. We assigned cities scores from zero to four on multiple measures of choice friend- watchful eye of the school district and (more recently) the D.C. liness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, policy environment, Public School Charter Board, which has moved aggressively to and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as shut down underperforming schools. Meanwhile, the advent of an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s mayoral control and the appointment of Chancellor Michelle Rhee contribution to a city’s overall choice friend- liness (more below). For the purposes of this int for the district, which has begun 2007 in marked a turning po study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, in- construc to respond tively to the charter threat. Today, charters cluding charter, magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or serve roughly 44 percent of students in Washington, D.C., and a virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers healthy competition with the school district continues to drive and open or dual enrollment programs. improvements in the performance of both sectors (although Area I: Political Support (15%) r, since 2004 charters continue to outperform the district). Furthe This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their approximately 1,500 students have participated in the District’s political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides low-income support choice in the community. students with access to some of the nation’s best private schools. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA I AREA III AREA II performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLICY ENVIRONMENT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 21 05 01 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

50 40 Washington, D.C. Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS WASHINGTON, D.C., RANKS QUANTITY & QUALITY out of thirty cities on TWENTY-FIRST AREA I POINTS political support, with a score of seven points POLITICAL SUPPORT 49.3 out of fifteen. This middling ranking reflects a number of factors, including lukewarm 7.3 support for school choice among local officials. Although the mayor, city council, and chancellor have remained relatively neutral with regard to school choice, while parent groups and teachers’ unions have 15 been unsupportive. However, these neg- atives are partially offset by a relatively choice-friendly local media, led by the city’s principal newspaper. TOTAL POINTS Area II: Policy Environment POINTS 35 out WASHINGTON, D.C., RANKS FIFTH 50 82.6 of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-six points out of thirty-five. out of 100 The city receives high marks for the number of charters that are located in district facilities, 35 its willingness to close schools with low or declining enrollments, and its newly minted common application system. Other strengths include a thriving philanthropic community (all five of the major foundations that support school choice are active in the city) and enlightened policies exempting charters from AREA II POINTS collective bargaining and teacher licensure POLICY ENVIRONMENT requirements. Nevertheless, because charters still receive far less funding than district schools, it is often difficult for them to com- 25.9 pete for the city’s abundant human capital. Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS WASHINGTON, D.C., RANKS FIRST out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with WASHINGTON, D.C., RANKS SECOND OUT OF THIRTY CITIES a score of forty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, OVERALL , with its high marks for policy environment and the including charter, magnet schools, career and quantity and quality of choice outweighing its below-average scores technical education, independent, Catholic, - and virtual schools, as well as homeschool for political support. Of the cities in our sample, D.C. trails only New ing. Intradistrict open enrollment and dual enrollment programs provide families with Orleans and Detroit in terms of the percentage of students who are access to a robust set of public options, and the Opportunity Scholarship program enrolled in charter schools, yet the quality of the city’s charter sector gives low-income students the chance to attend some of the best private schools in has not suffered as a result of its growth. Consequently, the biggest the country. Compared to other cities, Wash- ington, D.C., enrolls a high percentage of its outstanding question in Washington is simple: what percentage students in charter schools. Finally, despite the well-documented improvement in the of the city’s students will charters ultimately serve? performance of district schools, D.C.’s charter sector significantly outperforms the district in reading and math.

51 41 Washington, D.C. Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS WASHINGTON, D.C.? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) AREA I: POLITICAL SUPPORT 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 Disagree/Neutral 1.1 Official Support 1.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.00 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? ** ** 0.00 Strongly disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.33 Agree/Strongly agree s 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of District of Columbia’ Very positive 4.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 15.67 AREA I SCORE: 7.34 = 15.67/32.00 x 15% POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The district has a cap with 3.00 2.1.A To what extent does federal law restrict the number of charter schools in the District? ample room for growth There is only one authorizer 3.00 available, but federal law 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Washington, D.C.? 2.1 Public Policies allows for multiple authorizers Yes 4.00 2.1.C Is the District of Columbia’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? b 2.2.A Does Washington, D.C., have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.00 Limited option 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 2.67 2.2.B What percentage of Washington, D.C., charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? c 2 (of 9 possible) 0.89 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Washington, D.C. (of 9 possible)? 2.3 Public Support Greater than 35% 0.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Washington, D.C.? 4.00 2.3.C Does federal law guarantee adequate funding for Washington, D.C., charter authorizers? Yes Yes* 2.4.A Is there a local NGO that supports school choice in Washington, D.C.? 2.00 2.4 NGO Support 1.63 4 (of 9 possible) 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Washington, D.C., support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for some/most types of 2.50 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Washington, D.C., for schools of choice? schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 6 (of 9 possible) 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Washington, D.C. support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 2.59 Yes, for some/most types of 2.50 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Washington, D.C. for schools of choice? schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Washington, D.C. (of 9 possible)? 3.19 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, Walton) how many support schools of choice in Washington, D.C.? 5 (of 5) 4.00 2.7.A Are Washington, D.C. charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies No 4.00 2.7.B Are Washington, D.C. charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Washington, D.C.’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, 2.8 Quality Control 4.00 11.00 financial, and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions?) 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

52 42 Washington, D.C. Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in the District’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.00 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Washington, D.C. schools of choice? Moderately comprehensive 7 (of 8 possible) 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Washington, D.C. (of 8 possible)? 2.10 Information 3.45 Yes, for most public 3.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Washington, D.C., have a common application for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.12.A Does Washington, D.C., provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district- Yes 4.00 2.12 Transportation assigned schools? Homeschooled students - must seek district’s per 2.13.A Are the District of Columbia’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district 2.50 2.13 Extracurriculars mission; charter students programming, such as music or sports? have limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 102.00) = 75.59 35% x /102.00 75.59 SCORE: 94 II AREA 25. = AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Washington, D.C.? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Washington, D.C.? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Washington, D.C.? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Washington, D.C.? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Washington, D.C.? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Washington, D.C.? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? ** 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Washington, D.C.? Can districts opt out? 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Washington, D.C.? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Washington, D.C., have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Yes 4.00 Comparably, a very high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in Washington, D.C., are schools of choice (charter, public 4.00 magnet, and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high 4.00 , what percentage of students in Washington, D.C., enroll in charter schools? 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study percentage 4.00 Very positive 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Washington, D.C., charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 4.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Washington, D.C., charter school on learning gains in math? Very positive AREA III POINTS (out of 38.00) = 37.50 SCORE: 37.50 /38.00 x 50% = 49. 34 AREA III SCORE: 7.34 + TOTAL 25.94 + 49.34 = 82.62 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b In Washington, D.C., charters have “right of a * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data first offer.” see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we points. All questionnaire data are current as of For the definition of “schools of choice,” c November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator see Appendix A. Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. and area denominators. For example, Washington, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” D.C. has only partial information for indicator 2.5.A, which can be applied to cities that have chancellors so we subtracted one point from the 2.5.A and Area or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term II denominators. “Washington, D.C.” refers to the city as a whole or to ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator District of Columbia Public Schools, the largest (see above). district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

53 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 43 86,043 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 72,390 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 03 Denver 13,653 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 16% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DENVER? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Denver and the More than any other district in the country, Denver Public Schools twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, has embraced a portfolio district management approach, meaning state, and local governments with proprietary that it is agnostic about who runs its schools so long as students data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- are learning. For the past decade, successive Denver superintendents signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we have supported autonomous charter schools, as well as semi- political support, grouped into three areas: and policy environment, quantity and autonomous innovation schools housed within the district. As Cities received an aggregate score quality. for each area as well as an overall score, the sole authorizer of the city’s fifty-four charters, the district has which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a also taken a number of concrete steps to embrace them, including city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined adding them in its common application, issuing an annual call for “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, new schools that are willing to locate in underserved communities, magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual and signing a district-charter compact to guide collaboration schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and between the sectors. Despite these promising steps, however, open or dual enrollment programs. most Denver schools are still operated by the district. Because Area I: Political Support (15%) enrollment is growing across the board, rather than outcompeting This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their district schools, Denver’s charters have mostly supplemented political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media them, helping the district meet its needs more efficiently support choice in the community. without seriously disrupting the status quo. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 01 06 11 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

54 44 Denver Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS DENVER RANKS FIRST out of thirty cities QUANTITY & QUALITY on political support, with a score of twelve points out of fifteen. This high ranking is AREA I POINTS 36.9 largely due to the strong support for school POLITICAL SUPPORT choice shown by state and local officials, as well as local press. Although the mayor, city council, school board, and superinten - 12.0 dent have all supported school choice, as have parent groups and the city’s principal newspaper. At the state level, the governor of 15 Colorado has also supported school choice in his “state of the state” speeches. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS DENVER RANKS SIXTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of 50 74.6 twenty-six points out of thirty-five. Denver Public Schools is a member of the Portfolio out of 100 School District Network, and the city receives high marks for its common enrollment system 35 and the percentage of charter schools that are located in district facilities. It also scores fairly well on NGO, business, and philanthropic support for choice. However, some Denver charters are not exempt from collective bargaining agreements or teacher certification requirements, limiting their AREA II POINTS flexibility and autonomy. POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS 25.8 out of thirty DENVER RANKS ELEVENTH cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-seven points out of fifty. The city offers Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and DENVER RANKS THIRD OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , with virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Intradistrict choice is actively encouraged h igh marks for political support and its policy environment and an through a districtwide lottery, and interdistrict and dual enrollment programs provide above average score for the quantity and quality of choice. In the families with additional public options. However, because neither Denver nor Colorado past decade, the city has taken a number of positive steps to support has a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options remain out of public schools of choice and has become a national leader in the reach for Denver families. Finally, although Denver charter schools outperform district delicate art of district-charter collaboration. Still, more is possible, schools in both reading and math, they still serve a comparatively modest percentage of and the lack of a private-school-choice mechanism, such as a vouch - the city’s students. er or tax credit scholarship, precludes the adoption of an even bolder and more revolutionary approach.

55 45 Denver Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DENVER? DATA OUT OF 4* POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 3.00 Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Strongly agree/Agree 3.67 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Strongly agree/Agree 3.67 Yes 4.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.00 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree 3.00 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Denver’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 28.68 28.68/36.00 x 15% = 11.95 AREA I SCORE: POLICY ENVIRONMENT AREA II: (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the number 2.1.A To what extent does Colorado charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 of charter schools There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Denver? available, but state law allows for 3.00 multiple authorizers Yes 2.1.C Is Denver’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 No 0.00 2.2.A Does Colorado have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of Denver charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 4 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Denver (of 9 possible)? 1.78 2.00 Between 5% and 20% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Denver? 2.3 Public Support Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does Colorado law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Denver? 4.00 Yes, both 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Denver support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 2 (of 6 possible)* 0.67 Yes, for some/most types of schools 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Denver for schools of choice? 2.33 of choice 2.5 Business Support 4 (of 4 possible)* 1.78 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Denver support schools of choice (of 4 possible)? Yes, for some/most types of schools 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Denver for schools of choice? 2.50 of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 3.56 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Denver (of 8 possible)? 8 (of 8 possible)* 4.00 4 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Denver? 2.7.A Are Denver charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Some charter schools are exempt 2.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Denver charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Denver’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 2.8 Quality Control 11.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

56 46 Denver Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Colorado’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Denver? comprehensive 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Denver (of 7 possible)? 2.10 Information 3.29 7 (of 7 possible)* Yes, for most public schools 3.00 2.11.A Does Denver have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application of choice District subsidizes transporta- 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Denver provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 2.67 tion to schools of choice Homeschooled students are 2.13.A Are Denver’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, eligible; charter students have 3.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 98.50) = 72.58 35% AREA II SCORE: 79 25. = x 58/98.50 72. AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Denver? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Denver? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Denver? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Denver? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Denver? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Denver? Yes Yes 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Denver? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Denver? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Colorado have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Denver students? Comparably, a similar 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Denver are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 2.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Denver enroll in charter schools? 2.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Denver charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.00 3.4 Quality 3.00 Positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Denver charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 29.50 = 50% x 50/40.00 29. SCORE: III AREA 36.88 36.88 + TOTAL = 74.61 SCORE: 11.95 + 25.79 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a b For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, points. All questionnaire data are current as of November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. Denver has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.5.B, so we subtracted 2.22 points from the 2.5.B or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term and Area II denominators. “Denver” refers to the city as a whole or to Denver Public Schools, the largest district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

57 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 47 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 43,727 30,813 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 04 Indianapolis CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 12,914 CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 30% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS INDIANAPOLIS? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Indianapolis and In 2001, Indiana passed charter school legislation with a the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, unique twist: the mayor of Indianapolis was empowered state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and to authorize schools. A decade later, the creation of a a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- statewide authorizer further boosted the state’s school ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, choice movement. Today, the mayor authorizes thirty-eight policy environment, and quantity and Cities received an aggregate score quality. Indianapolis charter schools, while eight are authorized by for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average the state charter board. Together these schools serve that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). approximately 30 percent of the city’s public school students. For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional Meanwhile, Indiana’s Choice Scholarship Program (which neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, provides vouchers worth approximately $4,000 for low- and private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other middle-income families) has experienced explosive growth choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. since its inception in 2011 and now serves approximately 29,000 students, including many in Indianapolis. Thanks to Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local these policy breakthroughs (and despite the political turmoil officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as that has roiled Indiana’s education system in recent years), well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. school choice in Indianapolis seems destined for further Area II: Policy Environment (35%) growth in the years to come. This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA III AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 09 09 04 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

58 48 Indianapolis Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS INDIANAPOLIS RANKS NINTH out of QUANTITY & QUALITY thirty cities on political support, with a score AREA I POINTS of ten points out of fifteen. This relatively high POLITICAL SUPPORT ranking is largely due to the broad support for 39.4 school choice among state and local officials, which is only partially offset by the hostility 9.7 of the local teachers’ unions. Although the mayor, city council, local media, and parent groups have all supported school choice. At the state level, so has the governor. 15 Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS INDIANAPOLIS RANKS NINTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a TOTAL POINTS score of twenty-five points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for NGO, business, and philanthropic support (thanks 50 73.5 in part to the efforts of entrepreneur David Harris, founder of the Mind Trust). Moreover, out of 100 its choice-friendly policy environment is significantly boosted by Indiana law, which 35 imposes no restrictions on the number of charters, grants them the “right of first refusal” to district facilities, and exempts them from collective bargaining agreements. Indianapolis Public Schools is also a member of the Portfolio School District Network. Still, Indianapolis charters receive less funding than district schools, putting them at a AREA II POINTS competitive disadvantage financially, and the POLICY ENVIRONMENT city’s common application includes magnet schools but not charters. Finally, because Indianapolis does not provide transportation 24.5 to schools of choice, it is difficult for families Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. to access the choices available to them. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS INDIANAPOLIS RANKS FOURTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , out INDIANAPOLIS RANKS FOURTH of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with with high marks across all three categories: political support, a score of thirty-nine points out of fifty. The policy environment, and quantity and quality of choice. In recent city offers a variety of choices to families, in - cluding charter, magnet, career and technical years, Indianapolis has become a leader in the movement to give education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Mecha - families more educational options, and the city’s efforts have nisms such as attendance waivers and inter - district and dual enrollment programs open received a strong boost from choice-friendly policies at the state the doors to a variety of public options, while voucher and tax credit scholarship programs level. However, Indianapolis families seeking to take advantage provide a growing number of families with access to private schools. Finally, compared to of these opportunities need better logistical supports (such as other cities, Indianapolis enrolls a high (and growing) percentage of its students in charter transportation and a common application). schools, which outperform the city’s district schools in reading and math.

59 49 Indianapolis Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS INDIANAPOLIS? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 3.67 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Strongly agree/Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 3.00 Agree 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 4.00 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Strongly disagree/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 0.33 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2 Community Support 3.00 Agree 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Indianapolis’ s 2.00 Neutral principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 23.33 AREA I SCORE: 23.33/36.00 x 15% = 9.72 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does Indiana charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charter schools Yes 4.00 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Indianapolis? 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Indianapolis’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Yes 4.00 2.2.A Does Indiana have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? Yes 4.00 2.2 Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of Indianapolis charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 2.00 Less than 25% b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Indianapolis (of 9 possible)? 2.37 5 (of 9 possible) Greater than 35% 0.00 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Indianapolis? 4.00 Yes 2.3.C Does Indiana law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Moderate state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Indianapolis? 3.33 strong local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 2.22 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Indianapolis support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 5 (of 9 possible) Yes, for all types of 4.00 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Indianapolis for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Indianapolis support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 8 (of 9 possible) 3.48 Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Indianapolis for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Indianapolis (of 9 possible)? 3.19 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Indianapolis? 2 (of 5) 2.00 2.7.A Are Indianapolis charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Indianapolis charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Indianapolis’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 2.8 Quality Control 11.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

60 50 Indianapolis Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Indiana’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Indianapolis? Moderately comprehensive 2.00 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Indianapolis (of 8 possible)? 8 (of 8 possible) 3.86 For magnet/CTE 1.00 2.11.A Does Indianapolis have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools only 2.12.A Does Indianapolis provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 2.12 Transportation Homeschooled students must be enrolled part 2.13.A Are Indianapolis’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars time; law is silent on such as music or sports? charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 103.00) =71.95 II AREA 24.45 = 35% x 71.95/103.00 SCORE: AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Indianapolis? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Indianapolis? Yes Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Indianapolis? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Indianapolis? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Indianapolis? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Indianapolis? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Attendance waiver 1.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Indianapolis? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.50 3.2 Access 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Indianapolis? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.2.D Does Indiana have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Indianapolis students? Comparably, a high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Indianapolis are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study , what percentage of students in Indianapolis enroll in charter schools? 4.00 percentage 3.00 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending an Indianapolis charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.4 Quality 3.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending an Indianapolis charter school on learning gains in math? Positive AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 31.50 x 50% = 39. 38 AREA III SCORE: 31.50 /40.00 + TOTAL 39.38 = 73.54 SCORE: 9.72 + 24.45 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Indianapolis has only partial information for All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” indicator 2.6.A, so we subtracted one point which can be applied to cities that have chancellors from the 2.6.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Indianapolis” refers to the city as a whole or to Indianapolis Public Schools, the largest district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

61 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 51 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 65,239 49,168 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 05 Columbus, OH 16,071 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 25% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS COLUMBUS? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Columbus and the With nearly seventy charter authorizers, including twenty-nine other cities in this study, we com- bined publicly available data from federal, school districts, universities, non-profits (including the state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and Thomas B. Fordham Foundation), and the state depart- a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ment of education, Ohio is home to one of the country’s ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, largest and most diverse charter sectors. Yet critics policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score charge that, in its rush to expand that sector, the state for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average has sacrificed quality for quantity. In recent years, a that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). number of low-performing Ohio charters have avoided For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional closure, thanks to cozy financial relationships with their neighborhood school, including charter, mag- net, career and technical education, private or authorizers and “sponsor-hopping” (the practice of find- religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mecha- nisms, such as vouchers and open or dual ing a new authorizer when a school’s charter is in danger enrollment programs. of being revoked). However, the state legislature recently Area I: Political Support (15%) passed a bill that tightens the rules governing these This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their relationships. In Columbus, where research suggests political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media charters perform no better than district schools, support choice in the community. these changes cannot come soon enough. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 24 04 04 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

62 52 Columbus Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS COLUMBUS RANKS TWENTY-FOURTH AREA I POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY out of thirty cities on political support, with a POLITICAL SUPPORT score of seven points out of fifteen. This low rank is largely due to the lukewarm support 39.4 for choice expressed by local officials and 6.7 the absence of local organizations outside government pressing for expanded choice. The mayor, city council, superintendent, and parent groups have offered only occasional or weak support for choice, while the school 15 board and the teachers’ union have not been supportive. At the state level, however, the governor has publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment TOTAL POINTS 35 POINTS COLUMBUS RANKS FOURTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of 50 72.5 - twenty-seven points out of thirty-five. Colum bus City Schools is a member of the Portfolio out of 100 School District Network, and the city receives high marks for providing equitable transpor - 35 tation to schools of choice, offering charter - schools access to district facilities, and clos ing schools with low enrollment. However, it receives low marks for philanthropic support and funding equity for charters (though the latter is mostly attributable to state policy), AREA II POINTS and the absence of a common application POLICY ENVIRONMENT that includes charters makes it difficult for parents to navigate the system. 26.5 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS out of thirty COLUMBUS RANKS FOURTH Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including char - ter, magnet, career and technical education, , COLUMBUS RANKS FIFTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, with its high marks for policy environment and the quantity of as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as an intradistrict lottery and dual and choice outweighing its low scores for quality and political support. interdistrict enrollment programs provide students with a robust set of public options. The city’s families have no shortage of educational options from Additionally, a number of statewide voucher programs provide a broad range of under - which to choose, but both the city and the state must do more to served students with access to private op - tions. Compared to other cities in our study, a ensure the quality of these options by providing more oversight and high proportion of Columbus’s public schools are schools of choice, and a high percentage holding low-performing schools and their authorizers accountable. of students attend charter schools. However, on average, charters perform no better than district schools in reading and math.

63 53 Columbus Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS COLUMBUS? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.00 Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Disagree/Neutral 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.33 1.1 Official Support Strongly disagree/ 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 0.33 Disagree 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 0.67 Strongly disagree/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Disagree/Neutral 1.2 Community Support Agree 3.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Columbus’s 2.00 Neutral principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 16.00 SCORE: I 16.00/36.00 x 15% 6.67 = AREA AREA II: (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT Geographic caps limit 2.1.A To what extent does Ohio charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? the number of charters 2.00 in certain areas 2.1 Public Policies Yes 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Columbus? 4.00 2.1.C Is Columbus’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 Yes 2.2.A Does Ohio have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? Yes 4.00 2.2 Public Facilities Fewer than 25% 2.00 2.2.B What percentage of Columbus charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 2 (of 4 possible)* 1.19 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Columbus (of 4 possible)? 2.3 Public Support Between 20% and 35% 1.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Columbus? 4.00 2.3.C Does Ohio law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes Yes* 2.4.A Is there a state NGO that supports school choice in Columbus? 2.00 2.4 NGO Support 0.44 Yes* 2.4.B Do NGOs in Columbus lobby on behalf of schools of choice? Yes, for some types of schools 1.50 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Columbus for schools of choice? of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2 (of 3 possible)* 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Columbus support schools of choice (of 3 possible)? 0.89 Yes, for charter schools* 1.00 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Columbus for schools of choice? 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Columbus (of 2 possible)? 1 (of 2 possible)* 0.67 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Columbus? 2.00 2.7.A Are Columbus charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Some charter schools are exempt 2.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Columbus charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Columbus’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 4.00 11.62 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

64 54 Columbus Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Ohio’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Columbus? Minimally comprehensive 1.00 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Columbus (of 8 possible)? 3.43 7 (of 8 possible) Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Columbus have a common application for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Columbus provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? Yes 4.00 Homeschooled students are eligible; charter 2.13.A Are Columbus’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 3.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 85.44) = 64.62 2 = 35% x 85.44 64.62/ CORE: S I I AREA 6.47 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Columbus? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Columbus? Yes Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Columbus? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Columbus? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Columbus? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Columbus? Yes Yes 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Columbus? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes; no opt out 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Columbus? Can districts opt out? 3.2.D Does Ohio have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Columbus students? Comparably, a high schools in Columbus are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 3.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Columbus enroll in charter schools? 3.00 percentage 2.00 No impact 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Columbus charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 2.00 No impact 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Columbus charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 31.50 SCORE: 3 1.50/40.00 x 5 0% = 3 9.38 AREA III 6.67 + TOTAL 26.47 + 39.38 = 72.51 SCORE: notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a b For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. . In these cases, missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Columbus has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.3.A, so we subtracted 2.2 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Columbus” refers to the city as a whole or to Columbus Public Schools, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

65 snapshot enrollment 2013-14 55 86,485 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 68,413 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 06 Milwaukee 18,072 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 21% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS MILWAUKEE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Milwaukee and Milwaukee is often described as the birthplace of school choice. the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, In 1990, Wisconsin lawmakers established the nation’s first private state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and school voucher program as a lifeline for the city’s underserved a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- children, and today the program serves 27,000 Milwaukee students in signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we 114 private schools, giving the city the highest voucher participation political support, grouped into three areas: policy environment, quantity and and rate in the country. In addition to these students, Milwaukee’s quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, charter schools enroll another 18,000 students, and another which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a 20,000 students exercise intradistrict choice by enrolling in a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined district school other than their neighborhood school. Altogether, “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, approximately 80 percent of Milwaukee students exercise some magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual form of non-residential choice. Still, many of the city’s students schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and and schools continue to struggle. To address this situation, the open or dual enrollment programs. Wisconsin legislature is considering a proposal to empower an Area I: Political Support (15%) independent commissioner to convert some of the Milwaukee’s This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their low-performing district schools into charters, which have political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media generally demonstrated better results. support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 25 26 03 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

66 56 Milwaukee Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY MILWAUKEE RANKS TWENTY-FIFTH AREA I POINTS out of thirty cities on political support, with POLITICAL SUPPORT a score of six points out of fifteen. This low 45.6 ranking is largely due to the lack of support 6.1 for school choice among local officials. Although the city council, local media, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral, the school board and the teachers’ unions have been unsupportive. The picture is brighter at the state level, where the governor 15 has publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS MILWAUKEE RANKS TWENTY-SIXTH TOTAL POINTS out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty points out of thirty-five. The 50 71.6 city receives high marks for its NGO, business, and philanthropic support, willingness to out of 100 locate charter schools in district facilities, and history of closing schools with low 35 - enrollments. However, the lack of transpor tation to schools of choice makes it difficult for families to access them, and because charters receive far less funding than district schools, the financial playing field remains tilted in favor of the district. Finally, many AREA II POINTS Milwaukee charters are “instrumentality charters,” meaning they are more or less run POLICY ENVIRONMENT by the district and do not have many of the autonomies guaranteed to other charters by 19.9 state law. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. out of thirty MILWAUKEE RANKS THIRD cities on quantity and quality, with a score of forty-six points out of fifty. The city offers a MILWAUKEE RANKS SIXTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , with variety of choices to families, including char - ter, magnet, career and technical education, its high marks for the quantity and quality of choice outweighing independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. A districtwide lottery its low scores for political support and policy environment. provides families with access to a robust set of public options, while one of the country’s Although there is no shortage of educational options in Milwaukee, largest voucher programs provides a uniquely high percentage of families with access to the city could do more to empower both providers and consumers. private schools. Finally, in addition to ac - counting for a comparatively high percentage In particular, some of Milwaukee’s charter schools need greater of public enrollment, Milwaukee charter schools continue to outperform their district autonomy, and Milwaukee families seeking to take advantage peers in both reading and math. of the opportunities available to them need better logistical supports (such as public transportation).

67 57 Milwaukee Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS MILWAUKEE? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: Disagree/Neutral 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.00 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Disagree/Neutral 1.1 Official Support Strongly disagree/ 0.33 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree 4.00 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 Strongly disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.67 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.2 Community Support Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Milwaukee’s ** ** principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 12.99 I SCORE: 12.99/32.00 x 15% 6.09 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does Wisconsin charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Milwaukee? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Milwaukee’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 No No 0.00 2.2.A Does Wisconsin have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of Milwaukee charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 1 (of 8 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Milwaukee (of 8 possible)? 0.22 0.00 Greater than 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Milwaukee? 2.3 Public Support No 0.00 2.3.C Does Wisconsin law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes, both 2.4.A Is there a state NGO that supports school choice in Milwaukee? 4.00 2.4 NGO Support 2.30 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Milwaukee support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 5 (of 9 possible) Yes, for some types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Milwaukee for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 9 (of 9 possible) 4.00 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Milwaukee support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Milwaukee for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 4.00 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Milwaukee (of 9 possible)? 9 (of 9 possible) 1.00 1 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Milwaukee? 2.7.A Are Milwaukee charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Some charter schools are exempt 2.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Milwaukee charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Milwaukee’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 3.00 2.8 Quality Control 10.41 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

68 58 Milwaukee Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Wisconsin’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Milwaukee? Moderately comprehensive 2.00 6 (of 7 possible)* 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Milwaukee (of 7 possible)? 2.10 Information 3.08 Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Milwaukee have a common application for schools of choice? schools of choice No 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Milwaukee provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 0.00 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Milwaukee’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 0.50 are ineligible; law is silent 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 100.06) = 56.77 35% x 56. 77/100.06 S I I AREA 9.86 1 = CORE: AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Milwaukee? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Milwaukee? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Milwaukee? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Milwaukee? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Milwaukee? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Milwaukee? Yes Districtwide lottery 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 4.00 Yes, for part-time transfer; 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Milwaukee? Can districts opt out? no opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Milwaukee? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Ohio have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program 4.00 Yes, both specifically for Milwaukee students? Comparably, a high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Milwaukee are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Milwaukee enroll in charter schools? 3.00 percentage 3.00 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Milwaukee charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.4 Quality 4.00 Very positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Milwaukee charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 36.50 = 4 5.63 AREA I II S CORE: 36. 50/40.00 x 50% 6.09 71.57 SCORE: TOTAL + 19.86 + 45.63 = notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. and area denominators. For example, Milwaukee has only partial information for indicator 2.3.A, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors so we subtracted 0.44 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Milwaukee” refers to the city as a whole or to Milwaukee Public Schools, the largest district in Indicates missing data for the entire indicator ** (see above). . The latter is the case when the indicator is the city determined at the district level.

69 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 59 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 45,003 34,976 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 07 Newark CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 10,027 CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 22% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEWARK? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Newark and the In 2010, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced that twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, he was donating $100 million to Newark Public Schools (NPS), state, and local governments with proprietary yet five years later it is far from clear what improvements (if any) data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- this generous investment purchased. Instead, real change has come signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we at the hands of Superintendent Cami Anderson, who was appointed grouped into three areas: political support, policy environment, and quantity and by Governor Chris Christie in 2011 (NPS has been under state Cities received an aggregate score quality. for each area as well as an overall score, control since 1995). With his backing, Anderson implemented which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a “One Newark,” a comprehensive plan for the city’s schools that city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined involved closing or consolidating underperforming district “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, schools, opening more charters, and establishing a universal magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual open enrollment system. However, in 2014 Mayor Ras Baraka schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and won election by campaigning against One Newark and Anderson’s open or dual enrollment programs. leadership. Within the year, Anderson resigned and was replaced Area I: Political Support (15%) by former education commissioner Christopher Cerf, a close ally This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their and supporter of school choice who has nevertheless begun political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media laying the groundwork for a return to local control. support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 05 21 07 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

70 60 Newark Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS NEWARK RANKS FIFTH out of thirty cities QUANTITY & QUALITY on political support, with a score of ten points AREA I POINTS out of fifteen. This high ranking is largely due POLITICAL SUPPORT to the support that school choice has received 38.8 from the governor and some elements of the local community. The state-appointed super - 10.3 intendent, local media, and parent groups have generally supported school choice, while the mayor, city council, and teachers’ union have been less supportive. 15 Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS NEWARK RANKS TWENTY-FIRST out thirty cities on policy environment, with a TOTAL POINTS score of twenty-one points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for NGO, 50 70.2 business, and philanthropic support, as well as for its common application, choice-friendly out of 100 transportation, and willingness to close schools with low enrollments and locate 35 charters in district facilities. However, charters still face many barriers to success. For example, New Jersey law does not exempt them from collective bargaining or teacher certification requirements, and they receive far less funding than district schools, which are among the most generously funded in the country. AREA II POINTS POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS NEWARK RANKS SEVENTH out of thirty 21.1 cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. - variety of choices to families, including char ter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, , NEWARK RANKS SEVENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL as well homeschooling. Mechanisms such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment and with its high scores for political support and the quantity dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a robust set of public options. and quality of choice outweighing its low score for policy However, because New Jersey does not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, environment. As a consequence of state control, Newark has many private options remain out of reach for Newark families. Although the city has implemented a number of choice-friendly practices, such as comparatively few public schools of choice, it enrolls a comparatively high percentage of common application and transportation systems. However, its students in charters, which continue to dramatically outperform district schools in it is difficult to predict how the city’s schools of choice will reading and math. fare under a return to local control.

71 61 Newark Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEWARK? DATA OUT OF 4* POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 3.00 Agree 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.67 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 4.00 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 2.67 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.00 Agree 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Newark’s Very positive 4.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 24.68 AREA I 10.28 = 24.68/36.00 x 15% SCORE: AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does New Jersey charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charter schools There is only one charter 2.1 Public Policies authorizer available and only 2.00 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Newark? one allowed 2.1.C Is Newark’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 No 2.2.A Does New Jersey have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? No 0.00 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 3.00 2.2.B What percentage of Newark charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 4 (of 9 possible) 1.85 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Newark (of 9 possible)? 2.3 Public Support Greater than 35% 0.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Newark? 0.00 2.3.C Does Newark law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? No Yes, both 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Newark? 4.00 2.4 NGO Support 2 (of 2 possible)* 0.89 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Newark support schools of choice (of 2 possible)? Yes, for most/all types of 3.50 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Newark for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 6 (of 9 possible) 2.74 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Newark support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for most/all types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Newark for schools of choice? 3.50 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Newark (of 9 possible)? 2.89 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Newark? 3 (of 5) 3.00 2.7.A Are Newark charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Some charter schools are exempt 2.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Yes 0.00 2.7.B Are Newark charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Newark’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 3.00 2.8 Quality Control 10.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

72 62 Newark Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in New Jersey’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Newark schools of choice? Moderately comprehensive 2.00 6 (of 7 possible)* 3.11 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Newark (of 7 possible)? 2.10 Information Yes, for most public 3.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Newark have a common application for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Newark provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? Yes 4.00 Homeschooled students must seek district 2.13.A Are Newark’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars approval; law is silent such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 100.39) = 60.65 2 = 35% x .65/100.39 60 CORE: S I AREA I 1.14 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Newark? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Newark? 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Newark? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Newark? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Newark? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Newark? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 4.00 Yes Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Newark? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Newark? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does New Jersey have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Newark students? Comparably, a low 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in Newark are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 1.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a high 3.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Newark enroll in charter schools? percentage 4.00 Very positive 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Newark charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 4.00 Very positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Newark charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 31.00 II S CORE: 31 .00/40.00 x 50% = 3 8.75 AREA I + TOTAL 21.14 + 38.75 = 70.18 SCORE: 10.28 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Newark has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.4.B, so we subtracted 3.11 points from the 2.4.B which can be applied to cities that have chancellors or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term and Area II denominators. “Newark” refers to the city as a whole or to Newark Public Schools, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

73 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 63 47,028 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 36,703 08 Oakland 10,325 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 22% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS OAKLAND? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Oakland and the The perplexing dearth of magnet schools in Oakland twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, contrasts sharply with the city’s booming charter sector, state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and which now accounts for more than a quarter of public a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- enrollment—the highest percentage of any district in the ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, state. After the district’s insolvency prompted a state policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score takeover in 2003, at least twenty local charters opened, for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average leading to a sustained decline in district enrollment. that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). And since regaining its autonomy in 2009, the district For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional has been forced to close or merge at least eighteen neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, schools, leaving it with more facilities than it requires. private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other Superintendent Antwan Wilson has sought to move choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. the district in a new direction; however, he has faced Area I: Political Support (15%) resistance since early 2015, when he issued an open This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their call for proposals to turn around five under-enrolled political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media and low-performing district schools. support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 15 14 07 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

74 64 Oakland Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out of OAKLAND RANKS FIFTEENTH AREA III POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score AREA I POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY of eight points out of fifteen. This middling POLITICAL SUPPORT ranking is largely due to the lukewarm 38.8 support for school choice expressed by local officials. Although parent groups have 8.1 supported school choice, the mayor, city council, and school board have offered only modest support, while the local media have remained relatively neutral, and the teachers’ 15 unions have been hostile. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS OAKLAND RANKS FOURTEENTH TOTAL POINTS out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-three points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its 50 70.1 philanthropic support, common application, and willingness to close schools with low out of 100 enrollments. California law also exempts charter schools from collective bargaining 35 - agreements. However, Oakland charters re ceive significantly less funding than the city’s district schools, and Oakland does not provide transportation to schools of choice. Finally, Oakland Unified School District—the city’s primary charter authorizer—does not engage in many of the practices associated with quality authorizing, according to the National AREA II POINTS Association of Charter School Authorizers POLICY ENVIRONMENT (though it does get credit for being a member of the Portfolio School District Network). 23.2 Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS OAKLAND RANKS SEVENTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a , OAKLAND RANKS EIGHTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL - variety of choices to families, including char ter, magnet, career and technical education, with high marks for the quantity and quality of choice and middling independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as scores for political support and policy environment. Oakland’s inter- and intradistrict open enrollment and dual enrollment programs provide families charter schools are achieving great things with the city’s students, with access to a robust set of public options. but the city would benefit from a wider selection of magnet and CTE However, because California does not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, schools to complement its open enrollment program, as well as a many private options remain out of reach for Oakland families. Finally, compared to more choice-friendly political climate. other cities, relatively few of Oakland’s public schools are schools of choice; however, a comparatively high percentage of students enroll in charter schools, which dramatically outperform the city’s district schools in reading and math.

75 65 Oakland Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS OAKLAND? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1 Official Support Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 No 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Strongly agree 3.33 1.2 Community Support Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Oakland’s ** ** principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 17.34 I SCORE: 17.34/32.00 x 15% 8.13 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does California charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Oakland? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies Yes 2.1.C Is Oakland’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does California have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Less than 25% 2.00 2.2.B What percentage of Oakland charter schools are located or co-located in city/district-owned buildings? b 6 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Oakland (of 9 possible)? 2.52 1.00 Between 20% and 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Oakland? 2.3 Public Support Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does California law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? ** ** 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Oakland? 2.4 NGO Support ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Oakland support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? ** Yes, for some types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Oakland for schools of choice? 2.17 schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Oakland support schools of choice (of 7 possible)? 5 (of 7 possible)* 2.30 Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Oakland for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Oakland (of 9 possible)? 3.19 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Oakland? 3 (of 5) 3.00 2.7.A Are Oakland charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Oakland charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Oakland’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.00 8.15 2.8 Quality Control and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? The district has a history of closing 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? 2.67 schools but no formal policy AREA II continued on next page...

76 66 Oakland Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in California’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Oakland schools of choice? Moderately comprehensive 1.75 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Oakland (of 6 possible)? 2.61 5 (of 6 possible)* Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11.A Does Oakland have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Oakland provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students are ineligible; charter 2.13.A Are Oakland’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 93.11) = 61.71 3.20 2 = 35% x .71/93.11 61 CORE: S I I AREA III: AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Oakland? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Oakland? Yes 3.1.C Are independent and Catholic schools available to families in Oakland? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Oakland? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Oakland? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Oakland? Yes 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Oakland? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Oakland? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does California have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Oakland students? Comparably, a low schools in Oakland are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 1.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 3.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Oakland enroll in charter schools? percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending an Oakland charter school on learning gains in reading? Very positive 4.00 3.4 Quality 4.00 Very positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending an Oakland charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 31.00 AREA I II S CORE: 31 .00/40.00 x 50% = 3 8.75 8.13 TOTAL + 23.20 + 38.75 = 70.07 SCORE: notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Oakland has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.5.B, so we subtracted 0.89 points from the 2.5.B or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term and Area II denominators. “Oakland” refers to the city as a whole or to Oakland ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator Unified School District the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is (see above). determined at the district level.

77 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 67 51,694 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 45,130 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 09 Atlanta 6,564 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 13% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS ATLANTA? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Atlanta and the Although, Atlanta’s education headlines have been twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, dominated by its notorious cheating scandal, another state, and local governments with proprietary (more positive) story has also been playing out. Since the data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- passage of Georgia’s charter law in 1998, momentum for signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we school choice in the state has grown steadily, and Atlanta political support, grouped into three areas: policy environment, quantity and and Public Schools now authorizes several high-performing quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, charters (as do neighboring districts, such as Fulton, DeKalb, which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a and Gwinnett). In 2011, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined Georgia’s newly established statewide charter authorizer “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, unconstitutional, saying it violated the sovereignty of local magnet, career and technical education, districts. However, within a year of the ruling, Georgia voters private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other had approved a constitutional amendment reaffirming the choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. state’s authority to engage in charter sponsorship. In 2016, Area I: Political Support (15%) voters will be asked if they want to go further by granting the This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their state the power to take over low-performing district schools political capital to support school choice, as (which includes the option of converting them into charters). well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. As many as twenty-seven of Atlanta’s district schools could Area II: Policy Environment (35%) be eligible for takeover. This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes include funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 14 02 17 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

78 68 Atlanta Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out of ATLANTA RANKS FOURTEENTH AREA III POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS of eight points out of fifteen. This middling POLITICAL SUPPORT ranking is largely due to the lukewarm support 34.4 for school choice expressed by local officials. Although the superintendent and the school 8.2 board have generally supported school choice, the mayor, city council, local media, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral. The picture is brighter at the state level, however, 15 where the governor of Georgia has publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS out of thirty ATLANTA RANKS SECOND cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-seven points out of thirty-five. Atlanta 50 69.9 Public Schools is a member of the Portfolio School District Network, and the city receives out of 100 high marks for its willingness to close schools with low enrollment. Atlanta also benefits 35 from several choice-friendly policies at the state level. For example, Georgia law places no restrictions on the number of charter schools in the state and grants them the “right of first refusal” when districts have surplus school facilities (which house more than 50 percent of Atlanta’s charters). However, because AREA II POINTS charters do not receive the same funding or POLICY ENVIRONMENT transportation benefits as district schools, the educational playing field is still tilted against school choice. 27.3 Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS out ATLANTA RANKS SEVENTEENTH of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-four points out of fifty. The city , with ATLANTA RANKS NINTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL offers a variety of choices to families, including high marks for its policy environment outweighing its middling - charter, magnet, career and technical educa tion, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, scores for political support and quantity and quality of choice. as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment and At the state level, Georgia has adopted numerous policies that dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a robust set of public options, while should encourage the continued growth of schools of choice at the vouchers and tax credit scholarships give them local level. However, the Atlanta families attending these schools access to private options. However, compared to other cities, relatively few of Atlanta’s public would benefit from more equitable funding and transportation, schools are charters or magnets, and research suggests the quality of the city’s charter sector as well as a firmer commitment to quality control. is uneven. For example, although Atlanta charters modestly outperform their district counterparts in reading, they are no better at raising math scores.

79 69 Atlanta Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS ATLANTA? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1 Official Support Agree 3.00 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree/Strongly agree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 3.33 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.2 Community Support Neutral 2.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Atlanta’s 1.00 Negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 19.67 SCORE: I 19.67/36.00 x 15% 8.20 = AREA (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on 2.1.A To what extent does Georgia charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 the number of charters 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Atlanta? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies 4.00 2.1.C Is Atlanta’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Yes Yes 4.00 2.2.A Does Georgia have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of Atlanta charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 8 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Atlanta (of 8 possible)? 2.00 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Atlanta? Between 20% and 35% 1.00 Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does Georgia law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.4.A Is there a state NGO that supports school choice in Atlanta? 2.00 Yes* 2.4 NGO Support 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.22 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Atlanta support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? Yes, for most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Atlanta for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Atlanta support schools of choice (of 4 possible)? 3 (of 4 possible)* 1.48 Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Atlanta for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 7 possible)* 3.11 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Atlanta (of 7 possible)? 3 (of 5) 3.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Atlanta? 2.7.A Are Atlanta charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be 2.7.B Are Atlanta charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.00 certified 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with the authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Atlanta’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 12.00 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

80 70 Atlanta Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Georgia’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/ Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Atlanta? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Atlanta (of 5 possible)? 2.36 5 (of 5 possible)* Yes, for some types of 2.11.A Does Atlanta have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application 2.00 schools of choice 0.00 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Atlanta provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Atlanta’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 92.61) = 72.17 7.27 = 35% x 2.17/92.61 7 CORE: S I AREA I 2 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Atlanta? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Atlanta? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Atlanta? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Atlanta? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Atlanta? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Atlanta? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes; no opt out 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Atlanta? Can districts opt out? 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Atlanta? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Georgia have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Atlanta students? Comparably, a very low schools in Atlanta are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 0.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Atlanta enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending an Atlanta charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.00 3.4 Quality 2.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending an Atlanta charter school on learning gains in math? No impact AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 27.50 2 7.50/40.00 x 5 0% = 3 4.38 AREA III SCORE: 8.20 + TOTAL 27.27 + 34.38 = 69.85 SCORE: notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Austin has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.3.A, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the which can be applied to cities that have chancellors or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term 2.3.A and Area II denominators. “Atlanta” refers to the city as a whole or to Atlanta Public Schools, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

81 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 71 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 106,805 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 48,193 10 Detroit CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 58,612 CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 54% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DETROIT? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Detroit and the It’s no secret that Detroit has fallen on hard times in twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, recent years, with city managers facing a series of state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and financial catastrophes culminating in formal bankruptcy a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- in July 2013. In June 2011, Governor Rick Snyder ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, announced the creation of a Detroit-centric turnaround policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score agency known as the Education Achievement Authority for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average (EAA), which now runs fifteen of the city’s worst- that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). performing schools. However, Detroit Public Schools For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional has continued to lose market share as charters and neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, other education alternatives have grown, even as overall private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other enrollment in the city has declined. Unfortunately, choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. because Article VIII, Section 2, of Michigan’s constitution Area I: Political Support (15%) explicitly bans the use of public resources for vouchers This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their or other “non-public” forms of education, many Detroit political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media students have few alternatives to the city’s struggling support choice in the community. public schools. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * * options that are available to families (e.g., 18 16 04 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

82 72 Detroit Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS DETROIT RANKS EIGHTEENTH out of QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score POLITICAL SUPPORT of seven points out of fifteen. This low ranking 39.4 is largely due to the lukewarm support for school choice expressed by local officials. 7.4 Although parent groups and the local media have supported school choice, the superinten - dent, school board, and teachers’ unions have not (foundation support is included in Area II). At the state level, however, the governor of 15 Michigan has supported school choice in his “state of the state” speeches. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS DETROIT RANKS SIXTEENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a 50 69.1 score of twenty-two points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its NGO, out of 100 business, and philanthropic support, as well as its willingness to close under-enrolled 35 district schools. Nevertheless, charter schools still receive far less funding than district schools, putting them at a competitive disadvantage financially. Moreover, because Detroit does not provide transportation to schools of choice, it is difficult for families to access them, and the absence of a common application poses a challenge for parents AREA II POINTS attempting to navigate the system. POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS 22.4 DETROIT RANKS FOURTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. thirty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a - variety of choices to families, including char ter, magnet, career and technical education, DETROIT RANKS TENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , with independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such its high marks for the quantity and quality of choice outweighing as attendance waivers as well as interdis - trict and dual enrollment programs provide its below-average score for political support and middling score for families with access to a variety of public options. However, because Michigan does not policy environment. Of the cities in our sample, Detroit trails only have a voucher or tax credit program, many private options remain out of reach for Detroit New Orleans in terms of the percentage of students enrolled in families. Compared to other cities, a very high proportion of Detroit’s public schools are charters. However, Detroit families seeking to take advantage of schools of choice, and a similarly high per - centage of students enroll in charter schools, the opportunities available to them need better logistical supports which outperform its district schools in both reading and math. (such as transportation and a common application).

83 73 Detroit Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DETROIT? DATA OUT OF 4* AREA I: (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT 2.00 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.33 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.00 Disagree 1.1 Official Support Strongly disagree/ 0.33 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Yes 4.00 0.00 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Strongly Disagree 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Strongly Agree 3.33 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Detroit’s Neutral 2.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 17.66 AREA I SCORE: 17.66/36.00 x 15% = 7.36 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT State law places various limits 2.1.A To what extent does Michigan charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? on “schools of excellence” and 3.00 cyber schools 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Detroit? Yes 4.00 2.1.C Is Detroit’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Yes 4.00 2.2.A Does Michigan have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? No 0.00 2.2 Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of Detroit charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 2.00 Less than 25% b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Detroit (of 9 possible)? 1.33 3 (of 9 possible) Greater than 35% 0.00 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Detroit? 4.00 Yes 2.3.C Does Michigan law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Detroit? Yes, both 4.00 2.4 NGO Support 2.07 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Detroit support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 5 (of 9 possible) Yes, for most/all types of 3.50 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Detroit for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Detroit support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 8 (of 9 possible) 3.33 Yes, for most/all types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Detroit for schools of choice? 3.17 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 7 (of 8 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Detroit (of 8 possible)? 3.41 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Detroit? 3 (of 5) 3.00 2.7.A Are Detroit charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Detroit charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score out of 12 for Detroit’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 3.00 2.8 Quality Control 10.37 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing of closing such schools? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

84 74 Detroit Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Michigan’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Detroit? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Detroit (of 8 possible)? 3.71 7 (of 8 possible) 2.11.A Does Detroit have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application 0.00 No 2.12.A Does Detroit provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 2.12 Transportation Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Detroit’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 103.56) = 66.19 66.19 II AREA 37 22. = 35% x SCORE: /103.56 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Detroit? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Detroit? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Detroit? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Detroit? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Detroit? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Detroit? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Attendance waivers 1.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Detroit? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.50 3.2 Access 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Detroit? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.2.D Does Michigan have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program 0.00 No specifically for Detroit students? Comparably, a very high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Detroit are schools of choice (charter, magnet, .00 4 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high , what percentage of students in Detroit enroll in charter schools? 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study 4 .00 percentage 3.00 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Detroit charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.4 Quality 4.00 ery positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Detroit charter school on learning gains in math? V AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 31.50 x 50 % = 39 .38 AREA III SCORE: 31 .50/40.00 + TOTAL 39.38 = 69.10 SCORE: 7.36 + 22.37 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Detroit has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.6.B, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.6.B and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, “Detroit” refers to the city as a whole or to Detroit Public Schools, the largest district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

85 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 75 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 397,972 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 343,976 11 Chicago CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 53,996 CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 14% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS CHICAGO? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Chicago and the Since his election in 2011, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel has retained twenty-nine other cities in this study, we com - bined publicly available data from federal, many of the choice-friendly policies established by former mayor state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and Richard M. Daley and former superintendent Arne Duncan, in a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as - addition to overseeing the closure of more than fifty under-enrolled signed cities scores from zero to four on multi - ple measures of choice friendliness, which we and under-performing district schools in 2013 (in the face of political support, grouped into three areas: policy environment, quantity and and immense budgetary pressure). Unsurprisingly, these positions quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, have earned him the wrath of the city’s powerful teachers’ union, which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a which went on strike in 2012 and strongly opposed his reelection city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined in 2015. However, despite the union’s best efforts, Emmanuel was “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, mag - comfortably reelected, and under his direction Chicago Public net, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual schools, Schools has continued to expand the choices available to students as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or by establishing more magnet schools and authorizing new charters, dual-enrollment programs. including members of high-performing networks like KIPP, Area I: Political Support (15%) Noble, and YCCS. Meanwhile, declining enrollment and years of This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their underfunded teachers’ pensions have left the district on the verge political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media of bankruptcy, forcing it to take out a $1.1 billion loan and lay off support choice in the community. more than 1,000 teachers in 2015. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 06 07 20 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

86 Area I: Political Support 76 Chicago Results 15 POINTS CHICAGO RANKS SIXTH out of thirty cities on political support, with a score of ten points out of fifteen. This high ranking is largely due to the broad support for school choice expressed by state and local officials, AREA III POINTS which is only partially offset by the hostility of QUANTITY & QUALITY the union. Although the mayor, his appointed AREA I POINTS superintendent and school board, and parent POLITICAL SUPPORT groups have supported school choice, the city 33.1 council and the local media have remained 10.1 neutral (though Chicago’s largest newspaper has supported school choice). At the state level, the governor of Illinois has also publicly supported school choice. 15 Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS out of thirty CHICAGO RANKS SIXTH cities on policy environment, with a score of TOTAL POINTS twenty-six points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for NGO, business, and philanthropic support; its membership in 50 68.9 the Portfolio School District Network; and the district’s willingness to close schools with low out of 100 enrollments. Despite the fact that charters do not have the “right of first refusal” to district 35 buildings, many Chicago charters are located or co-located in district facilities (though many empty buildings have yet to be utilized). However, the potential for future growth is limited by Illinois law, which places a cap on the number of charters that can operate in the city. Additionally, because Chicago does not AREA II POINTS provide transportation to schools of choice, POLICY ENVIRONMENT it is often difficult for families to access the choices available to them. 25.6 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. CHICAGO RANKS TWENTIETH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-three points out of fifty. The - city offers a variety of choices to families, in , CHICAGO RANKS ELEVENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL cluding charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual with high marks for political support and policy environment schools, as well as homeschooling. Mecha - outweighing its below average score for the quantity and quality nisms such as intradistrict open enrollment and dual enrollment programs provide families of choice. Thanks to the strong support it receives from NGOs, with access to a variety of public options. How - ever, because Illinois does not have a voucher business, and philanthropies, Chicago’s charter sector seems or tax credit scholarship program, many private options remain out of reach for Chicago poised for continued growth. However, the city’s families need families. Compared to other cities in the study, a high proportion of Chicago’s public schools better supports—such as more choice friendly transportation— are schools of choice. However, most of these are magnet (or “magnet cluster”) schools, to take full advantage of these options. Chicago’s many underserved and the percentage of Chicago students who enroll in charters is still fairly low. Finally, the communities would also benefit from a private-school-choice performance of Chicago’s charters is average, modestly exceeding that of district schools in mechanism, such as a voucher or tax credit scholarship program. math but not in reading.

87 77 Chicago Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS CHICAGO? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 3.67 Strongly agree/Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1 Official Support Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 0.33 Strongly disagree/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2 Community Support Neutral 2.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Chicago’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 24.34 I SCORE: 24.34/36.00 x 15% 10.14 = AREA (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has geographic caps 2.1.A To what extent does Illinois charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 with some room for growth There is only one authorizer 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Chicago? 2.00 2.1 Public Policies available and only one allowed 2.1.C Is Chicago’s largest school district a member of the 4.00 ? Yes Portfolio School District Network No 0.00 2.2.A Does Illinois have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 3.00 2.2.B What percentage of Chicago charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 2 (of 4 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Chicago (of 4 possible)? 0.81 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Chicago? Between 5% and 20% 2.00 Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does Illinois law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Chicago? 4.00 Yes, both 2.4 NGO Support 3 (of 3 possible)* 1.33 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Chicago support schools of choice (of 3 possible)? Yes, for most/all types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Chicago for schools of choice? 3.50 schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Chicago support schools of choice (of 5 possible)? 5 (of 5 possible)* 2.22 Yes, for most types of schools 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Chicago for schools of choice? 3.00 of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 6 (of 6 possible)* 2.44 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Chicago (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 5) 4.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Chicago? 2.7.A Are Chicago charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Chicago charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 Yes 4.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Chicago’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 12.00 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

88 78 Chicago Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Illinois’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Chicago? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Chicago (of 6 possible)? 2.50 5 (of 6 possible)* Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11.A Does Chicago have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Chicago provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students must be enrolled part 2.13.A Are Chicago’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars time; law is silent on such as music or sports? charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 94.00) = 68.8 x S I 5.62 2 = 35% 68.8 /94.00 I CORE: AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Chicago? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Chicago? Yes Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Chicago? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Chicago? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Chicago? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Chicago? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 4.00 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Chicago? Can districts opt out? No 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual-enrollment options in Chicago? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Illinois have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Chicago students? Comparably, a high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Chicago are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Chicago enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Chicago charter school on learning gains in reading? No impact 2.00 3.4 Quality 3.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Chicago charter school on learning gains in math? Positive AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 26.50 II S CORE: 26. 50/40.00 x 50% = 3 3.13 AREA I + TOTAL 25.62 + 33.13 = 68.89 SCORE: 10.14 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Chicago has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.3.A, so we subtracted 2.22 points from the which can be applied to cities that have chancellors or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term 2.3.A and Area II denominators. “Chicago” refers to the city as a whole or to Chicago Public Schools, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

89 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 79 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 63,958 * 54,300 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 12 Boston CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 9,658 CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 15% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS BOSTON? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Boston and the Beneath Boston’s confusing mélange of Commonwealth twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, Charter Schools, Horace Mann Charter Schools, Pilot Schools, state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and and Innovation Schools lie two simple truths: First, the city’s a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- true charters (that is, its Commonwealth Charters) are ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, outstanding, as every measure of their performance clearly quantity and policy environment, and Cities received an aggregate score quality. demonstrates. Second, they are pitifully scarce, accounting for for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average a mere 15 percent of total public school enrollment, despite the that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). lengthy waiting lists that exist at many schools. What accounts For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional for this frustrating disconnect between supply and demand? neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, In this case, the culprit is a 1993 Massachusetts law, the most private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other recently revised version of which effectively caps the number choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. of charters that can operate in the city by requiring that no more than 18 percent of net school spending in low-performing Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local districts go toward charter tuition. Proponents of school officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as choice have planned a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. of the law on the grounds that it violates the civil rights of the Area II: Policy Environment (35%) state’s minority students. This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA III AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 13 12 11 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

90 80 Boston Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out of BOSTON RANKS THIRTEENTH thirty cities on political support, with a score AREA III POINTS AREA I POINTS of nine points out of fifteen. Although the QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT mayor, local media, and parent groups have generally supported school choice, the mayor’s 36.9 appointed school board, its appointed 8.5 superintendent, and city council have remained fairly neutral, while the teachers’ unions have been hostile to choice. At the state level, the governor has not mentioned school 15 choice in his “state of the state” speeches. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS out of thirty BOSTON RANKS TWELFTH TOTAL POINTS cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-three points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its NGO, business, 50 68.7 and philanthropic support and for providing transportation to schools of choice on equal out of 100 terms with district-run schools. Boston Public Schools is also a member of the Portfolio 35 School District Network. However, its Horace Mann charters are not exempt from collective bargaining agreements or teacher certification requirements. And because Massachusetts charters lack the “right of first refusal” to district facilities, few Boston charters have managed to gain access to them. Most importantly, the statewide cap on the number AREA II POINTS of charter schools and the aforementioned limit POLICY ENVIRONMENT on charter funding in low-performing districts leave little room for Boston’s sector to grow. 23.3 Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS BOSTON RANKS ELEVENTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-seven points out of fifty. The city offers a , BOSTON RANKS TWELFTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, with middling scores for all three areas: political support, policy independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. A complicated environment, and quantity and quality of choice. Boston’s intradistrict lottery provides families with a Commonwealth Charter Schools are among the best schools robust set of public options (especially at the high school level, where 50 percent of the seats in the country. (On average, they achieve more than double the at most schools are reserved for the citywide lottery). However, because Massachusetts does learning gains of their district counterparts.) However, they not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options are out of reach cannot truly transform the city’s education landscape unless for Boston families. Finally, although they serve a modest proportion of the city’s students, they are allowed to serve more students. Thus, the task facing Boston’s charter schools continue to outperform its district-run schools by a wide margin in state legislators is simple: lift the cap. both reading and math, making the cap on charter funding all the more incomprehensible.

91 81 Boston Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS BOSTON? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.1 Official Support Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 No 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree 3.00 1.2 Community Support Agree/strongly agree 3.33 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Boston’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 20.33 I SCORE: 20.33/36.00 x 15% 8.47 = AREA (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with some 2.1.A To what extent does Massachusetts charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 room for growth There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Boston? 2.00 available and only one allowed Portfolio School District Network ? Yes 2.1.C Is Boston’s largest school district a member of the 4.00 No 0.00 2.2.A Does Massachusetts have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Less than 25% 2.00 2.2.B What percentage of Boston charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 3 (of 5 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Boston (of 5 possible)? 1.48 2.00 Between 5% and 20% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Boston? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.C Does Massachusetts law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? No 0.00 Modest state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Boston? 3.33 strong local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support Yes* 2.4.B Do NGOs in Boston lobby on behalf of schools of choice? 0.44 Yes, for charters* 1.00 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Boston for schools of choice? 2.5 Business Support 4 (of 4 possible)* 1.78 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Boston support schools of choice (of 4 possible)? Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Boston for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 8 (of 8 possible)* 3.56 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Boston (of 8 possible)? 4.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton) how many support schools of choice in Boston? 4 (of 5) 2.7.A Are Boston charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 2.00 Some charter schools are exempt 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Boston charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with the authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Boston’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 11.00 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8 Quality Control The district has a history of 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? closing schools but no 2.67 formal policy AREA II continued on next page...

92 82 Boston Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Massachusetts’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.75 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Boston? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Boston (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.43 Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11.A Does Boston have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application c schools of choice 4.00 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Boston provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? Yes Homeschooled students must seek district 2.13.A Are Boston’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars approval; law is silent on such as music or sports? charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 90.00) = 59.94 2 = x .94/90.00 59 CORE: S I I AREA 35% 3.31 AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Boston? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Boston? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Boston? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Boston? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Boston? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Boston? d 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Districtwide lottery 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Boston? Can districts opt out? No 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Boston? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Massachusetts have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Boston students? Comparably, a similar schools in Boston are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 2.00 percentage and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Boston enroll in charter schools? 2.00 percentage Very positive 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Boston charter school on learning gains in reading? 4.00 3.4 Quality 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Boston charter school on learning gains in math? Very positive 4.00 AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 29.50 = III AREA 3 2 x 9.50/40.00 5 SCORE: 0% 6.88 TOTAL SCORE: 8.47 + 23.31 + 36.88 = 68.66 notes table b * a For the definition of “schools of choice,” A few indicators may be worth less than four points The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. . In these cases, missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Although Boston’ s three exam schools have their c we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, own admissions processes, the overwhelming Boston has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” majority of its magnet schools are included in its 2.3.A, so we subtracted 1.78 points from the which be applied to cities that have chancellors or common application. 2.3.A and Area II denominators. other leaders. Depending on the context, the term T “Boston” refers to the city as a whole or to Boston d echnically, Boston’s lottery is not districtwide, . The Public Schools, the largest district in the city because families must choose from a list of schools created by the district. However latter is the case when the indicator is determined , according to the district website, “every family will have a choice of at at the district level. least six schools” and “most will have between ten and fourteen choices.”

93 snapshot 2013-14 enrollment 83 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 1,052,772 New York * 982,562 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 12 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 70,210 City CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 7% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEW YORK CITY? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for New York City and In education reform circles, New York City is perhaps best known the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we for its massive intradistrict open enrollment program, which combined publicly available data from federal, state, and local governments with proprietary requires that all rising freshmen in the nation’s largest school data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- district rank their preferred high schools. However, the city also signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we boasts some of the country’s finest magnet schools, including political support, grouped into three areas: famous exam schools like Stuyvesant and the Bronx School of and quantity and policy environment, quality. Cities received an aggregate score Science. In recent years, a number of high-performing charter for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average networks, such as the rapidly expanding Success Academy, have that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). managed to gain a foothold in New York’s education market. For the purposes of this study, we defined Yet, despite their growth, charters still serve only a small fraction “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, of the city’s million-plus students, most of whom still enroll in magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual traditional district schools. Unfortunately, New York’s current schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and political leadership has been hostile to charters, and in recent open or dual enrollment programs. years the battle between charter bête noire Mayor Bill de Blasio Area I: Political Support (15%) and Success Academy CEO Eva Moskowitz over access to district This area assesses the willingness of local facilities has made national headlines. A 2015 deal in the state officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as legislature, which increased the number of additional charters well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. allowed in New York City from twenty-five to fifty, represented a victory for school choice advocates, but more battles lie ahead. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 26 13 03 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

94 84 New York City Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS NEW YORK RANKS TWENTY-SIXTH AREA I POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY out of thirty cities on political support, with POLITICAL SUPPORT a score of six points out of fifteen. This low 36.1 ranking is largely due to the dearth of support 5.8 for school choice among local officials. Although parent groups and the local media have remained neutral (or, perhaps more accurately, divided) on school choice, the current mayor, city council, and chancellor have all been hostile—a dramatic departure 15 from the earnest support offered by their predecessors. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS NEW YORK RANKS THIRD out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of 50 68.7 twenty-seven points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its business and out of 100 philanthropic support and willingness to close schools with low enrollments, as well 35 as for its common application for district schools (though it does not include the city’s charters). Despite the most recent mayor’s opposition, New York also gets high marks for the percentage of charter schools that are located in district facilities, which is AREA II POINTS among the highest in the country (thanks to POLICY ENVIRONMENT the previous administration). However, the city’s charter schools receive significantly less funding than district schools, and they don’t 26.7 have as much flexibility as they could when it comes to hiring teachers. Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS out NEW YORK RANKS THIRTEENTH of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a NEW YORK RANKS TWELFTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , score of thirty-six points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, includ - with its low marks for political support more or less balancing ing charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual out its high score for policy environment and middling score for schools, as well as homeschooling. Mecha - nisms such as inter- and intradistrict open the quantity and quality of choice. The city has adopted a number enrollment and dual enrollment programs also of important (and, in some cases, innovative) policies to encourage provide families with access to a variety of public options. However, because the state of school choice, including a sophisticated common enrollment New York does not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options system for district schools. However, its current political remain out of reach for New York families. Finally, despite their strong academic leadership is hostile to choice, and because of its sheer size and performance, New York’s charter schools enroll a comparatively low percentage of the city’s cultural gravity, its reputation as a choice Mecca has in some million-plus students. ways outpaced the reality on the ground.

95 85 New York City Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NEW YORK CITY? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 0.67 Disagree/Strongly disagree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Strongly disagree 0.67 1.1 Official Support Disagree/Strongly disagree 0.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Strongly disagree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 0.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 2.00 Neutral 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.33 1.2 Community Support Neutral 2.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of New York’s 2.00 Neutral principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 14.00 SCORE: I 14.00/36.00 x 15% 5.83 = AREA AREA II: (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does New York charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in New York City? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies Yes 2.1.C Is New York City’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does New York have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of New York City charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in New York City (of 9 possible)? 7 (of 9 possible) 2.96 1.00 Between 20% and 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in New York City? 2.3 Public Support Funding is adequate but not 2.3.C Does New York law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 2.00 guaranteed Yes, both 4.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in New York City? 2.4 NGO Support ** ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in New York City support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for some/most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in New York City for schools of choice? 2.50 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 5 (of 5 possible)* 2.00 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in New York City support schools of choice (of 5 possible)? 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in New York City for schools of choice? Yes, for charter schools* 1.00 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in New York City (of 4 possible)? 3 (of 4 possible)* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 1.56 4.00 4 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in New York City? Some charter schools are 2.00 2.7.A Are New York City charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? exempt 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be 2.7.B Are New York charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.00 certified Yes 4.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for New York City’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 2.8 Quality Control 11.42 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

96 86 New York City Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in New York’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.75 Mostly comprehensive 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for New York City schools of choice? 7 (of 8 possible) 3.29 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in New York City (of 8 possible)? 2.10 Information For some types of schools c 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does New York City have a common application for schools of choice? 2.00 of choice Yes 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does New York provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 4.00 Homeschooled students are 2.13.A Are New York City’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, ineligible; charter students 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? have limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 92.00) = 70.23 II .72 35% = 26 .23/92.00 70 SCORE: AREA x AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in New York City? 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in New York City? 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in New York City? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Catholic schools available to families in New York City? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in New York City? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in New York City? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes 4.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in New York City? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in New York City? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does the state of New York have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship 0.00 No program specifically for New York City students? schools in New York City are schools of choice (charter, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of ** ** d magnet, and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very low 0.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in New York City enroll in charter schools? percentage 3.00 Positive 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a New York City charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 4.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a New York City charter school on learning gains in math? Very positive AREA III POINTS (out of 36.00) = 26.00 26.00/36.00 SCORE: III AREA .11 = 36 50% x SCORE: 5.83 + 26.72 + 36.11 = 68.66 TOTAL notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b For the definition of “schools of choice,” a * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the c Although a few of New York’ s most selective magnets November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in have their own applications, the overwhelming Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” New York City has only partial information for majority are part of the common application system. which can be applied to cities that have chancellors indicator 2.5.A, so we subtracted one point from d s the 2.5.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term Because of the size and complexity of New York’ “New York” refers to the city as a whole or to New education system, we were unable to arrive at an accurate count of New York’ York City Public Schools, the largest district in s magnet schools and the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is were thus unable to estimate the number of public determined at the district level. schools of choice in the city.

97 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 87 198,059 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 137,674 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 14 Philadelphia 60,385 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 30% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS PHILADELPHIA? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Philadelphia and Since 2001, authority over the perpetually insolvent School the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we District of Philadelphia has rested with the School Reform combined publicly available data from federal, state, and local governments with proprietary Commission, a hybrid school board appointed by the mayor data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- and governor. Between 2007 and 2014, charter enrollment signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we in Philadelphia doubled to 60,000 students (or 30 percent of political support, grouped into three areas: and policy environment, quantity and total public school enrollment) as the Commission converted quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, twenty-one low-performing district schools into charters. which we obtained using a weighted average However, in an effort to protect the district’s woeful finances, that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). the Commission refused to consider applications for new For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional schools. This moratorium was lifted in 2014 as part of a neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, legislative deal to secure passage of a new cigarette tax, private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other yet in 2015 the Commission approved just six of thirty-nine choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. charter applications. Under state law, rejected applicants may appeal the Commission’s decision or resubmit their Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local application, and many appear likely to do so. Meanwhile, officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as Pennsylvania’s Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. continues to provide private scholarships to more than 7,000 students annually, including many in Philadelphia. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 29 10 09 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

98 88 Philadelphia Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS PHILADELPHIA RANKS TWENTY- AREA I POINTS NINTH - out of thirty cities on political sup QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT port, with a score of five points out of fifteen. This low ranking is due to a number of fac - 38.1 5.3 tors, including the lack of support for school choice among local officials and the hostility of the city’s principal newspaper. Although the mayor, superintendent, and School Reform Commission have remained relatively neutral with regard to school choice, the teachers’ 15 unions, city council, and local media have not been supportive. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS out of PHILADELPHIA RANKS TENTH thirty cities on policy environment, with a 50 67.6 score of twenty-four points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its common out of 100 - application and choice-friendly transporta tion, as well as for its willingness to close 35 schools with low enrollments and locate or co-locate charter schools in district facilities. The School District of Philadelphia is also a member of the Portfolio School District Network. However, Philadelphia charters still receive significantly less funding than district-run schools, and the School Reform - Commission’s effective monopoly on authoriz ing limits the rate at which the city’s charter AREA II POINTS sector can grow. POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 24.2 50 POINTS out of PHILADELPHIA RANKS NINTH Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-eight points out of fifty. The - city offers a variety of choices to families, in PHILADELPHIA RANKS FOURTEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES cluding charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual , with its high marks for policy environment and the OVERALL schools, as well as homeschooling. A district wide lottery provides families with access to quantity and quality of choice more or less balancing out its abysmal a variety of public options, while a tax credit scholarship program gives some low-income scores for political support. Alternatives to the city’s dysfunctional students greater access to private options. school district continue to multiply, and with a total enrollment of Finally, although Philadelphia has few magnet schools for a city of its size, a comparatively over 60,000, Philadelphia’s charter sector is now the third largest high percentage of its students enroll in char - ter schools, which outperform district schools in the country (after Los Angeles and New York). Still, thousands of in both reading and math. families remain on waitlists. If local interest groups can be tamed and local officials effectively won over, their children may yet receive the education they deserve.

99 89 Philadelphia Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS PHILADELPHIA? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.67 Neutral/Disagree Disagree/Strongly 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 0.67 disagree 1.1 Official Support Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Yes 4.00 0.00 Strongly disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Disagree/Neutral s 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Philadelphia’ Very negative 0.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 12.67 AREA I 5.28 = 12.67/36.00 x 15% SCORE: AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT State has a cap with ample 2.1.A To what extent does Pennsylvania charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 room for growth There is only one authorizer 2.00 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Philadelphia? 2.1 Public Policies available and only one allowed Yes 4.00 2.1.C Is Philadelphia’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? No 2.2.A Does Pennsylvania have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 0.00 2.2 Public Facilities 3.00 2.2.B What percentage of Philadelphia charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? Between 25% and 50% b 1.33 3 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Philadelphia (of 9 possible)? 1.00 Between 20% and 35% 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Philadelphia? 2.3.C Does Pennsylvania law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? No 0.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Philadelphia? 4.00 Yes, both 2.4 NGO Support 6 (of 9 possible) 2.74 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Philadelphia support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for some types of schools 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Philadelphia for schools of choice? 2.00 of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Philadelphia support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 1.11 2 (of 9 possible) Yes, for most types of schools 3.00 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Philadelphia for schools of choice? of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 6 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Philadelphia (of 9 possible)? 2.44 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton) how many support schools of choice in Philadelphia? 3 (of 5 possible) 3.00 2.7.A Are Philadelphia charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Philadelphia charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Philadelphia’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 3.00 10.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does Philadelphia have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

100 90 Philadelphia Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Pennsylvania’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Philadelphia schools of choice? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Philadelphia (of 8 possible)? 6 (of 8 possible) 3.02 Yes, for most public 2.11.A Does Philadelphia have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application 3.00 schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Philadelphia provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? Yes 4.00 Homeschooled students are 2.13.A Are Philadelphia homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, eligible; charter students 3.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? have limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 102.00) = 70.64 70 II AREA .24 24 = 35% x SCORE: .64/102.00 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Philadelphia? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Philadelphia? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Philadelphia? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Philadelphia? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Philadelphia? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Philadelphia? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Philadelphia? Can districts opt out? No 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Philadelphia? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Pennsylvania have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Philadelphia students? Comparably , a low 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in Philadelphia are schools of choice (charter, public 1.00 percentage magnet, and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Philadelphia enroll in charter schools? 4.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Philadelphia charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.00 3.4 Quality Positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Philadelphia charter school on learning gains in math? 3.00 AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 30.50 x 50 % = 38 .13 AREA III SCORE: 30 .50/40.00 + TOTAL 38.13 = 67.64 SCORE: 5.28 + 24.24 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Philadelphia has only partial information for All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” indicator 2.5.A, so we subtracted two points from which can be applied to cities that have chancellors the 2.5.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Philadelphia” refers to the city as a whole or to the Philadelphia School District, the largest district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

101 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 91 652,421 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: Los 513,247 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 15 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 139,174 Angeles CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 21% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS LOS ANGELES? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Los Angeles and In the past decade, the number of charter schools in Los Angeles the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we has quadrupled, while district enrollment has declined by combined publicly available data from federal, state, and local governments with proprietary approximately 100,000 students. With over 260 schools and data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- 140,000 students, the city’s charter sector is now the largest signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we in the country in terms of total enrollment, though it still pales grouped into three areas: political support, policy environment, and quantity and in comparison to LAUSD, which enrolls 500,000 students in quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, 1,000-plus schools, including nearly 200 magnet schools. which we obtained using a weighted average Los Angeles is the birthplace of several high-performing charter that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). networks, including the Green Dot and Alliance networks, as well For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional as a number of highly regarded independent charters, such as neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, High Tech Los Angeles. Moreover, compared to students in district private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other schools, those in Los Angeles charters achieve the equivalent of choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. two to three months of additional learning in reading and math, with Hispanic and low-income students seeing even greater gains. Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local Despite these strong results, however, charters remain a divisive officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as issue in local politics, and in recent years, unions and charter well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. advocates have fought pitched battles over the composition of the Los Angeles school board, the city’s primary charter authorizer. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 22 08 16 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

102 92 Los Angeles Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS LOS ANGELES RANKS TWENTY- QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS out of thirty cities on political SECOND POLITICAL SUPPORT support, with a score of seven points out of 35.0 fifteen. This low ranking is attributable to a number of factors. For example, the city’s 7.1 leading newspaper has been critical of school choice. Although the superintendent and parent groups have supported school choice, the mayor, city council, and school board have remained neutral (or divided), while 15 the teachers’ union has been hostile. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS out of LOS ANGELES RANKS EIGHTH TOTAL POINTS thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-five points out of thirty-five. 50 67.2 The city receives high marks for NGO, business, and philanthropic support, and out of 100 for the number of charter schools that are located in district facilities. However, the 35 absence of a common application system for most types of schools poses a challenge for parents attempting to navigate the enormous system, and the lack of public transportation to schools of choice makes it difficult for some families to access the choices available to them. Finally, despite the number of students AREA II POINTS that have left the district for charters, Los POLICY ENVIRONMENT Angeles Unified does not have a history of closing district schools due to low enrollment. 25.1 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS LOS ANGELES RANKS SIXTEENTH out Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-five points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, LOS ANGELES RANKS FIFTEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, with its high mark for policy environment more or less balancing and virtual schools, as well as homeschool - ing. Mechanisms such as intradistrict open out its low score for political support and middling scores for the enrollment and dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a robust set quantity and quality of choice. A number of high quality charter of public options. However, because neither providers are active in Los Angeles. However, demand for these Los Angeles nor California has a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options still outstrips supply, and a mixture of union hostility, schools remain out of reach for most Los Angeles families. Finally, despite operating at scarce facilities, and low funding has prevented the sector from a financial disadvantage, Los Angeles charter schools continue to grow their market share achieving even faster growth. Los Angeles families seeking to take and outperform district schools in reading and math. advantage of the options available to them also need better logistical supports (such as transportation and a common application).

103 93 Los Angeles Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS LOS ANGELES? DATA OUT OF 4* AREA POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) I: Neutral 2.00 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.00 Neutral 1.1 Official Support 3.33 Agree/Strongly agree 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 0.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? No Disagree/Neutral 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.33 Agree/Strongly agree 1.2 Community Support 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Los Angeles’s Very negative 0.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 16.99 AREA I S CORE: .08 7 = 15% x /36.00 16.99 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 3.00 2.1.A To what extent does California charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Los Angeles? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Los Angeles’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Yes 4.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does California have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of Los Angeles charter schools are located or co-located in city/district-owned buildings? 3.00 Between 25% and 50% b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Los Angeles (of 8 possible)? 5 (of 8 possible)* 2.15 2.3 Public Support 0.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Los Angeles? Greater than 35% 4.00 2.3.C Does California law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes Yes, both 4.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Los Angeles? 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Los Angeles support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 1.93 4 (of 9 possible) Yes, for all types of 2.5.A Is there business community support in Los Angeles for schools of choice? 4.00 schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 8 (of 9 possible) 3.41 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Los Angeles support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for all types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Los Angeles for schools of choice? 4.00 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 8 ( of 8 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Los Angeles (of 8 possible)? 3.56 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, Walton) how many support schools of choice in Los Angeles? 4 (of 5) 4.00 2.7.A Are Los Angeles charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Los Angeles charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.00 Some teachers must be certified 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Los Angeles’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 4.00 11.83 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions?) 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

104 94 Los Angeles Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in California’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Los Angeles schools of choice? Mostly comprehensive 3.25 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Los Angeles (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.52 For magnet/CTE 1.00 2.11.A Does Los Angeles have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools only 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Los Angeles provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students are ineligible; law does 2.13.A Are Los Angeles homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars not explicitly address such as music or sports? charter eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 102.11) = 73.32 32/102.11 73. SCORE: II AREA .13 25 = 35% x AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Los Angeles? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Los Angeles? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Los Angeles? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Los Angeles? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Los Angeles? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Los Angeles? Yes Attendance waivers 1.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Los Angeles? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Los Angeles? Can districts opt out? can opt out 3.2.D Does California have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Los Angeles students? Comparably , a high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in Los Angeles are schools of choice (charter, public 3.00 magnet, and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Los Angeles enroll in charter schools? 3.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Los Angeles charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.00 3.4 Quality 3.00 Positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Los Angeles charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 28.00 = 35 .00 AREA III SCORE: 28.00/ 40.00 x 50% 35.00 + TOTAL = 67.21 SCORE: 7.08 + 25.13 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Los Angeles has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.3.A, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the 2.3.A which can be applied to cities that have chancellors and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Los Angeles” refers to the city as a whole or to Los Angeles Unified School District, the largest district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

105 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 95 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 46,415 37,534 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 16 Minneapolis CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 8,881 19% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS MINNEAPOLIS? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Minneapolis and When it comes to school choice, Minneapolis is a city of firsts. the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, In 1988, the Minnesota legislature passed the nation’s first state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and statewide interdistrict open enrollment law, which gave a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- every Minnesotan child the right (at least in principle) to ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, enroll in any district in the state. In 1991, it passed the nation’s quantity and policy environment, and Cities received an aggregate score quality. first charter law, which the National Alliance for Public for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average Charter Schools still ranks as the country’s best. A year later, that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). the nation’s first charter school opened its doors in St. Paul, For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional just across the river from Minneapolis. Finally, in 2011 the neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, Minneapolis Federation of Teachers formed the first union- private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other backed charter-authorizing organization, the Minnesota choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. Guild of Charter Schools, which has authorized five schools Area I: Political Support (15%) so far (including three in Minneapolis). Today, over a third of This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their Minneapolis students either enroll in charters or leave the political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media city’s dysfunctional school district for neighboring districts. support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 16 13 14 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

106 96 Minneapolis Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS MINNEAPOLIS RANKS SIXTEENTH QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS out of thirty cities on political support, with POLITICAL SUPPORT a score of eight points out of fifteen. This 35.6 middling rank is due largely to the lukewarm support for school choice expressed by local 7.6 officials. Although the local media have mostly supported school choice, the mayor, city council, school board, and superintendent have remained neutral (perhaps because school choice is already so well established). 15 At the state level, the governor has not mentioned school choice in his speeches. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS MINNEAPOLIS RANKS THIRTEENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, 50 66.5 with a score of twenty-three points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for out of 100 a policy environment that is mostly free of restrictions on charter schools. For example, 35 there is no statewide cap on the number of charter schools, and all charters are exempt - from collective bargaining agreements. How ever, charters receive less funding than dis - trict schools, and in practice the district does not provide transportation to most schools of choice (despite being legally required to do so under Minnesota law). Finally, Minneapolis AREA II POINTS does not have a history of closing district POLICY ENVIRONMENT schools with low or declining enrollment. Area III: Quantity & Quality 23.3 50 POINTS MINNEAPOLIS RANKS FOURTEENTH Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-six points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, in - MINNEAPOLIS RANKS SIXTEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES cluding charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual with middling scores in all three categories: political OVERALL , schools, as well as homeschooling. Mecha - nisms such as inter- and intradistrict open support, policy environment, and quantity and quality of choice. enrollment and dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a robust set of Minneapolis provides families with a range of public options, public options, and the city treats its home - schooled students fairly by allowing them to but its charter schools would benefit from better facilities and participate in district programs. However, the quality of the city’s charter schools is mixed; more flexible transportation policies, and both the city and state although Minneapolis charters outperform the city’s district schools in math, they perform no must pay more attention to quality control. better in reading.

107 97 Minneapolis Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS MINNEAPOLIS? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.33 Neutral/Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1 Official Support Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.33 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 No 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.2 Community Support Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Minneapolis’s 3.00 Agree principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 18.32 SCORE: I 18.32/36.00 x 15% 7.63 = AREA AREA II: (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does Minnesota charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charter schools 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Minneapolis? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Minneapolis’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 Yes No 0.00 2.2.A Does Minnesota have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Less than 25% 2.33 2.2.B What percentage of Minneapolis charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 4 (of 6 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Minneapolis (of 6 possible)? 1.70 1.00 Between 20% and 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Minneapolis? 2.3 Public Support Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does Minneapolis law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? ** 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Minneapolis? ** 2.4 NGO Support ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Minneapolis support schools of choice? ** Yes, for some types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Minneapolis for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 6 (of 6 possible)* 2.52 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Minneapolis support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Minneapolis for schools of choice? 1.00 Yes, for charters* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Minneapolis (of 7 possible)? 7 (of 7 possible)* 3.11 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Minneapolis? 2.00 2.7.A Are Minneapolis charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Yes 0.00 2.7.B Are Minneapolis charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Minneapolis’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 3.00 10.14 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

108 98 Minneapolis Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Minnesota’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Minneapolis? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Minneapolis (of 5 possible)? 5 (of 5 possible)* 2.43 Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Minneapolis have a common application for schools of choice? schools of choice c 0.00 No 2.12.A Does Minneapolis provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 2.12 Transportation Homeschooled students are eligible; charter 2.13.A Are Minneapolis’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 3.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 85.94) = 57.09 .09/85.94 57 SCORE: AREA II .25 23 = 35% x AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Minneapolis? 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Minneapolis? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Minneapolis? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Columbus? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Minneapolis? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Minneapolis? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Minneapolis? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Minneapolis? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Ohio have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Minneapolis students? , a similar Comparably 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Minneapolis are schools of choice (charter, 2.00 percentage magnet, and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 2.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Minneapolis enroll in charter schools? percentage 2.00 No impact 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Minneapolis charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 3.00 Positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Minneapolis charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 28.50 35 .63 AREA III SCORE: 28.50 /40.00 x 50% = 7.63 35.63 = 66.51 SCORE: TOTAL + 23.25 + notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b For the definition of “schools of choice,” a * A few indicators may be out of less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Although state law requires districts to provide we subtracted an appropriate amount from the c transportation to charters if they request, because indicator and area denominators. For example, Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. many charters operate on a different schedule than Minneapolis has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” district schools, in practice most do not receive 2.3.A, so we subtracted 1.33 points from the 2.3.A which can be applied to cities that have chancellors and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term district transportation. “Minneapolis” refers to the city as a whole or to Minneapolis Public Schools, the largest district in ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator (see above). the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

109 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 99 84,747 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 72,402 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 17 Baltimore 12,345 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 15% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS BALTIMORE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Baltimore and Baltimore City Schools spends a whopping $17,329 per the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, student and is legally required to give an equal amount to its state, and local governments with proprietary thirty-one charters—minus the cost of the services it provides data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- for them. However, in practice, the amount that charters signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we receive has been negotiated, and many charter advocates political support, grouped into three areas: and policy environment, quantity and say the current per-student allocation of $9,387 is inadequate quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, (and illegal). This is especially problematic because Maryland which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a law places numerous restrictions on the way that charters city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). operate. For example, charters lack the authority to hire or fire For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional their teachers or principals, who are employees of the district neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, (and union members subject to the district-wide collective private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other bargaining agreement). As originally drafted, the Public choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. Charter School Improvement Act of 2015, which received strong backing from Governor Larry Hogan, would have Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local addressed some of these issues by providing charters with officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as significantly greater funding and autonomy. However, by the well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. time it reached the governor’s desk, many of the bill’s most consequential provisions had been watered down. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 02 29 10 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

110 100 Baltimore Results Area I: Political Support AREA III POINTS 15 POINTS BALTIMORE RANKS SECOND out of QUANTITY & QUALITY thirty cities on political support, with a score AREA I POINTS of eleven points out of fifteen. Although the 37.5 mayor, superintendent, school board, and local POLITICAL SUPPORT media have all supported school choice— perhaps because Maryland’s schools of choice 11.4 are so much a part of the district system that they pose no threat to district finances or union membership. At the state level, the 15 governor has also strongly supported school choice of a more authentic variety. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS BALTIMORE RANKS TWENTY-NINTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of seventeen points out of thirty-five. 50 65.6 The city receives high marks for its common application and for the number of charter out of 100 schools that are located or co-located in district facilities. However, it does not provide 35 charters with transportation, forcing them to foot the bill for doing so, in order to comply with state law. Moreover, Maryland charters are not exempt from collective bargaining agreements or teacher-licensure requirements, severely restricting their organizational autonomy. Finally, Baltimore City Schools AREA II POINTS has no history of closing schools with low POLICY ENVIRONMENT or declining enrollments. Area III: Quantity & Quality 16.7 50 POINTS out of thirty BALTIMORE RANKS TENTH Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-eight points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical BALTIMORE RANKS SEVENTEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. OVERALL , with low marks for its policy environment more Mechanisms such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment and dual enrollment programs or less balancing out its high scores for political support and the provide families with access to a variety of public options, especially at the middle and quantity and quality of choice. To better support its schools of high school levels. However, because there are choice, the city and the district must provide them with more no voucher or tax credit scholarship programs in Maryland, private options remain out of equitable funding and transportation. The state of Maryland reach for many families. Finally, Baltimore’s charter schools serve a comparatively low should also remove the many burdensome restrictions on how percentage of the city’s students. charters operate, which make it difficult for them to function more efficiently or effectively than traditional district schools.

111 101 Baltimore Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS BALTIMORE? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1 Official Support Agree/Strongly agree 3.33 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 3.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Strongly agree 3.33 1.2 Community Support Agree 3.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Baltimore’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 27.33 I SCORE: 27.33/36.00 x 15% 11.39 = AREA (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does Maryland charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charter schools There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Baltimore? 2.00 available and only one allowed 2.1.C Is Baltimore’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network ? 4.00 Yes No 0.00 2.2.A Does Maryland have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 2.67 2.2.B What percentage of Baltimore charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 8 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Baltimore (of 8 possible)? 2.07 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Baltimore? Greater than 35% 0.00 No 0.00 2.3.C Does Maryland law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Modest state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Baltimore? 3.00 strong local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 5 (of 8 possible)* 2.00 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Baltimore support schools of choice (of 8 possible)? Yes, for most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Baltimore for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Baltimore support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 5 (of 9 possible) 2.15 Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Baltimore for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Baltimore (of 9 possible)? 5 (of 9 possible) 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.15 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice 2 (of 5) 2.00 in Baltimore? 0.00 2.7.A Are Baltimore charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? No 2.7 Teacher Policies Yes 0.00 2.7.B Are Baltimore charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? No 0.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Baltimore’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 2.8 Quality Control 11.00 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does Baltimore have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

112 102 Baltimore Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Maryland’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Baltimore? Moderately comprehensive 2.00 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Baltimore (of 7 possible)? 2.10 Information 6 (of 7 possible)* 2.92 Yes, for most public 3.00 2.11.A Does Baltimore have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice Yes, but charters are 1.33 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Baltimore provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? excluded Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Baltimore homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 101.61) = 48.46 = x .61 .69 SCORE: II AREA 35% 16 48.46/101 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Baltimore? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Baltimore? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Baltimore? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Baltimore? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Baltimore? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Baltimore? Yes c 4.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Districtwide lottery 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Baltimore? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 4.00 3.2 Access Yes; no opt out 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Baltimore? Can districts opt out? 3.2.D Does Maryland have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Baltimore students? Comparably, a similar 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Baltimore are schools of choice (charter, 2.00 percentage CTE schools)? magnet, and/or 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 2.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Baltimore enroll in charter schools? percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Baltimore charter school on learning gains in reading? ** ** 3.4 Quality ** ** 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Baltimore charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 24.00 24.00/32.00 x 50% = 37 .50 AREA III SCORE: SCORE: 11.39 + TOTAL 16.69 + 37.50 = 65.58 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b For the definition of “schools of choice,” a * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, points. All questionnaire data are current as of For middle and high school students only. November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the c Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. Elementary students must request a transfer. indicator and area denominators. For example, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” Baltimore has only partial information for indicator which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.3.A, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the 2.3.A or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term and Area II denominators. “Baltimore” refers to the city as a whole or to Baltimore City Public Schools, the largest district Indicates missing data for the entire indicator ** in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator (see above). is determined at the district level.

113 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 103 24,091 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: Kansas 15,214 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 18 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 8,877 City, MO CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 37% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS KANSAS CITY? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Kansas City and Since the passage of Missouri’s charter law in 1998, Kansas City’s the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, charter sector has grown to include twenty-eight schools serving state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and approximately 10,000 students. This growth has accelerated the a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- breakdown of the traditional school district, which was already signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we suffering from declining enrollment thanks to persistently low grouped into three areas: political support, quantity and and policy environment, performance and a failed integration effort. In 2010, the district quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, closed twenty-six under-enrolled schools to cut costs, but after which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a the Missouri Board of Education revoked its accreditation in 2012, city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined it saw further enrollment losses. Currently, at least twenty district “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, school buildings stand vacant, yet just three of these facilities magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual have been sold or leased to charters, a situation that has inspired schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and bipartisan legislation to ensure more equitable access. For now, open or dual enrollment programs. all Kansas City charters are authorized by the Missouri Department Area I: Political Support (15%) of Elementary and Secondary Education and sponsored by This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their institutions of higher learning. However, in a sign of the times, political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media in 2015 the state board approved the district’s request to support choice in the community. become a charter sponsor. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 17 19 15 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

114 104 Kansas City Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS KANSAS CITY RANKS SEVENTEENTH QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS out of thirty cities on political support, with a POLITICAL SUPPORT - score of eight points out of fifteen. This mid 35.2 dling ranking is largely due to the lukewarm support for school choice expressed by local 7.6 officials. Although the mayor has generally supported school choice, the city council, school board, superintendent, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral, while the teachers’ union has been unsupportive. 15 Kansas City’s principal newspaper has also been hostile to choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS KANSAS CITY RANKS NINETEENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, 50 64.2 with a score of twenty-two points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for out of 100 NGO and business support but low marks for philanthropic support (though some 35 organizations not included in our metric, such as the Kauffman Foundation, have supported local charters). The state policy environment is also a mixed bag. Although charter schools are exempt from collective bargaining agreements, they receive significantly less funding than district schools and do not have the “right of first refusal” to district facilities AREA II POINTS (many of which stand empty). Finally, because POLICY ENVIRONMENT there is no common application in Kansas City, it is difficult for parents seeking to enroll their children to navigate the system. 21.5 Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS out KANSAS CITY RANKS FIFTEENTH of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with KANSAS CITY RANKS EIGHTEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , a score of thirty-five points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, with middling scores in all three areas: political support, policy - including charter, magnet, career and tech nical education, independent, Catholic, and environment, and quantity and quality of choice. Of the cities on virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Although Kansas City Public Schools does our list, Kansas City ranks fourth in terms of the percentage of little to encourage intradistrict choice, since its accreditation was revoked, interdistrict students enrolled in charter schools. However, with more equitable transfers have become an important mechanism for public choice, allowing many access to facilities and funding, as well as better supports for families families to leave for neighboring districts. Not coincidentally, charters account for a (such as a common application), charters could likely provide an comparatively high percentage of total public enrollment. However, because Missouri does even greater percentage of the city’s students with an alternative not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship to the district system. program, many private options remain out of reach for Kansas City families.

115 105 Kansas City Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS KANSAS CITY? DATA OUT OF 4* AREA I: (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT 2.67 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.33 Neutral/Agree 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Yes 4.00 1.00 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree 2.00 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.50 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Kansas City’s Very negative 0.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 18.17 AREA I SCORE: 18.17/36.00 x 15% = 7.57 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does Missouri charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Kansas City? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Kansas City’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? No 0.00 2.2.A Does Missouri have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 0.00 No 2.2 Public Facilities Less than 25% 2.2.B What percentage of Kansas City charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 0.67 b 2 (of 4 possible)* 1.11 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Kansas City (of 4 possible)? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Kansas City? Between 20% and 35% 1.00 4.00 Yes 2.3.C Does Missouri law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Strong state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Kansas City? 3.00 Modest local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Kansas City support schools of choice (of 3 possible)? 1.33 3 (of 3 possible)* Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Kansas City for schools of choice? schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Kansas City support schools of choice (of 4 possible)? 3 (of 4 possible)* 1.56 Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Kansas City for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 3 (of 4 possible)* 1.33 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Kansas City (of 4 possible)? 1.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Kansas City? 1 (of 5) 2.7.A Are Kansas City charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 4.00 Yes 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Kansas City charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Kansas City’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 10.55 3.00 2.8 Quality Control and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools due to low enrollment and a history of doing so? ** ** AREA II continued on next page...

116 106 Kansas City Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Missouri’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Kansas City? comprehensive 2.36 5 (of 8 possible) 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Kansas City (of 8 possible)? 2.10 Information 2.11.A Does Kansas City have a common application for schools of choice? No 0.00 2.11 Application 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Kansas City provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? ** ** Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Kansas City homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 78.67) = 48.36 21.52 = x 36/78.67 48. CORE: S I I AREA 35% QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Kansas City? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Kansas City? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Kansas City? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Kansas City? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Kansas City? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Kansas City? Yes 0.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No Yes; no opt out 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Kansas City? Can districts opt out? 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Kansas City? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Missouri have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Kansas City students? Comparably, a high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Kansas City are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.00 percentage and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Kansas City enroll in charter schools? 4.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Kansas City charter school on learning gains in reading? ** ** 3.4 Quality ** ** 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Kansas City charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 22.50 I II S CORE: 22. 50/32.00 x 50% = 35.16 AREA + SCORE: 7.57 TOTAL 21.52 + 35.16 = 64.24 notes table b The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” Kansas City has only partial information for indicator which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.3.A, so we subtracted 2.22 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Kansas City” refers to the city as a whole or to Indicates missing data for the entire indicator ** Kansas City Public Schools, the largest district in (see above). the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

117 snapshot enrollment 2013-14 107 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 242,740 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 192,855 19 Houston CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 49,885 21% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS HOUSTON? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Houston and the Houston is the birthplace of the country’s most famous twenty-nine other cities in this study, we charter network, the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), combined publicly available data from federal, state, and local governments with proprietary which was founded by locals Mike Feinberg and David Levin in data from a variety of education groups and a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- 1994 and supercharged by grants from the Fisher Foundation signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we and others after its stellar results became apparent. Today, grouped into three areas: political support, quantity and policy environment, and KIPP operates 183 schools, including twenty-four in Houston quality. Cities received an aggregate score for each area as well as an overall score, some of which are among of the city’s highest performers. which we obtained using a weighted average Houston also features other high-performing charter that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). networks, such as Yes Prep and Harmony, as well as more than For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional one hundred district-run magnet schools. Together, charters neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, and magnets serve more than half of Houston’s predominantly private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other Hispanic and African American students. Still, the quality of choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. these options remains a concern. Although the Houston Independent School District authorizes more than thirty Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local schools, most Houston charters are authorized by the Texas officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as Education Agency, which has revoked the charters of at least well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. five local schools since the passage of SB 2 in 2013 made it easier to shut down low-performing schools. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 10 25 18 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

118 108 Houston Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS out of thirty HOUSTON RANKS TENTH cities on political support, with a score of QUANTITY & QUALITY AREA I POINTS ten points out of fifteen. This high ranking POLITICAL SUPPORT is due to a number of factors. For example, 33.8 like his predecessors, the governor of Texas has publicly supported school choice, as has 9.5 Houston’s largest newspaper. Still, support for school choice is not universal. Although parent groups have generally supported school choice, the city council, school 15 board, and superintendent have remained relatively neutral, while the mayor has been unsupportive. Area II: Policy Environment TOTAL POINTS 35 POINTS HOUSTON RANKS TWENTY-FIFTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, 50 63.2 with a score of twenty points out of thirty-five. out of 100 The city receives high marks for its willing - ness to close schools with low or declining enrollments, and it is the only city on our list 35 that actually provides charter schools with more funding than district schools. Still, relatively few of the city’s charters are located or co-located in district facilities. Moreover, although Houston has a common application for magnet schools, charters are not included. AREA II POINTS Similarly, because Houston provides trans - POLICY ENVIRONMENT portation to magnets but not to charters, it is difficult for families to access some of the 20.0 choices available to them. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. HOUSTON RANKS EIGHTEENTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-four points out of fifty. The HOUSTON RANKS NINETEENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , city offers a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and tech - with its middling score for the quantity and quality of choice nical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. and low score for policy environment outweighing its high marks Mechanisms such as enrollment waivers and intradistrict and dual enrollment programs for political and media support. Between charters and magnets, provide families with access to a variety of public options. However, because neither Houston has a healthy and growing supply of public schools of choice. Houston nor Texas has a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options However, families seeking to access the options that are available remain out of reach for Houston families. A comparatively high proportion of Houston’s to them need better logistical supports, such as transportation public schools are schools of choice, but because many of these are magnets, the and a common application that includes charter schools. fraction of students who enroll in charters is still fairly modest. Finally, the quality of Houston charters is uneven, modestly exceeding district schools in math but not in reading.

119 109 Houston Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS HOUSTON? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.33 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 4.00 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 3.00 Agree 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.33 Agree/Strongly agree 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Houston’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 22.67 AREA I SCORE: 22.67/36.00 x 15% = 9.45 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with some 2.1.A To what extent does Texas charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 room for growth Yes 4.00 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Houston? 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.C Is Houston’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? No 0.00 2.2.A Does Texas have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? Limited option 2.00 2.2 Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of Houston charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 2.00 Less than 25% b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Houston (of 9 possible)? 2.07 5 (of 9 possible) Charter schools receive at least 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Houston? 4.00 2.3 Public Support 5% more funding No 2.3.C Does Texas law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 0.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Houston? Yes 4.00 2.4 NGO Support 1.04 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Houston support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 2 (of 9 possible) Yes, for most/all types of 3.50 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Houston for schools of choice? schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Houston support schools of choice (of 7 possible)? 5 (of 7 possible)* 2.37 Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Houston for schools of choice? 1.83 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 3 (of 3 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Houston (of 3 possible)? 1.33 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Houston? 3 (of 5) 3.00 2.7.A Are Houston charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Some charter schools are exempt 2.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Houston charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 0.00 No 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Houston’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 2.8 Quality Control 12.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

120 110 Houston Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Texas’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Houston? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Houston (of 8 possible)? 7 (of 8 possible) 3.45 For magnet/CTE 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Houston have a common application for schools of choice? 1.00 schools only For magnet/CTE 1.33 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Houston provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? schools only Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Houston’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 99.44) = 56.92 x I I CORE: 20.03 = 35% AREA 99.44 56.92/ S QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Houston? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Houston? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Houston? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Houston? Yes 3.1.E Are online/virtual schools available to families in Houston? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Houston? 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Attendance waiver 1.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Houston? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Houston? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Texas have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program specifically No 0.00 for Houston students? Comparably, a very high public schools in Houston are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 4.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Houston enroll in charter schools? 2.00 percentage 2.00 No impact 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Houston charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 3.00 Positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Houston charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 27.00 S CORE: 27 .00/40.00 x 50% = 33.75 AREA I II 20.03 + TOTAL + 33.75 = 63.23 SCORE: 9.45 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a b For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. . In these cases, missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Houston has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.5.B, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the 2.5.B and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Houston” refers to the city as a whole or to Houston Independent School District, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

121 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 111 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 57,895 San 54,490 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 20 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 3,405 Francisco CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 6% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SAN FRANCISCO? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for San Francisco and School choice is controversial in San Francisco thanks the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, to the city’s massive open enrollment program, which state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and gives siblings of enrolled students and children from a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- neighborhoods with low average test scores preference ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, over kids who live within a school’s attendance zone. policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score Although the program’s goal is greater diversity (as well for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average as choice), a 2015 analysis suggests that it may actually that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). be producing greater segregation. Moreover, although For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional 61 percent of families get their first choice of school and neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, 89 percent get one of the choices on their list, some private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other students are forced into long commutes because all of choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. the closer options are full. Not coincidentally, perhaps, Area I: Political Support (15%) one-third of children in San Francisco now attend private This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their schools—an option that is out of reach for the city’s political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media poorer families in the absence of a voucher or tax credit support choice in the community. scholarship program. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 28 15 18 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

122 112 San Francisco Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA III POINTS SAN FRANCISCO RANKS TWENTY- AREA I POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY out of thirty cities on political EIGHTH POLITICAL SUPPORT support, with a score of six points out of fifteen. This low ranking is attributable to a 33.8 5.8 number of factors. Although the mayor, city council, school board, superintendent, local media, and parent groups have all remained relatively neutral with regard to school choice, the teachers’ union has been hostile. 15 Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS SAN FRANCISCO RANKS FIFTEENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-three points out of thirty. TOTAL POINTS The city receives high marks for business and philanthropic support and the proportion of 50 62.7 charter schools located in district facilities. However, like other California charter schools, out of 100 San Francisco’s charters receive less funding from the state than district schools. 35 Although there is a district-wide lottery, the city usually does not provide transportation to students who attend a district school other than their neighborhood school—or to charters—making it difficult for families to access the choices available to them. Finally, San Francisco has no history of closing schools due to low or declining enrollment. AREA II POINTS POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS SAN FRANCISCO RANKS EIGHTEENTH 23.2 out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-four points out of Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, SAN FRANCISCO RANKS TWENTIETH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. A massive intradistrict open , due to its low marks for political support and middling OVERALL enrollment program provides families with access to a robust set of public options. scores for policy environment and quantity and quality of choice. However, because California does not have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, The city’s charter sector has shown strong results, despite its modest many private options remain out of reach for San Francisco’s poorer families. Finally, size. However, its intradistrict open enrollment program may need although they enroll only a small fraction of the city’s students, San Francisco’s charters tweaking, if it is to achieve its stated goals and avoid driving wealthier dramatically outperform its district schools in reading and math. families out of the public system. The lack of public transportation is also a major barrier for schools of choice, regardless of their type.

123 113 San Francisco Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SAN FRANCISCO? DATA OUT OF 4* POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: 2.33 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 0.00 No 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2 Community Support Neutral 2.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? s 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of San Francisco’ ** ** principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 12.34 I SCORE: 12.34/32.00 x 15% 5.78 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT State has a cap with ample 2.1.A To what extent does California charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in San Francisco? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies No 2.1.C Is San Francisco’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does California have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 3.67 2.2.B What percentage of San Francisco charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 3 (of 4 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in San Francisco (of 4 possible)? 1.33 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in San Francisco? Between 20% and 35% 1.00 4.00 Yes 2.3.C Does California law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Modest state and local NGO support 2.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in San Francisco? 2.4 NGO Support ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in San Francisco support schools of choice? ** Yes, for some/most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in San Francisco for schools of choice? 2.50 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in San Francisco support schools of choice (of 4 possible)? 4 (of 4 possible)* 1.78 Yes, for most/some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in San Francisco for schools of choice? 2.67 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in San Francisco (of 3 possible)? 3 (of 3 possible)* 1.33 4.00 4 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in San Francisco? 2.7.A Are San Francisco charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 4.00 Yes 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are San Francisco charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for San Francisco’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, ** ** and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8 Quality Control The district has a policy for 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? closing schools but no history 1.33 of doing so AREA II continued on next page...

124 114 San Francisco Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in California’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for San Francisco schools of choice? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in San Francisco (of 7 possible)? 5 (of 7 possible)* 2.60 Yes, for some types of 2.11.A Does San Francisco have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application 2.00 schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does San Francisco provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students are ineligible; charter 2.13.A Are San Francisco’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 86.39) = 57.21 AREA II SCORE: .18 23 = 35% x .21/86.39 57 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in San Francisco? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in San Francisco? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in San Francisco? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in San Francisco? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in San Francisco? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in San Francisco? 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Districtwide lottery 4.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in San Francisco? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in San Francisco? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does California have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for San Francisco students? Comparably, a very low 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in San Francisco are schools of choice (charter, 0.00 percentage and/or CTE schools)? magnet, 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in San Francisco are enrolled in charter schools? 0.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a San Francisco charter school on learning gains in reading? Very positive 4.00 3.4 Quality 4.00 Very positive 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a San Francisco charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 27.00 50% = 33 .75 AREA III SCORE: 27.00 /40.00 x 23.18 + TOTAL 33.75 = 62.71 SCORE: 5.78 + notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. San Francisco has only partial information for All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” indicator 2.3.A, so we subtracted 2.22 points from which can be applied to cities that have chancellors the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “San Francisco” refers to the city as a whole or to San Francisco Unified School District, the largest ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator (see above). district in the city. The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

125 snapshot enrollment 2013-14 115 81,134 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 77,877 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 21 Nashville 3,257 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 4% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NASHVILLE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Nashville and In the past five years, charter enrollment in Nashville has more the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, than quintupled, with national networks such as KIPP, LEAD, and state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and Rocketship Education joining the growing list of local operators. a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- However, in recent years the Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- ple measures of choice friendliness, which we board, which authorizes most of Nashville’s charters, has become political support, grouped into three areas: policy environment, and quantity and increasingly hostile to school choice. In 2014, the board announced Cities received an aggregate score quality. for each area as well as an overall score, it would limit new charters to areas of the city with growing which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a populations or to takeovers of failing schools, and it subsequently city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined approved just two of the fourteen applications that were recom - “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, mended for the 2015 cycle. Several unsuccessful applicants, magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual including KIPP and Rocketship Education, have appealed the schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and local school board’s decision to the state board of education. open or dual enrollment programs. Meanwhile, Tennessee’s Achievement School District (which has Area I: Political Support (15%) the power to convert failing district schools into charters) signaled This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their that it may take a greater interest in Nashville going forward, political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media when it approved two providers (KIPP and Knowledge Academies) support choice in the community. for potential takeovers. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 07 18 23 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

126 116 Nashville Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out NASHVILLE RANKS SEVENTH of thirty cities on political support, with a AREA III POINTS AREA I POINTS score of ten points out of fifteen. This high QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT ranking is due largely to the broad support for school choice among state and local officials. Although the mayor, city council, 30.6 10.0 and superintendent have all supported school choice, the local media outlets have remained relatively neutral (though Nashville’s leading newspaper has been skeptical of choice). 15 At the state level, the governor of Tennessee has also supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS NASHVILLE RANKS EIGHTEENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a 50 62.7 score of twenty-two points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for NGO, out of 100 business, and philanthropic support, as well as its willingness to locate charter schools 35 in district facilities. Additionally, there is no restriction on the number of charter schools that can operate in the state. However, Nashville charters receive less funding than district schools, and because the city does not provide most students with transportation to schools of choice, it is difficult for families to access the options available to them. Finally, AREA II POINTS Nashville does not have a history of closing POLICY ENVIRONMENT schools with low or declining enrollment. Area III: Quantity & Quality 22.0 50 POINTS NASHVILLE RANKS TWENTY-THIRD Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-one points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, NASHVILLE RANKS TWENTY-FIRST OUT OF THIRTY CITIES - including charter, magnet, career and tech nical education, independent, Catholic, and , with its low scores for the availability of choice options OVERALL virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as intradistrict open enroll - outweighing its high marks for political support and middling scores ment and dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a variety of public op - for policy environment. Despite the high quality of the city’s charter tions, and a recently enacted voucher program schools and the absence of a statewide cap on the number of for special-education students is scheduled to go into effect in 2016. However, Nashville charters, the growth of Nashville’s charter sector is increasingly has comparatively few schools of choice, and despite their recent growth the city’s charters threatened by the intransigence of the school board. Going forward, still enroll only a small percentage of its students (though they do outperform district Nashville’s political and civic leaders would be well-advised to focus schools in reading and math). their attention on helping its successful charter networks expand their impact, instead of stifling them.

127 117 Nashville Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS NASHVILLE? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 3.67 Strongly agree/Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Agree 3.00 1.1 Official Support Agree 3.00 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 2.00 Neutral 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2 Community Support Neutral 2.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Nashville’s 1.00 Negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 24.01 SCORE: I 24.01/36.00 x 15% 10.00 = AREA AREA II: (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does Tennessee charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charter schools 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Nashville? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies Yes 2.1.C Is Nashville’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 No 0.00 2.2.A Does Tennessee have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 3.00 2.2.B What percentage of Nashville charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Nashville (of 9 possible)? 2.37 2.00 Between 5% and 20% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Nashville? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.C Does Nashville law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 0.00 No Strong state NGO support; weak 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Nashville? 2.67 local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Nashville support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 7 (of 9 possible) 3.33 Yes, for most/all types of schools 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Nashville for schools of choice? 3.50 of choice 2.5 Business Support 3 (of 9 possible) 1.26 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Nashville support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for all types of schools 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Nashville for schools of choice? 4.00 of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.15 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Nashville (of 7 possible)? 5 (of 7 possible)* 3.00 3 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Nashville? 2.7.A Are Nashville charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Yes 0.00 2.7.B Are Nashville charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Nashville’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 3.00 2.8 Quality Control 10.75 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? No 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

128 118 Nashville Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Tennessee’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Nashville schools of choice? Mostly comprehensive 3.25 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Nashville (of 7 possible)? 5 (of 7 possible)* 2.60 Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11.A Does Nashville have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice c 2.12.A Does Nashville provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 2.12 Transportation 0.00 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Nashville’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are eligible; law is silent 2.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 102.61) = 64.63 2 = 35% x 2.61 64.63/10 CORE: S I I AREA 2.04 QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA III: Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Nashville? 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Nashville? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Nashville? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Nashville? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Nashville? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Nashville? 4.00 Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Nashville? Can districts opt out? 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Nashville? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Tennessee have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program d 0.00 No specifically for Nashville students? Comparably, a very low schools in Nashville are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public 0.00 percentage and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very low 0.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Nashville enroll in charter schools? percentage Very positive 4.00 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Nashville charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Nashville charter school on learning gains in math? Positive 3.00 AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 24.50 CORE: S II I AREA 3 = 0.63 50% x 50/40.00 24. 22.04 + 30.63 = 62.67 TOTAL SCORE: 10.00 + table notes A few indicators may be worth less than four points b For complete details on the data sources and scoring * a For the definition of “schools of choice,” The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator . In these cases, we c November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator All public high school students have free public and area denominators. For example, Nashville transportation on city buses. Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” has only partial information for indicator 2.6.B, In May 2015, T ennessee created a new voucher so we subtracted 0.89 points from the 2.6.B and which can be applied to cities that have chancellors d , Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term program for students with disabilities. However the program is not scheduled to go into effect “Nashville” refers to the city as a whole or to until 2016. Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, the largest . The latter is the case when the district in the city indicator is determined at the district level.

129 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 119 127,563 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 118,802 22 Jacksonville 8,761 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 7% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS JACKSONVILLE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Jacksonville and In the last five years, the number of charters schools the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, in Duval County has more than tripled, though the state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and sector as a whole still accounts for just 7 percent of public a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- enrollment (compared to 33 percent for magnet schools). ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, Today there are at least thirty charters in the Jacksonville policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score area, including members of the non-profit KIPP network for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average that estimates each area’s contribution to a and the for-profit network Charters USA. However, critics city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). For the purposes of this study, we defined charge that this rapid growth has come at the expense “choice” as any alternative to the traditional neighborhood school, including charter, of appropriate oversight and quality control—and they magnet, career and technical education, private or religious, and online or virtual have a point. Despite their rapid growth (or perhaps schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and because of it), on average Jacksonville’s charters perform open or dual enrollment programs. worse than its traditional district schools in reading— Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local the only city in our study for which this is the case— officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as and perform no better in math. well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLITICAL SUPPORT POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 04 20 23 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

130 120 Jacksonville Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out JACKSONVILLE RANKS FOURTH of thirty cities on political support, with a AREA III POINTS AREA I POINTS score of eleven points out of fifteen. This high QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT ranking is largely due to the broad support for school choice expressed by state and local officials. Although the city council, local 30.6 10.6 insiders, superintendent, and local media have generally supported school choice, while the teachers’ union has been unsupportive. At the state level, successive governors have 15 also publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS JACKSONVILLE RANKS TWENTIETH TOTAL POINTS out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-one points out of 50 62.6 thirty-five. The city’s score benefits from a state regulatory environment that is mostly out of 100 free of restrictions on charters. For example, there is no statewide cap on the number of 35 charter schools, and charters are exempt from collective bargaining agreements. However, because charters receive less funding than district-run schools and do not have the “right of first refusal” to district facilities, the financial playing field is still tilted against them. AREA II POINTS Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS POLICY ENVIRONMENT JACKSONVILLE RANKS TWENTY- THIRD out of thirty cities on quantity and 21.4 quality, with a score of thirty-one points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as JACKSONVILLE RANKS TWENTY-SECOND OUT OF THIRTY CITIES homeschooling. Mechanisms such as attendance waivers and interdistrict and OVERALL , with its low scores for policy environment and the dual enrollment programs open the door to a variety of public schools, while voucher quantity and quality of choice outweighing its high score for and tax credit scholarship programs provide a small number of students with access political support. Many conditions in Jacksonville portend the to private options. Despite its plethora of magnet schools, Jacksonville enrolls a com - continued growth of school choice, but going forward the city must paratively low percentage of its students in charter schools. Moreover, the quality of take a more aggressive approach to quality control. Closing bad many charters leaves much to be desired. On average, Jacksonville charters perform schools—including both charter and district-run schools—should no better than district schools in math, and they perform worse in reading. be high on the educational agenda.

131 121 Jacksonville Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS JACKSONVILLE? DATA OUT OF 4* AREA POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) I: Neutral/Agree 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.50 3.50 Agree/Strongly agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1 Official Support Agree/Strongly agree 3.50 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.50 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.00 Disagree Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 2.00 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.50 Agree/Strongly agree s 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Jacksonville’ ** ** principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 22.50 x I S CORE: 10.55 = 15% 22.50/32.00 AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) AREA PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 4.00 2.1.A To what extent does Florida charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? number of charter schools 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Jacksonville? 4.00 Yes 2.1.C Is Jacksonville’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 No 2.2.A Does Florida have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? No 0.00 2.2 Public Facilities ** ** 2.2.B What percentage of Jacksonville charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 2 (of 4 possible)* 0.89 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Jacksonville (of 4 possible)? 2.3 Public Support Between 20% and 35% 1.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Jacksonville? 4.00 2.3.C Does Florida law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes State NGO only 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Jacksonville? 2.00 2.4 NGO Support ** ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Jacksonville support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Jacksonville for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 6 (of 7 possible)* 2.44 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Jacksonville support schools of choice (of 7 possible)? Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Jacksonville for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 6 (of 6 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Jacksonville (of 6 possible)? 2.44 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Jacksonville? 1 (of 5) 1.00 2.7.A Are Jacksonville charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Yes 0.00 2.7.B Are Jacksonville charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? No 0.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Jacksonville’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 3.00 9.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8 Quality Control The district has a policy for 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? closing schools but no history 1.33 of doing so AREA II continued on next page...

132 122 Jacksonville Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Florida’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Jacksonville? comprehensive 2.10 Information 8 (of 8 possible) 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Jacksonville (of 8 possible)? 3.93 Yes, for some types of 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Jacksonville have a common application for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice Charters receive state 2.12.A Does Jacksonville provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district- 2.67 2.12 Transportation transportation funding assigned schools? 2.13.A Are Jacksonville’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, Yes 4.00 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? AREA II POINTS (out of 88.56) = 54.20 = x 20/88.56 54. CORE: S I I 35% AREA 21.42 AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) III: 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Jacksonville? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Jacksonville? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Jacksonville? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Jacksonville? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Jacksonville? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Jacksonville? Yes Attendance waivers 1.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Jacksonville? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes; no opt out 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Jacksonville? Can districts opt out? 3.2.D Does Florida have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Jacksonville students? Comparably, a similar schools in Jacksonville are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 2.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Jacksonville enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage 1.00 Negative 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Jacksonville charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 2.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Jacksonville charter school on learning gains in math? No impact AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 24.50 3 0.63 AREA I II S CORE: 24. 50/40.00 x 50% = SCORE: 10.55 TOTAL + 21.42 + 30.63 = 62.59 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. . In these cases, we points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, Jacksonville Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. has only partial information for indicator 2.3.A, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors so we subtracted 2.22 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Jacksonville” refers to the city as a whole or to Indicates missing data for the entire indicator ** Duval County Public Schools, the largest district in (see above). the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

133 2013-14 enrollment snapshot 123 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 130,102 110,604 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 23 San Diego CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 19,498 15% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SAN DIEGO? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for San Diego and Although California passed charter legislation in 1992, the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, it took another eight years for the city of San Diego to state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and get its first charter school. In 1996, members of the city’s a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- high-tech community began discussing how to better ple measures of choice friendliness, which we political support, grouped into three areas: prepare local youth for the new digital economy, and four policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score years later those discussions bore fruit in the form of High for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average Tech High—a famously successful and innovative charter that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). school that has since evolved into a network of thirteen For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional schools scattered throughout San Diego County. In 2012, neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, San Diego voters passed Proposition Z, a $2.8 billion private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other construction bond measure that allocated $350 million choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. for charter facilities. However, in recent years the district Area I: Political Support (15%) school board (which authorizes forty-nine of the city’s This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their fifty charters) has shown limited support for new schools. political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * * options that are available to families (e.g., 21 18 22 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

134 124 San Diego Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS SAN DIEGO RANKS EIGHTEENTH out of AREA I POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score AREA III POINTS POLITICAL SUPPORT of seven points out of fifteen. This low ranking QUANTITY & QUALITY is largely due to the lukewarm support for school choice expressed by state and local 7.4 officials. Although the local media have 31.3 generally supported school choice, the mayor, city council, school board, and superintendent have remained relatively neutral. At the state level, the governor of California has not 15 mentioned school choice in his speeches. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS SAN DIEGO RANKS TWENTY-SECOND TOTAL POINTS out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-one points out of thirty five. 50 59.4 The city receives high marks for its account - ability system and the number of charter out of 100 schools that are located in district facilities. However, it receives low marks for NGO, busi - 35 ness, and philanthropic support (few major philanthropies that support school choice are active in the city). Moreover, California’s ineq - uitable funding for charter schools makes it difficult for them to compete. Finally, because San Diego does not provide transportation to schools of choice, it is difficult for families to AREA II POINTS access the choices available to them. POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS 20.8 out SAN DIEGO RANKS TWENTY-FIRST of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-one points out of fifty. The Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. city offers a variety of choices to families, - including charter, magnet, career and tech nical education, independent, Catholic, and SAN DIEGO RANKS TWENTY-THIRD OUT OF THIRTY CITIES virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as attendance waivers and , with low to middling marks for all three areas: political OVERALL interdistrict and dual enrollment programs provide families with access to a variety of support, policy environment, and quantity and quality of choice. public options. However, because California - does not have a voucher or tax credit schol Although the city’s charter sector is now well established, its schools arship program, many private options remain out of reach for San Diego families. Finally, of choice need a broader network of state and local partners to although San Diego’s charters outperform district schools in reading and math, a provide them with financial and operational support and pressure comparatively small percentage of the city’s public schools are schools of choice. government officials to adopt more enlightened policies (such as choice-friendly transportation).

135 125 San Diego Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SAN DIEGO? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.00 Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1 Official Support Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 No 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.2 Community Support Agree 3.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of San Diego’s 3.00 Positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 17.67 I SCORE: 17.67/36.00 x 15% 7.36 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT State has a cap with ample 2.1.A To what extent does California charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in San Diego? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies No 2.1.C Is San Diego’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does California have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Between 25% and 50% 3.00 2.2.B What percentage of San Diego charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 7 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in San Diego (of 7 possible)? 2.44 2.3 Public Support 1.00 Between 20% and 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in San Diego? Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does California law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Modest state and local NGO support 2.00 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in San Diego? 2.4 NGO Support ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in San Diego support schools of choice? ** Yes, for some types of schools 2.5.A Is there business-community support in San Diego for schools of choice? 2.00 of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in San Diego support schools of choice? ** ** Yes, for some types of schools 2.00 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in San Diego for schools of choice? of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2 (of 4 possible)* 1.11 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in San Diego (of 4 possible)? 0.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in San Diego? None 2.7.A Are San Diego charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 4.00 Yes 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are San Diego charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for San Diego’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 9.69 3.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8 Quality Control The district has a policy for 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? closing schools but no history 1.33 of doing so AREA II continued on next page...

136 126 San Diego Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in California’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for San Diego schools of choice? Mostly comprehensive 3.25 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in San Diego (of 7 possible)? 2.10 Information 2.68 6 (of 7 possible)* Yes, for some types of 2.00 2.11.A Does San Diego have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application schools of choice 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does San Diego provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students are ineligible; charter 2.13.A Are San Diego’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 91.39) = 54.31 35% = x 31/91.39 54. CORE: S I I AREA 0.80 2 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in San Diego? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in San Diego? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in San Diego? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in San Diego? 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in San Diego? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in San Diego? Yes Attendance waivers 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? 1.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in San Diego? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in San Diego? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does California have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for San Diego students? Comparably, a low 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in San Diego are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 1.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a similar 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in San Diego enroll in charter schools? 2.00 percentage 3.00 Positive 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a San Diego charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality 3.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a San Diego charter school on learning gains in math? Positive AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 25.00 3 1.25 AREA I II S CORE: 25.00 /40.00 x 50% = SCORE: 7.36 TOTAL + 20.80 + 31.25 = 59.41 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. . In these cases, we points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, San Diego Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. has only partial information for indicator 2.3.A, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors so we subtracted 0.89 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “San Diego” refers to the city as a whole or to ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator San Diego Unified School District, the largest district (see above). in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

137 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 127 42,439 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 40,152 24 Tulsa 2,287 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 5% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS TULSA? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Tulsa and the Thanks to a historically contentious relationship with twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, the local school board, Tulsa’s charter sector is still small. state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and However, recent developments suggest that change may a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- be on its way. In 2015, Tulsa Public Schools announced a ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, plan to partner with charter incubator Building Excellent policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score Schools to open three “in-district” charters, and the plan’s for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average prospects were boosted by the passage of HB 1691, which that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). legalized the proposed arrangement. The bill was only For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional the most recent victory for school choice advocates, neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, who were already celebrating the passage of SB 782, private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other which expanded the right to authorize charters to every choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. district in the state, while also granting the State Board Area I: Political Support (15%) of Education the authority to close low-performing This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their charter schools. political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA I AREA II AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 23 11 28 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

138 128 Tulsa Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS TULSA RANKS TWENTY-THIRD out of AREA I POINTS thirty cities on political support, with a score POLITICAL SUPPORT of seven points out of fifteen. This low ranking - reflects a number of factors, including luke AREA III POINTS warm support for school choice among local 6.8 QUANTITY & QUALITY officials and a mix of support and opposition within the broader Tulsa community. Although the superintendent and parent groups 27.3 have supported school choice, the mayor and city council have remained relatively 15 neutral, while the teachers’ union has been unsupportive. Tulsa’s leading newspaper has also adopted a negative tone in its coverage of school choice. TOTAL POINTS Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TULSA RANKS ELEVENTH out of thirty 50 57.9 cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty-four points out of thirty-five. The city out of 100 receives high marks for philanthropic and business support and the number of charter 35 schools located in district facilities. It also benefits from Oklahoma’s flexible teacher policies, which exempt charter schools from collective bargaining and teacher certification requirements. However, the lack of a common application for schools of choice makes it difficult for families to navigate the system, and the district (which authorizes about half AREA II POINTS of the city’s charters) does not engage in POLICY ENVIRONMENT many of the practices associated with quality - authorizing, according to the National Associ 23.8 ation of Charter School Authorizers. Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS TULSA RANKS TWENTY-EIGHTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a TULSA RANKS TWENTY-FOURTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , score of twenty-seven points out of fifty. The with its low scores for political support and the quantity of choice city offers a variety of options to families, in - cluding charter, magnet, career and technical outweighing its higher marks for choice-friendly policies and education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Most practices. Recent developments suggest that both Tulsa and Tulsa students are eligible for Oklahoma’s tax credit scholarship program; however, because Oklahoma are becoming more choice-friendly, but it remains to funding for the program is capped at just $5 million, the number of students it serves be seen if the current momentum will translate into a larger and is small. Similarly, although there are some interdistrict and dual enrollment programs, more dynamic array of options going forward. the lack of intradistrict open enrollment limits the options available to families. Finally, compared to the other cities in our study, Tulsa has few public schools of choice, and a very low percentage of students enroll in charter schools.

139 129 Tulsa Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS TULSA? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.00 Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.1 Official Support Agree 3.00 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Agree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 3.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 No 0.67 Strongly disagree/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.67 1.2 Community Support Agree 3.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Tulsa’s 0.00 Very negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 16.34 I SCORE: 16.34/36.00 x 15% 6.81 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does Oklahoma charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 some room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Tulsa? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies Yes 2.1.C Is Tulsa’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 4.00 No 0.00 2.2.A Does Oklahoma have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities More than 50% 4.00 2.2.B What percentage of Tulsa charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Tulsa (of 9 possible)? 2.30 ** ** 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Tulsa? 2.3 Public Support Yes 4.00 2.3.C Does Tulsa law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Yes* 2.4.A Is there a state NGO that supports school choice in Tulsa? 2.00 2.4 NGO Support 2.59 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Tulsa support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 6 (of 9 possible) Yes, for most/all types 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Tulsa for schools of choice? 3.67 of schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 7 (of 9 possible) 3.04 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Tulsa support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? Yes, for most/all types 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Tulsa for schools of choice? 3.67 of schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 4.00 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Tulsa (of 9 possible)? 9 (of 9 possible) 1.00 1 (of 5) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Tulsa? 2.7.A Are Tulsa charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies No 4.00 2.7.B Are Tulsa charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 0.00 No 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Tulsa’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 0.00 2.8 Quality Control 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools due to low enrollment and a history of doing so? ** ** AREA II continued on next page...

140 130 Tulsa Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Oklahoma’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.75 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Tulsa schools of choice? comprehensive 3.43 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Tulsa (of 8 possible)? 2.10 Information 7 (of 8 possible) For magnet/CTE 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Tulsa have a common application for schools of choice? 1.00 schools only ** 2.12 Transportation ** 2.12.A Does Tulsa provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 2.13.A Are Tulsa’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 0.00 No 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? AREA II POINTS (out of 86.00) = 58.45 35% x /86.00 58.45 CORE: S I I AREA 3.79 2 = AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Tulsa? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Tulsa? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Tulsa? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Tulsa? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Tulsa? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Tulsa? Yes 0.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Tulsa? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.50 3.2 Access 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Tulsa? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.2.D Does Oklahoma have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Tulsa students? Comparably, a very low schools in Tulsa are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 0.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 0.00 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Tulsa enroll in charter schools? percentage ** ** 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Tulsa charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality ** ** 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Tulsa charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 17.50 50% = 2 7.34 AREA I II S CORE: 1 7.50/32.00 x SCORE: 57.94 TOTAL 6.81 + 23.79 + 27.34 = notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. . In these cases, points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, ulsa has only partial information for indicator T All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.4.A, so we subtracted two points from the 2.4.A or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term and Area II denominators. ulsa” refers to the city as a whole or to Tulsa Public “T Schools, the largest district in the city . The latter ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator (see above). is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

141 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 131 185,818 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 159,242 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 25 Dallas 26,676 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 14% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DALLAS? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Dallas and the With a student population that is 23 percent black and twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, 70 percent Hispanic, Dallas Independent School District state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and offers a compelling glimpse of Texas’s demographic future. a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- In addition to thirty-three selective magnet schools, the ple measures of choice friendliness, which we political support, grouped into three areas: district has eight public schools of choice with open enrollment policy environment, quantity and and quality. Cities received an aggregate score policies, and it plans to create thirty-five more by 2020. for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average However, Dallas’s charter sector (which includes networks that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). such as Harmony, Uplift, and KIPP) is still modest, accounting For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional for just 15 percent of the city’s total public enrollment. neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, Most Dallas charters are authorized by the Texas Education private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other Agency, which has been cracking down on the sector’s bad choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. actors since 2013, when the passage of SB 2 made it easier to close low-performing schools. In 2014, TEA revoked the Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local charters of two Dallas schools, Prime Prep Academy (founded officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as by famed Dallas Cowboy football player Deion Sanders) and well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Honors Academy, but it has since approved the applications Area II: Policy Environment (35%) of three new schools in the city. This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 08 28 26 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

142 132 Dallas Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS DALLAS RANKS EIGHTH out of thirty cities on political support, with a score of AREA I POINTS AREA III POINTS ten points out of fifteen. This high ranking POLITICAL SUPPORT QUANTITY & QUALITY is due to a number of factors. For example, the governor of Texas has publicly supported school choice, as have the editorials and 9.9 30.0 op-eds in Dallas’s leading newspaper. Still, support for choice is not universal. Although the mayor, superintendent, local media, and parent groups have generally supported 15 school choice—the city council, school board, and teachers’ union have been neutral or unsupportive. Area II: Policy Environment TOTAL POINTS 35 POINTS DALLAS RANKS TWENTY-EIGHTH 50 57.9 out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of eighteen points out of out of 100 thirty-five. The city receives high marks for its willingness to close schools with low 35 enrollments, and average marks for NGO, business, and philanthropic support. However, none of Dallas’s charter schools are located or co-located in district facilities, and many schools of choice are not included on the city’s common application, making it difficult for families to navigate the system. Finally, AREA II POINTS - because Dallas does not provide transpor POLICY ENVIRONMENT tation to schools of choice, many families have trouble accessing the choices available 18.1 to them. Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. DALLAS RANKS TWENTY-SIXTH out of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty points out of fifty. The DALLAS RANKS TWENTY-FIFTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , city offers a variety of choices to families, - including charter, magnet, career and tech with its low marks for policy environment and the quantity of choice nical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. outweighing its high scores for political support. To better support Mechanisms such as dual and interdistrict enrollment programs provide families with a its schools of choice, the city must grant them equitable access to variety of public options. However, the district does little to encourage intradistrict choice district facilities and provide families with better logistical supports among its non-magnet schools, and because Texas does not have a voucher or tax credit (such as transportation and a common application). Dallas families scholarship program, many private options remain out of reach for Dallas families. would also benefit from the creation of a private choice mechanism Finally, though Dallas charters outperform district schools in reading and math, they at the state level, such as a voucher or tax credit scholarship program. account for a comparatively modest percentage of total public enrollment.

143 133 Dallas Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS DALLAS? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 3.00 Agree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1 Official Support Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.00 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 1.33 Disagree/Neutral 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree 3.00 1.2 Community Support Agree 3.00 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Dallas’s 3.00 Positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 23.67 I SCORE: 23.67/36.00 x 15% 9.86 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does Texas charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 some room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Dallas? Yes 4.00 2.1 Public Policies No 0.00 2.1.C Is Dallas’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 2.2.A Does Texas have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.00 Limited option 2.2 Public Facilities 0% 0.00 2.2.B What percentage of Dallas charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 3 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Dallas (of 9 possible)? 1.56 2.00 Between 5% and 20% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Dallas? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.C Does Texas law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? No 0.00 Strong state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Dallas? 3.33 modest local support 2.4 NGO Support 2 (of 9 possible) 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Dallas support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 0.89 Yes, for most/all types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Dallas for schools of choice? 3.67 schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Dallas support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 7 (of 9 possible) 2.89 Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Dallas for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 8 (of 9 possible) 3.41 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Dallas (of 9 possible)? 2.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Dallas? 2 (of 5) Some charters schools 2.7.A Are Dallas charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 2.00 are exempt 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Dallas charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 0.00 No 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Dallas’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 2.8 Quality Control 12.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Yes 4.00 AREA II continued on next page...

144 134 Dallas Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Texas’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Dallas? comprehensive 6 (of 8 possible) 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Dallas (of 8 possible)? 2.88 For magnet/CTE 2.11.A Does Dallas have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application 1.00 schools only 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Dallas provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Dallas’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 104.00) = 53.63 53.63/104.00 35% CORE: x I I AREA S = 1 8.05 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) Yes 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Dallas? 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Dallas? Yes Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Dallas? 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Dallas? Yes Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Dallas? 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Dallas? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Attendance waiver 1.00 Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Dallas? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Dallas? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Texas have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program 0.00 No specifically for Dallas students? Comparably, a low public schools in Dallas are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 1.00 percentage CTE schools)? and/or 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Dallas enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage 3.00 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Dallas charter school on learning gains in reading? Positive 3.4 Quality 3.00 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Dallas charter school on learning gains in math? Positive AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 24.00 /40.00 I II S CORE: 24.00 0.00 x 50% = 3 AREA = SCORE: 9.86 + 18.05 + 30.00 TOTAL 57.91 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” b for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Dallas” refers to the city as a whole or to Dallas Independent School District, the largest district in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

145 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 135 51,010 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 51,010 26 Seattle 0 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 0% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SEATTLE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Seattle and the After rejecting similar measures in 1995, 2000, and 2004, twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, Washington voters finally approved Initiative 1240 in state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and 2012, which legalized charter schools and established a a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- statewide cap of forty schools over five years. In 2014, ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, the first charter school, First Place Scholars, opened its policy environment, and quantity and Cities received an aggregate score quality. doors to at-risk youth in the Seattle area, and six more for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average Seattle charters were scheduled to open in 2015. However, that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). the future of school choice in Seattle was thrown into a For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional tailspin in September 2015, when the Washington Supreme neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, Court ruled that charter schools violated the state’s private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other constitution. (Note that data in this profile are accurate choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. as of July 2015, to be consistent with the remaining cities Area I: Political Support (15%) in the study. Recent implications of the Supreme Court This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their hearing are not reflected in our findings.) political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA I AREA II AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 30 17 25 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

146 136 Seattle Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS AREA I POINTS SEATTLE RANKS THIRTIETH out of thirty cities on political support, with a score of five POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA III POINTS points out of fifteen. This low ranking primari - QUANTITY & QUALITY ly reflects the lack of support for school choice 4.9 among state and local officials. The mayor, city council, school board, superintendent, 30.5 teachers’ union, and parent groups have all been unwilling to support school choice (as has the governor). Of the institutions and groups included in this category, only the 15 city’s principal newspaper has supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS out SEATTLE RANKS SEVENTEENTH of thirty cities on policy environment, with a 50 57.5 score of twenty-two points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for NGO and out of 100 business support, and for a number of choice-friendly provisions in state law (or 35 at least provisions that were in place as of July, 2015). However, Seattle does not have a common enrollment system that extends beyond its district schools, and there are gaps in the state’s accountability system because report cards do not provide comprehensive information about charters, magnets, or online schools. AREA II POINTS POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS SEATTLE RANKS TWENTY-FIFTH out 22.2 of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty points out of fifty. The city offers Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. a variety of choices to families, including magnet, career and technical education, inde - pendent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well SEATTLE RANKS TWENTY-SIXTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL , as homeschooling. Mechanisms such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment and dual with its low marks for political support and quantity and quality enrollment programs provide families with of choice outweighing its average score for policy environment. access to a variety of public options. However, because neither Seattle nor Washington has This low ranking is unsurprising, as the city has no voucher or tax a voucher or tax credit scholarship program, many private options remain out of reach for credit scholarship programs and had just dipped a toe into the charter Seattle families. Finally, although more than waters (before it was pushed back out). Nevertheless, these findings 20 percent of Seattle students attend private schools, the city has comparatively few public underscore the immense amount of work that must be done if Seattle schools of choice. is to build a permanent constituency for schools of choice and create a policy environment that supports their growth—a task that has become significantly more difficult in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

147 137 Seattle Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS SEATTLE? DATA OUT OF 4* POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: 1.00 Disagree 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 0.67 Disagree/Strongly disagree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Strongly disagree 0.67 0.00 No 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 0.00 Strongly disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.33 1.2 Community Support Neutral/Agree 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 2.33 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Seattle’s 4.00 Very positive principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 11.67 I SCORE: 11.67/36.00 x 15% 4.86 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with some 2.1.A To what extent does Washington charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 room for growth There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Seattle? available, but state law allows for 3.00 multiple authorizers No 2.1.C Is Seattle’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 Yes 4.00 2.2.A Does Washington have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities 0% 0.00 2.2.B What percentage of Seattle charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 1 (of 9 possible) 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Seattle (of 9 possible)? 0.52 ** ** 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Seattle? 2.3 Public Support 2.3.C Does Washington law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 4.00 Yes Strong state NGO support; modest 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Seattle? 3.00 local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 2.00 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Seattle support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 6 possible)* Yes, for some/most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Seattle for schools of choice? 2.33 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Seattle support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.22 Yes, for most types of schools 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Seattle for schools of choice? 3.00 of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 3 (of 3 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Seattle (of 3 possible)? 1.33 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Seattle? 2 (of 5) 2.00 2.7.A Are Seattle charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Seattle charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Seattle’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, and 3.00 10.00 2.8 Quality Control operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? The district has a history of closing 2.8.C Does Seattle have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? 2.67 schools but no formal policy AREA II continued on next page...

148 138 Seattle Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public schools 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Washington’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Seattle schools of choice? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Seattle (of 8 possible)? 5 (of 8 possible) 2.36 Yes, for some types of schools 2.00 2.11.A Does Seattle have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application of choice District provides transportation to 2.12.A Does Seattle provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district- magnets; charters receive state 2.67 2.12 Transportation assigned schools? transportation funding Homeschooled students must 2.13.A Are Seattle’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, be enrolled part time; charter 2.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? students have limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 92.67) = 58.77 = 35% x .20 7/92.67 II 22 AREA 58.7 SCORE: III: AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Seattle? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Seattle? 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Seattle? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Seattle? 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Seattle? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Seattle? Yes 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Districtwide lottery 4.00 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Seattle? Can districts opt out? Yes; no opt out 3.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Seattle? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Washington have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program No 0.00 specifically for Seattle students? Comparably , a very low 0.00 schools in Seattle are schools of choice? 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Seattle are enrolled in schools of choice? 0.00 percentage ** ** 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Seattle charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality ** ** 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Seattle charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 19.50 x 50% = 30 .47 AREA III SCORE: 19 .50/32.00 + 22.20 TOTAL 30.47 = 57.53 SCORE: 4.86 + notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator. In these cases, November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in we subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. Seattle has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.4.B, so we subtracted 1.33 points from the 2.4.B which can be applied to cities that have chancellors and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Seattle” refers to the city as a whole or to Seattle Public Schools, the largest district in the city. The ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator (see above). latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

149 enrollment snapshot 2013-14 139 151,667 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 142,995 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 27 Charlotte 8,672 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 6% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS CHARLOTTE? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Charlotte and Although the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school district has forty-five the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, magnet schools, the city of Charlotte still has relatively few state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and charter schools, which must seek the approval of the North Carolina a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- Department of Education (the state’s only authorizer). In 2011, ple measures of choice friendliness, which we political support, grouped into three areas: after the legislature eliminated the statewide cap on charter and policy environment, quantity and Cities received an aggregate score quality. schools, the department approved a record twenty-three charter for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average applications for the 2013 school year and another twenty-seven that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). for 2014, effectively increasing the number of charters in the state For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional by 50 percent in two years. However, it adopted a more selective neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, approach in the next cycle, when it approved just eleven of a private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other record seventy-one applications (though it did approve two choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and open or dual enrollment programs. statewide virtual schools). In another victory for choice, in 2015 the North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality Area I: Political Support (15%) This area assesses the willingness of local of the state’s new voucher program, which the legislature now officials and other stakeholders to use their political capital to support school choice, as appears likely to expand. well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA I AREA II AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 03 23 30 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

150 140 Charlotte Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS CHARLOTTE RANKS THIRD out of thirty AREA III POINTS cities on political support, with a score of AREA I POINTS QUANTITY & QUALITY eleven points out of fifteen. This high ranking POLITICAL SUPPORT reflects the support for school choice expressed by state and local officials and the existence 25.8 of local organizations outside government 10.7 pressing for expanded choice. Although the mayor and city council have remained relatively neutral, the superintendent, school board, and parent groups have all supported school 15 choice. At the state level, the governor has also publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS CHARLOTTE RANKS TWENTY-THIRD out of thirty cities on policy environment, 50 56.8 with a score of twenty points out of thirty-five. The city receives high marks for business out of 100 and philanthropic support. However, although there is no restriction on the number of 35 charter schools in North Carolina, the lack of local authorizers is a barrier to growth. On the consumer side, the lack of a common application that includes charters makes it difficult for Charlotte families to navigate the system. Similarly, because the city does not provide transportation to charters, it is difficult AREA II POINTS for families to access the choices available POLICY ENVIRONMENT to them. 20.3 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS out of CHARLOTTE RANKS THIRTIETH thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. score of twenty-six points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical CHARLOTTE RANKS TWENTY-SEVENTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES education, private, independent, Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. OVERALL , with low marks for policy environment and the quantity However, compared to the other cities on our list, Charlotte has very few schools of choice, and quality of choice outweighing its high score for political support. and only a small fraction of its students enroll in charter schools. Additionally, although two Assuming the state does not become too stingy, the number of schools statewide voucher programs provide a small number of low-income and special-education of choice in the city seems destined to grow. Still, the forward path students in Charlotte with access to private alternatives, the city lacks public choice might be considerably smoother if these schools (and their students) mechanisms such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment programs. Although there is a were provided with more local supports, such as better facilities, district lottery, it is limited to magnet schools, better transportation, and a common application. many of which are partial magnets that enroll only a fraction of their students through the lottery.

151 141 Charlotte Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS CHARLOTTE? DATA OUT OF 4* AREA I: POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Strongly agree/Agree 3.67 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Strongly agree/Agree 1.1.D – To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 3.67 1.1.E – Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? Yes 4.00 1.2.A – To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2.B – To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 3.00 Agree 1.2 Community Support 1.2.C – To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree 3.00 1.2.D – What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Charlotte’s Negative 1.00 principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 25.67 AREA SCORE: 25.67/36.00 x 15% = 10.70 I AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does North Carolina charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charters There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.00 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Charlotte? available and only one allowed ? No Portfolio School District Network 2.1.C Is Charlotte’s largest school district a member of the 0.00 2.2.A Does North Carolina have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? No 0.00 2.2 Public Facilities 2.2.B What percentage of Charlotte charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? Fewer than 25% 2.00 b 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Charlotte (of 9 possible)? 1.78 4 (of 9 possible) Between 5% and 20% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Charlotte? 2.00 2.3 Public Support Funding is adequate but 2.00 2.3.C Does North Carolina law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? not guaranteed Modest state and local 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Charlotte? 2.00 NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Charlotte support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? ** ** Yes, for all types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Charlotte for schools of choice? 4.00 schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Charlotte support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.15 Yes, for all types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Charlotte for schools of choice? 4.00 schools of choice 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Charlotte (of 7 possible)? 6 (of 7 possible)* 2.59 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Charlotte? 2 (of 5) 2.00 Yes 2.7.A Are Charlotte charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Charlotte charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? Yes 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Charlotte’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 12.00 4.00 2.8 Quality Control and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? The district has a history of closing 2.67 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? schools but no formal policy AREA II continued on next page...

152 142 Charlotte Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in North Carolina’s accountability system? For magnet/CTE schools only 1.33 2.9 Accountability Moderately/Mostly 2.00 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Charlotte? comprehensive 3.11 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Charlotte (of 7 possible)? 6 (of 7 possible)* 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Charlotte have a common application for schools of choice? For magnet/CTE schools only 1.00 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Charlotte provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? For magnet/CTE schools only 1.33 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Charlotte’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 97.28) = 56.46 = 35% /97.28 56.46 0.31 CORE: S I I x AREA 2 III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Charlotte? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Charlotte? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Charlotte? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Charlotte? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Charlotte? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Charlotte? Yes 0.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Charlotte? Can districts opt out? No 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Charlotte? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does North Carolina have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Charlotte students? Comparably, a low schools in Charlotte are schools of choice (charter, magnet, public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 1.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a very low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Charlotte enroll in charter schools? 0.00 percentage ** 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Charlotte charter school on learning gains in reading? ** 3.4 Quality 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Charlotte charter school on learning gains in math? ** ** AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 16.50 = 2 5.78 AREA I II S CORE: 16. 50/32.00 x 50% 10.70 56.79 SCORE: TOTAL + 20.31 + 25.78 = notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially see Appendix A. missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of . In these cases, we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Charlotte has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.5.B, so we subtracted 1.33 points from the 2.5.B which can be applied to cities that have chancellors and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Charlotte” refers to the city as a whole or to Indicates missing data for the entire indicator Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools, the largest district ** in the city . The latter is the case when the indicator (see above). is determined at the district level.

153 2013-14 enrollment snapshot 143 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 28,920 26,041 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 28 Pittsburgh CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 2,879 10% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS PITTSBURGH? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Pittsburgh and In the eighteen years since Pennsylvania passed the twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, charter-authorizing legislation, Pittsburgh’s charter state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and sector has mostly failed to launch. Although the city’s a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- parents can choose from a potpourri of district-run ple measures of choice friendliness, which we political support, grouped into three areas: magnet schools, in recent years the Pittsburgh school policy environment, and quantity and quality. Cities received an aggregate score board has denied almost every charter application that for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average has come before it (though in a few cases the Pennsylvania that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). Charter Board subsequently overturned these decisions). For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional Fortunately, the picture is brighter at the state level, neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, where the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit Program private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and provides private scholarships to more than 7,000 open or dual enrollment programs. Pennsylvanian students and where choice-friendly Area I: Political Support (15%) legislation, such as a recent bill to establish a statewide This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their Achievement School District, continues to find support. political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media support choice in the community. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * options that are available to families (e.g., 18 27 24 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

154 144 Pittsburgh Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS PITTSBURGH RANKS EIGHTEENTH AREA I POINTS out of thirty cities on political support, with POLITICAL SUPPORT a score of seven points out of fifteen. This AREA III POINTS below-average ranking is due largely to the QUANTITY & QUALITY lack of support for school choice among 7.4 local officials and the media. Although parent groups have shown some support for 28.9 school choice, the mayor, city council, and school board have been mostly unsupportive. Pittsburgh’s leading newspaper has adopted 15 a negative tone in its editorials and opinion pieces on the subject. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS PITTSBURGH RANKS TWENTY- out of thirty cities on policy FOURTH 50 56.4 environment, with a score of twenty points out of thirty-five. Pennsylvania law exempts out of 100 charter schools from collective bargaining agreements and most teacher certification 35 requirements. However, charters receive drastically less public funding than district - schools, making it difficult for them to com pete. Pittsburgh also receives low marks for its unwillingness to house charter schools in district facilities and for the minimal support that schools of choice receive from the NGO, AREA II POINTS philanthropic, and business communities. POLICY ENVIRONMENT - Finally, the absence of a common applica tion that includes charter schools poses a 20.1 challenge for parents attempting to navigate the system. Area III: Quantity & Quality Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. 50 POINTS PITTSBURGH RANKS TWENTY- SEVENTH out of thirty cities on quantity PITTSBURGH RANKS TWENTY-EIGHTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES and quality, with a score of twenty-nine points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices , with average marks for political support and low OVERALL to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, scores for policy environment and quantity and quality of choice. Catholic, and virtual schools, as well as homeschooling. Pennsylvania’s Opportunity Although state policy is generally choice-friendly, the city’s charters Scholarship program provides some of Pitts - burgh’s low-income students with access to need more equitable funding, better access to facilities, and private options. However, the city lacks public school choice mechanisms that are common more support from local officials if they are to grow and thrive. in other cities (such as inter- and intradistrict open enrollment). Finally, Pittsburgh’s char - Unfortunately, the relative dearth of NGOs, philanthropies, ters enroll a comparatively low percentage of the city’s students. and other community groups advocating for school choice in Pittsburgh suggests such changes may be slow in coming.

155 145 Pittsburgh Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS PITTSBURGH? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA I: 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.33 Disagree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Disagree/Neutral 1.33 1.1 Official Support Neutral/Agree 2.33 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.67 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 Yes 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2 Community Support Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Pittsburgh’s 0.00 Very negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 17.67 I SCORE: 17.67/36.00 x 15% 7.36 = AREA AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT There is no restriction on the 2.1.A To what extent does Pennsylvania charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 4.00 number of charters in the state There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Pittsburgh? 2.00 available and only one allowed No 2.1.C Is Pittsburgh’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? 0.00 No 0.00 2.2.A Does Pennsylvania have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities 0% 2.2.B What percentage of Pittsburgh charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 0.00 b 2 (of 2 possible)* 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Pittsburgh (of 2 possible)? 0.89 2.3 Public Support 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Pittsburgh? Greater than 35% 0.00 No 2.3.C Does Pennsylvania law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? 0.00 Modest local NGO support* 1.00 2.4.A Is there a local NGO that supports school choice in Pittsburgh? 2.4 NGO Support 0.22 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Pittsburgh support schools of choice (of 9 possible)? 1 (of 9 possible) Yes, for some types of schools 2.00 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Pittsburgh for schools of choice? of choice* 2.5 Business Support ** 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Pittsburgh support schools of choice? ** Yes, for some types of schools 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Pittsburgh for schools of choice? 2.00 of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Pittsburgh (of 4 possible)? 1.33 3 (of 4 possible) - 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Pitts 1 (of 5) 1.00 burgh? 2.7.A Are Pittsburgh charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Yes 4.00 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers must be certified 2.00 2.7.B Are Pittsburgh charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 Yes 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Pittsburgh’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 4.00 11.00 2.8 Quality Control and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools due to low enrollment? ** ** AREA II continued on next page...

156 146 Pittsburgh Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Pennsylvania’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.25 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for Pittsburgh schools of choice? Moderately comprehensive 5 (of 6 possible)* 2.61 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Pittsburgh (of 6 possible)? For magnet/CTE schools 1.00 2.11.A Does Pittsburgh have a common application for schools of choice? 2.11 Application only 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Pittsburgh provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? Yes 4.00 Homeschooled students are eligible; charter 2.13.A Are Pittsburgh homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 3.50 2.13 Extracurriculars students have limited such as music or sports? eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 79.67) = 45.80 = 35% x /79.67 45.80 CORE: S I I 0.12 AREA 2 AREA III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Pittsburgh? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Pittsburgh? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Pittsburgh? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Pittsburgh? 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Pittsburgh? Yes 4.00 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Pittsburgh? Yes 0.00 No 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Pittsburgh? Can districts opt out? 1.50 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Pittsburgh? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Pennsylvania have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program Statewide program only 2.00 specifically for Pittsburgh students? Comparably, a similar public 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of schools in Pittsburgh are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 2.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Pittsburgh enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage ** ** 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending a Pittsburgh charter school on learning gains in reading? 3.4 Quality ** 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending a Pittsburgh charter school on learning gains in math? ** AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 18.50 2 8.91 AREA I II S CORE: 18. 50/32.00 x 50% = 7.36 56.39 SCORE: TOTAL + 20.12 + 28.91 = notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. . In these cases, we points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in subtracted an appropriate amount from the indicator and area denominators. For example, Pittsburgh Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. has only partial information for indicator 2.3.A, All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors so we subtracted 3.11 points from the 2.3.A and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Pittsburgh” refers to the city as a whole or to ** Indicates missing data for the entire indicator Pittsburgh Public Schools, the largest district in (see above). the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

157 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 147 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: 91,144 83,071 DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 29 Austin CHARTER ENROLLMENT: 8,073 9% CHARTER MARKET SHARE: HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS AUSTIN? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Austin and the Since 1995, when Texas passed its first charter law, twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, Austin’s charter sector has grown slowly under the state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and watchful eye of the Texas Education Agency, which a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- authorizes the bulk of the city’s forty-seven charter ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, schools. Austin’s charter operators include a number quantity and policy environment, and Cities received an aggregate score quality. of highly regarded networks, such as KIPP and IDEA, for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average which serve a predominantly low-income and Hispanic that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). population. However, charters still account for a relatively For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional small share of the local market, and future growth is neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, constrained by Texas law, which is in the process of private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and gradually raising the statewide cap on charter schools open or dual enrollment programs. from 215 in 2013 to 305 in 2019, in addition to mandating Area I: Political Support (15%) the closure of low-performing charters (of which there This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their are still too many). Efforts to create a private-school- political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media choice mechanism—such as a tax credit scholarship support choice in the community. program—have repeatedly stalled in the Texas legislature. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA II AREA I AREA III performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice options that are available to families (e.g., 11 27 29 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options.

158 148 Austin Results Area I: Political Support 15 POINTS out of thirty AUSTIN RANKS ELEVENTH AREA III POINTS AREA I POINTS cities on political support, with a score of QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT nine points out of fifteen. This high ranking is due in large part to the broad support for school choice among state and local officials. 26.3 9.1 The mayor, city council, and superintendent have all supported school choice, while the school board, local media, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral. At the state 15 level, the governor of Texas has also publicly supported school choice. Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS TOTAL POINTS AUSTIN RANKS TWENTY-SEVENTH out of thirty cities on policy environment, with a score of twenty points out of thirty-five. 50 55.1 The city receives high marks for business and philanthropic support, as well as for the out of 100 equitable funding provided to charter schools. However, the lack of a common application 35 makes it hard for families to navigate the system, and because the city does not provide transportation to schools of choice, it can be difficult for them to access the choices available to them. Finally, state law provides limited support or oversight for charter authorizers, making quality control a AREA II POINTS potential concern. POLICY ENVIRONMENT Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS 19.8 out AUSTIN RANKS TWENTY-NINTH of thirty cities on quantity and quality, with Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. a score of twenty-six points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, Catholic, and virtual AUSTIN RANKS TWENTY-NINTH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL, schools, as well as homeschooling. However, compared to other cities in our study, Austin with its low marks for policy environment and quantity and has few schools of choice, and only a small fraction of the city’s students enroll in charter quality outweighing its respectable score for political support. schools. Intradistrict attendance waivers and interdistrict and dual enrollment programs The city could take a number of steps to better support its schools provide families with access to a number of of choice, such as ensuring that charter schools have equitable public options. However, because there are no voucher or tax credit scholarship programs in access to transportation and facilities and establishing a common Texas, private options remain out of reach for many families. Finally, Austin’s charter schools enrollment system. Austin families would also benefit from the do not outperform district schools in reading or math, reflecting their decidedly uneven quality. creation of a private-school-choice mechanism at the state level (such as a voucher or tax credit scholarship program).

159 149 Austin Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS AUSTIN? DATA OUT OF 4* (15%) AREA I: POLITICAL SUPPORT 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 2.67 Agree/Neutral 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.67 Agree/Neutral Agree/Neutral 2.67 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 2.33 4.00 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 1.00 Disagree 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Agree 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 2.33 1.2 Community Support 1.67 Neutral/Disagree 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Austin’s ** ** principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 32.00) = 19.34 I AREA SCORE: 19.34/32.00 x 15% 9.07 = POLICY ENVIRONMENT (35%) AREA II: PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with some 2.1.A To what extent does Texas charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 2.00 room for growth There is only one authorizer 2.1 Public Policies 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Austin? available, but state law allows 3.00 for multiple authorizers 2.1.C Is Austin’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network ? Yes 4.00 Limited option 2.00 2.2.A Does Texas have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities Fewer than 25% 2.00 2.2.B What percentage of Austin charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? b 5 (of 8 possible)* 2.22 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Austin (of 8 possible)? District and charter schools are 2.3 Public Support 3.00 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Austin? funded at similar levels No 0.00 2.3.C Does Texas law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Modest state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Austin? 3.33 strong local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support ** ** 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Austin support schools of choice? Yes, for most types of 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Austin for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Austin support schools of choice (of 6 possible)? 6 (of 6 possible)* 2.67 Yes, for most types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Austin for schools of choice? 3.00 schools of choice* 2.6 Philanthropic Support 5 (of 5 possible)* 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Austin (of 5 possible)? 2.22 2 (of 5) 2.00 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Austin? Some charter schools 2.00 2.7.A Are Austin charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? are exempt 2.7 Teacher Policies 2.7.B Are Austin charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Some teachers must be certified 2.00 No 0.00 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with authority to sanction authorizers? 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Austin’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, 12.00 4.00 and operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? 2.8 Quality Control The district has a policy for 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? closing schools but no history 1.33 of doing so AREA II continued on next page...

160 150 Austin Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for all public schools 4.00 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in Texas’s accountability system? of choice 2.9 Accountability Minimally/Moderately 1.50 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Austin? comprehensive 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Austin (of 7 possible)? 7 (of 7 possible)* 3.29 2.11 Application No 0.00 2.11.A Does Austin have a common application for schools of choice? 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Austin provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? No 0.00 Homeschooled students 2.13.A Are Austin’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, are ineligible; law is silent 0.50 2.13 Extracurriculars such as music or sports? on charter students AREA II POINTS (out of 93.94) = 53.06 1 = 35% x /93.94 53.06 CORE: S I I AREA 9.77 III: QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) AREA 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Austin? Yes 4.00 Yes 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Austin? 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Austin? Yes 3.1 – Types of Schools 4.00 Yes 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Austin? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Austin? 4.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Austin? Attendance waiver 1.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Austin? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 – Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Austin? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does Texas have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program specifically No 0.00 for Austin students? Comparably, a very low public schools in Austin are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of 0.00 percentage and/or CTE schools)? 3.3 – Market Share Comparably, a low 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Austin enroll in charter schools? 1.00 percentage 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending an Austin charter school on learning gains in reading? No impact 2.00 3.4 – Quality 2.00 No impact 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending an Austin charter school on learning gains in math? AREA III POINTS (out of 40.00) = 21.00 I II S CORE: 21 .00/40.00 x 50% = 2 6.25 AREA 9.07 + TOTAL 19.77 + 26.25 = 55.08 SCORE: notes table b For complete details on the data sources and scoring a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be out of less than four points The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent the for each indicator and its component subindicators, due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. see Appendix A. . In these cases, missing data for a given indicator points. All questionnaire data are current as of we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Austin has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” which can be applied to cities that have chancellors 2.3.A, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term 2.3.A and Area II denominators. “Austin” refers to the city as a whole or to Austin ** Independent School District, the largest district in Indicates missing data for the entire indicator (see above). the city . The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

161 2013-14 snapshot enrollment 151 11,282 TOTAL PUBLIC ENROLLMENT: DISTRICT ENROLLMENT: 8,326 30 Albany 2,956 CHARTER ENROLLMENT: CHARTER MARKET SHARE: 26% HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS ALBANY? ARE AMERICAN CITIES? To answer this question for Albany and the Launched in 1998 with the support of former governor twenty-nine other cities in this study, we combined publicly available data from federal, George Pataki and the Walton Family Foundation, state, and local governments with proprietary data from a variety of education groups and Albany’s charter sector was initially heralded for its a questionnaire of local stakeholders. We as- signed cities scores from zero to four on multi- successful network of Brighter Choice schools. The ple measures of choice friendliness, which we grouped into three areas: political support, sector has faced growing challenges in recent years, policy environment, and quantity and quality . Cities received an aggregate score however, and its increasingly hostile Board of Regents for each area as well as an overall score, which we obtained using a weighted average seems unlikely to support much more school choice that estimates each area’s contribution to a city’s overall choice friendliness (more below). in the future. Moreover, because Albany has made no For the purposes of this study, we defined “choice” as any alternative to the traditional effort to assist charter schools with their facilities neighborhood school, including charter, magnet, career and technical education, (as New York City has done), the Brighter Choice private or religious, and online or virtual schools, as well as homeschooling or other choice mechanisms, such as vouchers and Foundation was forced to borrow $15 million in 2011 open or dual enrollment programs. to finance the construction of its schools. The closure Area I: Political Support (15%) of two underperforming Brighter Choice middle schools This area assesses the willingness of local officials and other stakeholders to use their in 2015 has caused financial strains for the foundation; political capital to support school choice, as well as the degree to which the local media nevertheless, the network continues to outperform support choice in the community. Albany’s district schools. Area II: Policy Environment (35%) This area evaluates the policies and practices that ease the challenges that providers and consumers of school choice face. Support for providers includes funding, facilities, RANK (OUT OF 30 CITIES) and technical assistance, and support for consumers includes information about school AREA III AREA II AREA I performance and school choice writ large, as well as making the act of choosing easier POLICY ENVIRONMENT QUANTITY & QUALITY POLITICAL SUPPORT via a common application for all schools. Area III: Quantity & Quality (50%) This area quantifies the school choice * * options that are available to families (e.g., 26 30 21 charter, magnet, and online), as well as the accessibility and quality of those options. *tied

162 Area I: Political Support 152 Albany Results 15 POINTS ALBANY RANKS TWENTY-SIXTH out of thirty cities on political support, with a score of six points out of fifteen. This low ranking is largely due to the lack of support AREA I POINTS for school choice expressed by local officials and the absence of other local organizations POLITICAL SUPPORT AREA III POINTS pressing for expanded choice. The mayor, city QUANTITY & QUALITY council, teachers’ union, and local media have 5.8 - not supported school choice, while the super 31.3 intendent, school board, and parent groups have remained relatively neutral. At the state level, however, the governor has been a strong supporter of school choice. 15 Area II: Policy Environment 35 POINTS out of thirty ALBANY RANKS THIRTIETH cities on policy environment, with a score of sixteen points out of thirty-five. The city TOTAL POINTS receives low marks for its refusal to locate charter schools in district facilities—a policy 50 53.5 that imposes significant financial burdens on these schools, which already receive less out of 100 per-pupil funding than their district peers. Moreover, the city also receives low marks for 35 NGO, business, and philanthropic support for choice. (Although the Walton Family Foundation was once a major source of funding for Albany’s charters, today none of the major foundations that support school choice are active in the city.) Finally, because Albany’s common application only includes magnet/CTE schools, it is difficult AREA II POINTS for families to easily connect to all their options POLICY ENVIRONMENT (although the city does provide them with transportation to schools of choice). 16.4 Area III: Quantity & Quality 50 POINTS out of ALBANY RANKS TWENTY-FIRST Totals may not add up precisely due to rounding. thirty cities on quantity and quality, with a score of thirty-one points out of fifty. The city offers a variety of choices to families, including , ALBANY RANKS THIRTIETH OUT OF THIRTY CITIES OVERALL charter, magnet, career and technical education, independent, and Catholic schools, as well as with low marks for political support and policy environment homeschooling. However, it is the only city in our sample that does not offer online or virtual and below-average scores for the quantity and quality of choice. schools. Access to public options is also limited by the lack of an intradistrict open enrollment Of the cities on our list, Albany fares the worst when it comes to program, though some interdistrict and dual enrollment options do exist. Additionally, laying the groundwork for the continued growth of successful because voucher or tax credit scholarship programs are prohibited in New York, private schools of choice. Consequently, despite its history as a proving options remain out of reach for many Albany ground for choice, the future of Albany’s choice ecosystem seems students. Still, compared to the other cities in our sample, a relatively high percentage of increasingly bleak. Albany’s public schools are schools of choice, and a comparatively high percentage of Albany students enroll in charters.

163 153 Albany Results POINTS a HOW CHOICE-FRIENDLY IS ALBANY? DATA OUT OF 4* POLITICAL SUPPORT (15%) AREA I: 1.00 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Disagree Disagree 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? 1.00 1.1 Official Support 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? Neutral 2.00 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Neutral/Disagree 1.67 Yes 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? 4.00 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support 1.00 Disagree school choice? 2.00 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Neutral 1.2 Community Support Disagree/Neutral 1.33 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of Albany’s 0.00 Very negative principal newspaper? AREA I POINTS (out of 36.00) = 14.00 I AREA 5.83 = 14.00/36.00 x 15% SCORE: AREA II: (35%) POLICY ENVIRONMENT PROVIDER ENVIRONMENT The state has a cap with 2.1.A To what extent does New York charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? 3.00 ample room for growth 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in Albany? 4.00 Yes 2.1 Public Policies 0.00 2.1.C Is Albany’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? No No 0.00 2.2.A Does New York have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? 2.2 Public Facilities 0% 2.2.B What percentage of Albany charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? 0.00 b 3 (of 9 possible) 1.56 2.3.A In how many ways do public entities support schools of choice in Albany (of 9 possible)? Between 20% and 35% 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in Albany? 2.3 Public Support 1.00 Funding is adequate but 2.00 2.3.C Does New York law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? not guaranteed Modest state NGO support; 2.4.A Is there a state or local NGO that supports school choice in Albany? 2.00 weak local NGO support 2.4 NGO Support 6 (of 8 possible)* 2.4.B In how many ways do NGOs in Albany support schools of choice (of 8 possible)? 2.44 Yes, for one/some types 2.5.A Is there business-community support in Albany for schools of choice? 1.33 of schools of choice 2.5 Business Support 2.5.B In how many ways does the business community in Albany support schools of choice? ** ** Yes, for some types of 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support in Albany for schools of choice? 2.00 schools of choice 4 (of 9 possible) 2.6.B In how many ways does the philanthropic community support schools of choice in Albany (of 9 possible)? 2.6 Philanthropic Support 1.63 None 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in Albany? 0.00 Some charter schools 2.7.A Are Albany charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? 2.00 are exempt 2.7 Teacher Policies Some teachers 2.7.B Are Albany charter schools required to hire certified teachers? 2.00 must be certified Yes 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with the authority to sanction authorizers? 4.00 2.8.B What is the average quality score, out of 12, for Albany’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, and 11.80 2.8 Quality Control 4.00 operational performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? No 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of closing such schools? 0.00 AREA II continued on next page...

164 154 Albany Results CONSUMER ENVIRONMENT ...AREA II continued Yes, for most public 2.67 2.9.A Are student data for schools of choice included in New York’s accountability system? schools of choice 2.9 Accountability 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice in Albany? Moderately comprehensive 2.00 2.10 Information 2.10.A In how many ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents in Albany (of 8 possible)? 2.62 5 (of 8 possible) For magnet/ 1.00 2.11 Application 2.11.A Does Albany have a common application for schools of choice? CTE schools only Yes 2.12 Transportation 2.12.A Does Albany provide or subsidize transportation to public schools of choice on equal terms as for district-assigned schools? 4.00 Homeschooled students are ineligible; 2.13.A Are Albany’s homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, 1.50 2.13 Extracurriculars charter students have such as music or sports? limited eligibility AREA II POINTS (out of 99.56) = 46.75 5% 3 x 6.75/99.56 4 = SCORE: II 1 6.43 AREA AREA QUANTITY & QUALITY (50%) III: 3.1.A Are charter schools available to families in Albany? Yes 4.00 3.1.B Are magnet and/or CTE schools available to families in Albany? Yes 3.1.C Are independent schools available to families in Albany? Yes 3.1 Types of Schools 4.00 3.1.D Are Catholic schools available to families in Albany? Yes 3.1.E Are online and/or virtual schools available to families in Albany? No 2.00 Yes 3.1.F Is homeschooling available to families in Albany? 0.00 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a districtwide lottery? No Yes, but districts can 3.2.B Are there interdistrict enrollment options in Albany? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.00 3.2 Access Yes, but districts can 3.2.C Are there dual enrollment options in Albany? Can districts opt out? opt out 3.2.D Does New York have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program 0.00 No specifically for Albany students? Comparably, a very high 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools in Albany are schools of choice (charter, magnet, 4.00 and/or CTE schools)? percentage 3.3 Market Share Comparably, a high 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in Albany enroll in charter schools? 3.00 percentage ** 3.4.A What is the marginal impact of attending an Albany charter school on learning gains in reading? ** 3.4 Quality 3.4.B What is the marginal impact of attending an Albany charter school on learning gains in math? ** ** AREA III POINTS (out of 32.00) = 20.00 1.25 II AREA S CORE: I .00/32.00 x 50% = 3 20 + 31.25 = 53.52 TOTAL SCORE: 5.83 + 16.43 notes table The fifty indicators reflected in the table represent For complete details on the data sources and scoring b a For the definition of “schools of choice,” * A few indicators may be worth less than four points due to missing data. An asterisk indicates partially for each indicator and its component subindicators, the aggregation of over one hundred discrete data see Appendix A. . In these cases, see Appendix A. points. All questionnaire data are current as of missing data for a given indicator we subtracted an appropriate amount from the November 30, 2014. References to elected officials in Area I reflect those in office as of this date as well. indicator and area denominators. For example, Albany has only partial information for indicator All terms are generic, such as “superintendent,” 2.4.B, so we subtracted 0.44 points from the 2.4.B which can be applied to cities that have chancellors and Area II denominators. or other leaders. Depending on the context, the term “Albany” refers to the city as a whole or to Albany Indicates missing data for the entire indicator City School District, the largest district in the city ** . (see above). The latter is the case when the indicator is determined at the district level.

165 35 APPENDIX A Detailed Methods This study used four types of data to calculate each city’s scores: 1) information from a variety of publicly available federal, state, and local education databases; 2) data from organizations that maintained relevant databases, such as the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools; 3) primary source information such as district websites and state policies; and 4) a local questionnaire to learn about school choice in each of the thirty cities. After data collection and analysis, local insiders reviewed the data for 1 their city and updated the data when necessary. For any city, if data were missing or not available for an entire indicator, that indicator was removed from the total possible number of points for the relevant area. For single indicators whose data source was a single questionnaire item, respondents’ scores were averaged unless there were fewer than two responses for a particular city, in which case the entire indicator was treated as missing. For single indicators based on multiple questions, the same procedure was used for each component of the indicator: questions were dropped for an insufficient number of responses (and an appropriate amount subtracted from the number of points possible for the relevant indicator and area). Then the scores for the remaining components were averaged to determine 2 what fraction of the remaining points for the indicator that city earned. Initial data collection began in December 2013 and was completed in November 2014. External review was conducted between July 1 and September 15, 2015. Specific data sources for each indicator follow.

166 156 Appendix A: Detailed Methods Area I: Political Support for Choice Area I contains nine indicators, each of which is worth a maximum of four points for a total of thirty-six possible points. Nearly all data in Area I are gleaned from the local questionnaire, with some analyses of external documents by the authors. Area I receives the least weight in a city’s overall score (15 percent). 1.1 OFFICIAL SUPPORT 1.1.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the mayor is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that the city council is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Indicator(s) 1.1.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the superintendent is willing to use his/her political capital to support school choice? 1.1.D To what extent do you agree/disagree that the school board is willing to use its political capital to support school choice? Local questionnaire. Source 0: strongly disagree 1: disagree Scoring 2: neutral 3: agree 4: strongly agree Indicator(s) 1.1.E Has the governor mentioned school choice in his/her “state of the state” speeches? A search of the Education Commission of the States “State of the State” database was conducted using a list of choice keywords (“school choice,” Source “charter,” “voucher,” “magnet school,” “online school,” “homeschooling,” etc.). The search included dates between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2015. 0: No mention of school choice by the governor Scoring 4: School choice mentioned one or more times by the governor COMMUNITY SUPPORT 1.2 1.2.A To what extent do you agree/disagree that the teachers’ unions are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Indicator(s) 1.2.B To what extent do you agree/disagree that parent groups are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? 1.2.C To what extent do you agree/disagree that the media are willing to use their political capital to support school choice? Local questionnaire. Source 0: strongly disagree 1: disagree 2: neutral Scoring 3: agree 4: strongly agree 1.2.D What is the overall tone toward school choice as reflected in the editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces of the city’s principal newspaper? Indicator(s) Author’s own analysis. Using Lexis Nexis, a Boolean search about school choice in each city was conducted using editorials, op-eds, and opinion pieces that appeared in each city’s largest paper. The following terms were included in the search: school choice, charter school, magnet school, school vouchers, Source virtual school, online school, dual enrollment, homeschool, private school tax credits, and interdistrict open enrollment. The search was bounded by the following dates: 8/1/2013 to 4/1/2014, which approximated a typical “school year.” Each piece was appraised as “negative” (0 points), “neutral” (2 points), or “positive” (4 points). Points were averaged by city, and curved according Scoring to the following guidelines: 0 to 1.99 points received a “0”; 2 to 2.24 a “1”; 2.25 to 2.49 a “2”; 2.50 to 2.74 a “3”; and 2.75 and above a “4.” footnotes 1 In these cases, our data will not match the cited extant data source. 2 Readers interested in further details may contact the authors at [email protected]

167 157 Appendix A: Detailed Methods Area II: Policy Environment For Choice Area II contains twenty-six indicators, each of which is worth a maximum of four points for a total of 104 possible points. Data are gleaned from a combination of questionnaire, extant, and public sources. When calculating a city’s total score, Area II is weighted 35 percent. PUBLIC POLICIES 2.1 2.1.A To what extent does charter law restrict the number of charter schools in the state? Indicator(s) Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf. January 2014), 0: Charter schools are not permitted in this city 1: The state has a cap with no room for growth 2: The state has a cap with room for limited/adequate growth Scoring 3: The state has a cap with room for ample growth OR The state does not have a cap but allows districts to restrict growth 4: The state does not have a cap Indicator(s) 2.1.B Are multiple authorizers available to prospective charter school operators in the city? Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source . January 2014), http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf 0: No authorizers are available to charter schools in this city 2: There is only one authorizer available and only one allowed Scoring 3: There is only authorizer available, but state law allows for two or more authorizers 4: Multiple authorizers are available to charters in this city Indicator(s) 2.1.C Is the city’s largest school district a member of the Portfolio School District Network? Center on Reinventing Public Education, “Portfolio Strategy,” http://www.crpe.org/research/portfolio-strategy/network. Source 0: No Scoring 4: Yes PUBLIC FACILITIES 2.2 Indicator(s) 2.2.A Does the state have a “right of first refusal” policy for charter schools to obtain facilities? Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source January 2014), . http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf 0: No Scoring 2: Limited option 4: Yes 2.2.B What percentage of the city’s charter schools are located or co-located in city- or district-owned buildings? Indicator(s) City-level data were gathered in consultation with the National Charter School Resource Center (NCRSC). See Jim Griffin et al., “Finding Space: Charter http://www.charterschoolcenter.org/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_attach Source - Schools in District-Owned Facilities” (Houston, TX: NCSRC, 2015), Questionnaire responses and local reviewers provided additional data. ment/Finding%20Space_0.pdf. 0: No charter schools are located in city- or district-owned buildings 2: 25% or fewer of charter schools are located in city- or district-owned buildings Scoring 3: 26% – 50% of charter schools are located in city- or district-owned buildings 4: More than 50% of charter schools are located in city- or district-owned buildings

168 158 Appendix A: Detailed Methods PUBLIC SUPPORT 2.3 2.3.A In what ways do public entities (school district, city government, state education agency, and/or state government agencies) support Indicator(s) the city? schools of choice in Local questionnaire. Source Respondents were given the following nine options and asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether public entities provided schools of choice with: A. Facilities funding B. Start-up funding C. Operational support (e.g., back office work, payroll, etc.) D. Lobbying E. Technology funding F. Books and supplies G. Fundraising support Scoring H. Legal support I. Professional development For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all options 1: “Yes” for one to three options 2: “Yes” for four or five options 3: “Yes” for six to eight options 4: “Yes” for all nine options 2.3.B How great is the disparity between district and charter per-pupil funding in the city/district? Indicator(s) This measure was derived from a 2014 report released from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas, entitled 3 “Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands.” Source Funding disparities were calculated as a percentage of district per-pupil revenue for the 2011 fiscal year. City funding disparities were used when possible. When the city funding disparity was not available, state data were used. 0: Greater than 35% 1: Between 20% and 35% 2: Between 5% and 20% Scoring 3: Charter and district schools are funded at similar levels 4: Charter schools receive at least 5% more funding that district schools Indicator(s) 2.3.C Does state law guarantee adequate funding for charter authorizers? Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source January 2014), http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf . Scores were derived from two measures: Cities received two points for adequate funding from authorizing fees (or other sources), and two for Scoring guaranteed funding from authorizing fees (or from sources not subject to annual legislative appropriations). NGO SUPPORT 2.4 2.4.A In addition to public, business, and philanthropic organizations, is there any other state or local organization (e.g. an NGO) that supports Indicator(s) school choice in the city? Source Local questionnaire. 0: “No,” there is neither a state nor a local organization 2: “Yes,” is either a state or a local organization (but not both) Scoring 4: “Yes,” there is both a state and a local organization footnotes Meagan Batdorff et al., “Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands.” 3

169 159 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 2.4.B In what ways do NGOs support schools of choice in the city? Indicator(s) Source Local questionnaire. Respondents were given the following nine options and asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether non-governmental organizations provided schools of choice with: A. Facilities funding B. Start-up funding C. Operational support (e.g., back office work, payroll, etc.) D. Lobbying E. Technology funding F. Books and supplies G. Fundraising support Scoring H. Legal support I. Professional development For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all options 1: “Yes” for one to three options 2: “Yes” for four or five options 3: “Yes” for six to eight options 4: “Yes” for all nine options 2.5 BUSINESS SUPPORT 2.5.A Is there business-community support (money, in-kind donations, and/or technical support) in the city for schools of choice? Indicator(s) Local questionnaire. Source Respondents were asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the business community provided support to any of the following: A. Charter schools B. Magnet schools C. CTE schools D. Online/virtual schools Scoring For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all school types 1: “Yes” for one school type 2: “Yes” for two school types 3: “Yes” for three school types 4: “Yes” for all school types Indicator(s) 2.5.B In what ways does the business community in the city support schools of choice? Source Local questionnaire. Respondents were given the following nine options and asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether the business community provided support to schools of choice in the form of: A. Facilities funding B. Start-up funding C. Operational support (e.g., back office work, payroll, etc.) D. Lobbying E. Technology funding F. Books and supplies G. Fundraising support Scoring H. Legal support I. Professional development For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all options 1: “Yes” for one to three options 2: “Yes” for four or five options 3: “Yes” for six to eight options 4: “Yes” for all nine options

170 160 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 2.6 PHILANTHROPIC SUPPORT 2 Indicator(s) 2.6.A Is there philanthropic support (money, in-kind donations, and/or technical support) in the city for schools of choice? Source Local questionnaire. Respondents were asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether there is philanthropic support for any of the following: A. Charter schools B. Magnet schools C. CTE schools D. Online/virtual schools Scoring For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all school types 1: “Yes” for one school type 2: “Yes” for two school types 3: “Yes” for three school types 4: “Yes” for all school types Indicator(s) 2.6.B In what ways does the philanthropic community in the city support schools of choice? Source Local questionnaire. Respondents were given the following nine options and asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether there is philanthropic support for schools of choice in the form of: A. Facilities funding B. Start-up funding C. Operational support (e.g., back office work, payroll, etc.) D. Lobbying E. Technology funding F. Books and supplies G. Fundraising support Scoring H. Legal support I. Professional development For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: “No” for all options 1: “Yes” for one to three options 2: “Yes” for four or five options 3: “Yes” for six to eight options 4: “Yes” for all nine options Indicator(s) 2.6.C Of 5 major national foundations (Broad, Carnegie, Gates, Joyce, and Walton), how many support schools of choice in this city? Source Local questionnaire. Respondents were given the following five options and asked to answer “yes” or “no” as to whether that foundation supported schools of choice: A. The Broad Foundation B. The Walton Family Foundation C. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation D. The Carnegie Foundation E. The Joyce Foundation Scoring For each city, responses for each option were combined and scored. 0: none 1: 1 foundation 2: 2 foundations 3: 3 foundations 4: 4 or 5 foundations

171 161 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 2.7 Teacher Policies TEACHER POLICIES 2.7 2.7.A Are charter schools exempt from local collective bargaining agreements? Indicator(s) Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source . http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf January 2014), 0: No Scoring 2: Some charters are exempt 4: Yes Indicator(s) 2.7.B Are charter schools required to hire certified teachers? Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source . January 2014), http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf 0: Yes Scoring 2: Some teachers must be certified 4: No 2.8 Quality Control 2.8 QUALITY CONTROL 2.8.A Is there a regular review process by an oversight body with the authority to sanction authorizers? Indicator(s) Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Source . January 2014), http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf 0: No regular review process and no authorizer oversight body Scoring 4: Yes 2.8.B What is the average “quality score,” out of 12, for the city’s charter authorizers (e.g., do they use academic, financial, and operational Indicator(s) performance data to make merit-based renewal decisions)? National Association of Charter School Authorizers, “2014 Index of Essential Practices” (Chicago, IL: NACSA), Source https://publicrevizit.tableausoftware.com/profile/nacsa#!/vizhome/2014NACSAIndexofEssentialPractices/Map. To calculate a charter authorizer quality score for each city, we take a weighted average of the most recent available scores for each authorizer in the city. Specifically, we weight each authorizer based on the number of schools it authorizes in the city in question. The quality score includes twelve criteria: Have a published and available mission for quality authorizing; have staff assigned to authorizing within the organization or by contact; sign a contract with each school; have established, documented criteria for the evaluation of charter applications; publish application timelines and materials; interview all qualified charter applicants; use expert panels that include external members to review charter applications; grant initial charter terms of five years only; require and/or examine annual, independent financial audits of its charter schools; have established renewal criteria; have established revocation criteria; provide an annual report to each school on its performance. Scoring The weighted average was then translated to a four-point scale using the following metric: 0: Less than 5 1: Less than 7, but greater than or equal to 5 2: Less than 9, but greater than or equal to 7 3: Less than 11, but greater than or equal to 9 4: 11 or greater Indicator(s) 2.8.C Does the district have a policy for closing schools with low enrollment and a history of doing so? Grover Whitehurst and Ellie Klein, “Closures of Schools With Declining Enrollment Due to Parental Choice,” in The 2014 Education Choice and Competition Source (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, February 2015), http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2015/ecci_2014 ; data adjusted to fit a Index four-point scale. 0: There is no published policy citing low or declining enrollment due to parental choice as a reason for closing or restructuring schools. 1.33: There is such a policy, but the district has not implemented it; OR district has closed less than three percent of the total number of the district’s schools in the last five years; OR district has closed fewer than ten schools due to unpopularity as evidenced by low enrollment. Scoring 2.67: There is no published policy, but the district has closed schools that represent three percent or more of the total number of the district’s schools in the last five years OR There is no published policy, but the district has closed at least ten schools due to unpopularity as evidenced by low enrollment. 4: There is such a policy; AND the district has closed schools that represent three percent or more of the total number of the district’ s schools in the last five years OR the district has closed at least ten schools due to unpopularity as evidenced by low enrollment.

172 162 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 2.9 Accountability ACCOUNTABILITY 2.9 2.9.A Are student data for public schools of choice (charter, magnet/CTE, and/or online/virtual schools) included in the state’s accountability system? Indicator(s) Source State and district websites; data adjusted to fit a four-point scale. 0: No schools of choice are included 1.33: One type of school of choice is included Scoring 2.67: Two types of schools of choice are included 4: All three types of schools of choice are included Indicator(s) 2.9.B How comprehensive are report cards for schools of choice (charter, magnet/CTE, and online/virtual schools)? Source State and district websites. Report cards for charter, magnet, and online/virtual schools were scored on the inclusion of seven elements: Basic school information (e.g., name, location, and demographics), school safety data, school climate/culture, proficiency rates over time, student-level progress, teacher quality data, and comparisons of schools. The result for each type of school was then translated into a four-point scale: 0: Neither the state nor the district issues report cards 1: Report card includes one or two of the recommended elements Scoring 2: Report card includes three or four of the recommended elements 3: Report card includes five or six of the recommended elements 4: Report card includes all seven of the recommended elements To arrive at the final score for this four-point indicator, individual scores for charter, magnet, and virtual school report cards are averaged then multiplied by three-quarters (to generate a score out of three points). Cities they received one additional point if either state or district report cards existed (or zero additional points if they did not). 2.10 Information 2.10 INFORMATION Indicator(s) 2.10.A In what ways is information on school choice disseminated to parents? Source Local questionnaire; state and district websites; Google search engine. Data were collected from district and state websites, and the Google search function, on the following subindicators: A. Whether information is available on the district website B. Whether information is available on the State Department of Education website C. Whether a school choice fair is held Questionnaire respondents were asked to select how parents receive information about schools of choice from the following list: D. Information is available on the website of a nonprofit organization (e.g., Greatschools.org) E. A school choice directory is available from the district, state, or other organization F. Parents can come to the central district offices for more information Scoring G. Community organizers or representatives from the choice sector go door to door H. The media provides information about choice options (e.g., radio, television, advertising) For each city, responses for were combined and scored: 0: No options 1: One to two options 2: Three to four options 3: Five to six options 4: Seven to eight options

173 163 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 2.11 Application APPLICATION 2.11 2.11.A Is there a common application for schools of choice? Indicator(s) Source District websites. 0: No 1: For one type of school of choice (e.g., neighborhood schools that have open enrollment) Scoring 2: For two types of schools of choice (e.g., magnet/CTE and neighborhood schools) 3: For three types of schools of choice (e.g., charter, magnet/CTE, and neighborhood schools) 4: For all public schools of choice (online/virtual, charter, magnet/CTE, and neighborhood schools) 2.12 Transportation 2.12 TRANSPORTATION 2.12.A Is transportation to public schools of choice provided or subsidized on equal terms as transportation to district-assigned schools ? Indicator(s) The 2014 Education Choice and Competition Index Grover Whitehurst and Ellie Klein, “Transportation to Alternative/Choice Public Schools,” in Source (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, February 2015), http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2015/ecci_2014. 0: No 1.33: Students are provided transportation to any school of their choice within district borders on the same terms as for a district assigned school. Scoring 2.67: District or state subsidizes the cost of transportation to a school of choice but parents or schools bear substantial costs. 4: Students are provided transportation to any school of their choice within district borders on the same terms as for a district assigned school. 2.13 Extracurriculars EXTRACURRICULARS 2.13 Indicator(s) 2.13.A Are homeschooled students and/or students who attend charter schools eligible for district programming, such as music or sports? Todd Ziebarth, “Measuring Up To the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” (Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, ; Coalition for Coalition for Responsible Home http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/StateRankings2014.pdf January 2014), Source Education, “Let the Children Play: Homeschool Sports Access by State” (Canton, MA: CRHE, January 30, 2014), http://www.responsiblehomeschooling.org/ wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Homeschool-Athletic-Participation-Jan.-30-2014.pdf. 0: Charter and homeschooled students are ineligible. 2: Charter students are eligible, but homeschooled students are ineligible OR homeschooled students are eligible, but charter students are ineligible. Scoring 4: Both charter and homeschooled students are eligible.

174 164 Appendix A: Detailed Methods Area III: Quantity and Quality of Choice Area III contains ten indicators (or pairs of indicators), each of which is worth a maximum of four points for a total of forty possible points. Data in Area III are gleaned from a combination of extant and public data and the authors’ own analyses. Area III is assigned the most weight in the overall score (50%). 3.1 Types of Schools TYPES OF SCHOOLS 3.1 3.1.A/B Public schools of choice: Are charter and/or magnet schools available to families in the city? Indicator(s) 3.1.C/D Private schools of choice: Are Catholic and/or independent private schools available to families in the city? 3.1.E/F Other options: Are homeschooling options and/or online/virtual schools available to families in the city? National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Dashboard,” . http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/state/CO/year/2014#districts . http://www.magnet.edu/location-map Magnet Schools of America, National Association of Independent Schools, http://www.nais.org. National Catholic Education Association, http://www.ncea.org. Homeschool Legal Defense Association, http://www.hslda.org. Source John Watson et al., “Keeping Pace with K–12 Digital Learning” (Durango, CO: Evergreen Education Group, 2014), http://www.kpk12.com/wp-content/ uploads/EEG_KP2014-fnl-lr.pdf National Center for Education Statistics ( https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi ). District websites. Each indicator pair is scored according to the following scale: 0: No options exist Scoring 2: One of the two options exists 4: Both options exist 3.2 Access ACCESS 3.2 3.2.A Does the district facilitate intradistrict open enrollment, either through attendance waivers or through a district-wide lottery? Indicator(s) District websites. Source Cities receive one point, if there are non-lottery mechanisms for intradistrict enrollment such as attendance boundary waivers, and an additional three Scoring points, if there is a district-wide lottery that allows families to rank their top school choices. 3.2.B/C External enrollment mechanisms: Are there interdistrict enrollment options for students in the city/district? Are there dual enrollment Indicator(s) options for students in the city/district? Can districts opt out of these programs? District websites; Education Commission of the States, “Open Enrollment: Online Database,” http://www.ecs.org/html/educationissues/OpenEnrollment/ Source OEDB_intro.asp. Cities receive two points if interdistrict enrollment is available to students, one-and-a-half points if it is available but districts can opt out, or zero points if the option is not available (3.2.B). Scoring Cities receive two points if dual enrollment is available to students, one-and-a-half points if it is available but districts can opt out, or zero points if the option is not available (3.2.C). 3.2.D Does the state have a voucher or tax credit scholarship program? Is there a voucher or tax credit scholarship program specifically for Indicator(s) students in the city? Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america/. Source 0: No 2: Students are eligible for a state voucher or tax credit scholarship program Scoring 4: There is a voucher or tax credit scholarship program specifically for students in the city

175 165 Appendix A: Detailed Methods 3.3 Market Share MARKET SHARE 3.3 3.3.A Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of public schools are schools of choice (charter, magnet, and/or CTE schools)? Indicator(s) Charter schools: National Center for Education Statistics (2012–13). District schools of choice: District websites. Source District schools (total): National Center for Education Statistics (2013–13). Market share of public schools of choice is calculated with the following formula: (Number of charters + Number of district schools of choice) / Total number of public schools (district and charter) District schools of choice are magnet schools, career and technical schools, or other schools with special programs that do not have attendance boundaries or that otherwise require parents to “opt-in” via an application process. Scoring Once the market share is calculated, the group of cities is divided into quintiles. Cities are scored accordingly: 0: Lowest quintile 1: Second-lowest quintile 2: Middle quintile 3: Second-highest quintile 4: Highest quintile 3.3.B Compared to other cities in the study, what percentage of students in the city enroll in charter schools? Indicator(s) National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “A Growing Movement: America’s Largest Charter School Communities” (Washington, D.C.: NAPCS, December 2014), Source Two cities (Nashville and Tulsa) http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2014_Enrollment_Share_FINAL.pdf. were not included in the above study, so data from state department of education websites are used. The group of cities is divided into quintiles. Cities are scored accordingly: 0: Lowest quintile 1: Second-lowest quintile Scoring 2: Middle quintile 3: Second-highest quintile 4: Highest quintile 3.4 Quality 3.4 QUALITY 3.4 A What is the marginal impact of attending a charter school on learning gains in reading? Indicator(s) 3.4 B What is the marginal impact of attending a charter school on learning gains in math? http://urbancharters. , “Urban Charter School Study: Report on 41 Regions” (Stanford, CA: CREDO, 2015), Center for Research on Educational Outcomes Source stanford.edu/download/Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf. Cities are scored based on the average performance of their charter sectors relative to their traditional district schools: 0: District schools outperform charters by .08 standard deviations or more. 1: District schools outperform charters by between .02 and .08 standard deviations. Scoring 2: Charter and district schools perform at similar levels. 3: Charters outperform district schools by between .02 and .08 standard deviations. 4: Charters outperform district schools by .08 standard deviations or more.

176 166 APPENDIX B City Scores by Area

177 167 Appendix B: City Scores by Area TABLE B-1 | RANK AND SCORE OF CITIES BY AREA I: POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT Overall Area I: Political Support Score Rank Score Rank 74.61 1 Denver 11.95 3 Baltimore 11.39 2 65.58 17 56.79 27 Charlotte 10.70 3 4 62.59 Jacksonville 10.55 22 70.18 7 5 10.28 Newark 10.14 6 68.88 11 Chicago 7 Nashville 21 10.00 62.67 9.86 57.91 25 Dallas 8 9 4 9.72 Indianapolis 73.54 Houston 9.45 10 63.23 19 11 55.08 29 Austin 9.07 8.61 12 1 New Orleans 84.73 13 68.66 8.47 Boston 12 Atlanta 8.20 14 69.85 9 8.13 15 70.07 8 Oakland 7.63 Minneapolis 16 16 66.51 17 Kansas City, MO 64.24 7.57 18 56.39 28 18 7.36 Pittsburgh 7.36 18 59.41 23 San Diego 18 69.10 Detroit 7.36 10 7.34 82.62 2 Washington, D.C. 21 22 67.21 7.08 Los Angeles 15 Tulsa 6.81 23 57.94 24 6.67 24 72.51 5 Columbus 6.09 Milwaukee 6 25 71.57 26 68.66 5.83 New York City 12 Albany 5.83 26 53.52 30 5.78 28 62.71 20 San Francisco 5.28 67.64 14 29 Philadelphia 4.86 30 57.53 26 Seattle TOP TEN MIDDLE OF THE PACK BOTTOM TEN

178 168 Appendix B: City Scores by Area TABLE B-2 | RANK AND SCORE OF CITIES BY AREA II: POLICY ENVIRONMENT Overall Area II: Policy Environment Score Rank Score Rank 84.73 1 New Orleans 28.62 1 Atlanta 27.27 2 69.85 9 68.66 12 New York City 26.72 3 4 72.51 Columbus 26.47 5 82.62 2 5 25.94 Washington, D.C. 25.79 6 74.61 3 Denver 7 Chicago 11 25.62 68.88 25.13 67.21 15 Los Angeles 8 9 4 24.45 Indianapolis 73.54 Philadelphia 24.24 10 67.64 14 11 57.94 24 Tulsa 23.79 23.31 12 12 Boston 68.66 13 66.51 23.25 Minneapolis 16 Oakland 23.20 14 70.07 8 23.18 15 62.71 20 San Francisco 22.37 Detroit 10 16 69.10 17 Seattle 57.53 22.20 26 62.67 21 18 22.04 Nashville 21.52 19 64.24 18 Kansas City, MO 20 62.59 Jacksonville 21.42 22 21.14 70.18 7 Newark 21 22 59.41 20.80 San Diego 23 Charlotte 20.31 23 56.79 27 20.12 24 56.39 28 Pittsburgh 20.03 Houston 19 25 63.23 26 71.57 19.86 Milwaukee 6 Austin 19.77 27 55.08 29 18.05 28 57.91 25 Dallas 16.69 65.58 17 29 Baltimore 16.43 30 53.52 30 Albany TOP TEN MIDDLE OF THE PACK BOTTOM TEN

179 169 Appendix B: City Scores by Area TABLE B-3 | RANK AND SCORE OF CITIES BY AREA III: QUANTITY AND QUALITY Overall Area III: Quantity & Quality Score Rank Score Rank 82.62 1 Washington, D.C. 49.34 2 New Orleans 47.50 2 84.73 1 71.57 6 Milwaukee 45.63 3 4 72.51 Columbus 39.38 5 73.54 4 4 39.38 Indianapolis 39.38 4 69.10 10 Detroit 7 Oakland 8 38.75 70.07 38.75 70.18 7 Newark 7 9 14 38.13 Philadelphia 67.64 Baltimore 37.50 10 65.58 17 11 74.61 3 Denver 36.88 36.88 11 12 Boston 68.66 13 68.66 36.11 New York City 12 Minneapolis 35.63 14 66.51 16 35.16 15 64.24 18 Kansas City, MO 35.00 Los Angeles 15 16 67.21 17 Atlanta 69.85 34.38 9 62.71 20 18 33.75 San Francisco 33.75 18 63.23 19 Houston 20 68.88 Chicago 33.13 11 31.25 59.41 23 San Diego 21 21 53.52 31.25 Albany 30 Nashville 30.63 23 62.67 21 30.63 23 62.59 22 Jacksonville 30.47 Seattle 26 25 57.53 26 57.91 30.00 Dallas 25 Pittsburgh 28.91 27 56.39 28 27.34 28 57.94 24 Tulsa 26.25 55.08 29 29 Austin 25.78 30 56.79 27 Charlotte TOP TEN MIDDLE OF THE PACK BOTTOM TEN

Related documents

ppacacon

ppacacon

111 TH C ONGRESS " ! LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL P RINT 111–1 2d Session COMPILATION OF PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT [As Amended Through May 1, 2010] INCLUDING P ATIENT P ROTECTION AND A FFORDAB...

More info »
Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update

Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals Update

201 8 Fourth National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals U pdated Tables, March 2018 , Volume One

More info »
JO 7400.11C   Airspace Designations and Reporting Points

JO 7400.11C Airspace Designations and Reporting Points

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ORDER FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 7400.11C JO Air Traffic Organization Policy August 13, 2018 SUBJ: Airspace Designations and Reporting Points . This O rder, publ...

More info »
catalog 2019

catalog 2019

2019 ® HARLEY-DAVIDSON GENUINE MOTOR PARTS & ACCESSORIES

More info »
OperatorHoursReport

OperatorHoursReport

John Bel Edwards Rebekah E. Gee MD, MPH SECRETARY GOVERNOR State of Louisiana Louisiana Department of Health Office of Public Health Certified Water and Wastewater Operators 2018 - 2019 Hours Hours li...

More info »
RIE Tenant List By Docket Number

RIE Tenant List By Docket Number

SCRIE TENANTS LIST ~ By Docket Number ~ Borough of Bronx SCRIE in the last year; it includes tenants that have a lease expiration date equal or who have received • This report displays information on ...

More info »
544 41003 ch00 4P.indd

544 41003 ch00 4P.indd

Life as Politics Bayat.indd 1 24-12-2009 13:59:53

More info »
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.115

E:\PUBLAW\PUBL031.115

131 STAT. 135 PUBLIC LAW 115–31—MAY 5, 2017 * Public Law 115–31 115th Congress An Act Making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for May 5, 2017 other purposes. [H.R. 244...

More info »
Preliminary cloth.indd

Preliminary cloth.indd

U.S. Government Printing Offi ce Style Manual An official guide to the form and style of Federal Government printing 2008 Preliminary-CD.indd i Preliminary-CD.indd i 3/4/09 10:18:04 AM 3/4/09 10:18:04...

More info »
DER Directory

DER Directory

FAA CONSULTANT DER DIRECTORY May 9, 2019 AIR-6F0, Delegation & Organizational Procedures Branch This directory is generated from information in the FAA Designee Information Network (DIN). If you are a...

More info »
WEF GlobalInformationTechnology Report 2014

WEF GlobalInformationTechnology Report 2014

Insight Report The Global Information Technology Report 2014 Rewards and Risks of Big Data Beñat Bilbao-Osorio, Soumitra Dutta, and Bruno Lanvin, Editors

More info »
OCS Operations Field Directory

OCS Operations Field Directory

Gulf of Mexico OCS Region OCS Operations Field Directory (Includes all active and expired fields and leases) Quarterly Repor t, as of March 31 , 201 9 U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Ocean E...

More info »
CompleteBusBook

CompleteBusBook

February 10, 2019 $ 1 BUS BOOK EFFECTIVE THROUGH JUNE 8, 2019 OCBus.com EFECTIVO HASTA EL 8 DE JUNIO 2019 EASY JUST GOT EASIER. Upgrade to version 2.0 See back for cool new features! CHANGE HIGHLIGHTS...

More info »
College of DuPage Policy Manual of the Board of Trustees

College of DuPage Policy Manual of the Board of Trustees

OLLEGE OF D U P AGE C Policy Manual of the Board of Trustees Adop ted: March 19, 2009 , 20 December 21 Updated: 8 1 Last

More info »
CityNT2019TentRoll 1

CityNT2019TentRoll 1

STATE OF NEW YORK 2 0 1 9 T E N T A T I V E A S S E S S M E N T R O L L PAGE 1 VALUATION DATE-JUL 01, 2018 COUNTY - Niagara T A X A B L E SECTION OF THE ROLL - 1 CITY - North Tonawanda TAX MAP NUMBER ...

More info »
UNSCEAR 2008 Report Vol.I

UNSCEAR 2008 Report Vol.I

This publication contains: VOLUME I: SOURCES SOURCES AND EFFECTS Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation to the General Assembly OF IONIZING RADIATION Scie...

More info »
S:\FULLCO~1\HEARIN~1\Committee print 2018\Henry\Jan. 9 report

S:\FULLCO~1\HEARIN~1\Committee print 2018\Henry\Jan. 9 report

1 C . RT S. P 115 TH ONGRESS " ! COMMITTEE PRINT 2d Session 115–21 PUTIN’S ASYMMETRIC ASSAULT ON DEMOCRACY IN RUSSIA AND EUROPE: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY A MINORITY STAFF REPORT PREPARE...

More info »
dbi

dbi

REGISTERED DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTORS LICENSE TYPE LICENSE NO. EXPIRE DATE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR P002118 ABBATOYE, CHRIS J. CASTAIC, CA 91384 (661) 312-9347 CONCRETE 09/01/2019 CONSTRUCTION 03/12/...

More info »
Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Evaluation: Year 5 Project Synthesis Volume 1: Cross Cutting Findings

Strong Start for Mothers and Newborns Evaluation: Year 5 Project Synthesis Volume 1: Cross Cutting Findings

g Star t f or Mothe rs and Newbor ns Evaluation: Stron YNTHESIS ROJECT S AR 5 P YE Volume 1 indings -Cutting F ross : C Prepared for: ss Caitlin Cro -Barnet Center fo HS nd Medicaid Innovation, DH r M...

More info »