In “school choice,” families should choose

MARCH 15, 2021 — Editor’s note: This op-ed by Mike Villarreal, director of the UTSA Urban Education Institute and assistant professor in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, originally appeared in the San Antonio Express-News.

The Bennett family is tired of changing schools. From public, to private, to charter and back again, they’ve shifted their two sons around the education landscape of San Antonio, trying to get help for their special learning needs. The Bennetts are not alone.

A recent UTSA Urban Education Institute study found high rates of this phenomenon, known as student mobility, in Bexar County schools.

“We must ensure that school choice means that families are doing the choosing, not the schools. ”

Our analysis of 2.8 million student records over 12 years — 2007 to 2018 — found that nearly 1 in 5 students changed schools from the start of one year to the next, not including when students graduated to a new school.

We also found that school mobility was a strong predictor of lower rates of high school graduation, college enrollment and degree completion. Among our most important findings was that, on average, students enrolled in charter schools changed schools more frequently than their peers in traditional public schools.

In the Bennett family’s case, their older son, Jonathan, began at a public school that refused his mom’s requests to test him for language and reading issues, so his parents moved him to a local charter that took a year to diagnose dyslexia. Their younger son, Scott, began at that same charter school, and soon officials told his parents they suspected he was “emotionally disturbed.” His mother, who requested the use of pseudonyms for this op-ed, sought an opinion from a developmental pediatrician, who diagnosed him with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

Charter school officials created a specialized learning plan for Scott. But rather than relying on the plan’s positive reinforcement strategies, the school began suspending him for each infraction. He was soon told not to return.

In our research, we heard story after story like the Bennett’s happening in state- and school district-created charters: A student’s special needs go unmet, and disciplinary action occurs rather than accommodation. Then officials hint that another school would be “a better fit.” Known as “counseling out,” this unlawful process weeds out “hard to serve” students — commonly those with behavior issues in need of special education services.

We saw this pattern in the data. A student’s probability of changing schools increased from 27.5% to 41.3% once a charter school filed a disciplinary report. For traditional public schools, the likelihood of school mobility increased from 16.5% to 26.2%. This pattern occurs in both types of schools, but it occurs at much higher levels in charter schools.

What might explain such high rates of student mobility? Two answers: School incentives and charter-school law. Students with behavioral issues and special needs cost more to educate and are less likely to score well on state standardized exams. Low student scores can affect a school’s accountability rating, making it harder to market and attract students.

Texas law allows charters to exclude students with disciplinary histories, and they can expel those who get into trouble at their school. Charters can create their own rules and justify the actions they want to take. Some schools issue disciplinary infractions for uniform violations, such as wearing the wrong shoes. In past legislative sessions, charter schools have fought successfully to retain these rights.

These state charter school laws are not good for children. Consider this: Every year in Bexar County, 27.5% of charter students change schools, a rate 66% greater than traditional public schools. Seven of every 10 students who depart a charter school end up enrolling in a traditional public school.

The negative effects of student mobility are not just felt by the mobile student. In schools with high mobility, teachers must slow instruction to incorporate new arrivals. Greater student churn means more paperwork for central offices and less sense of community. This makes school mobility everyone’s problem.

Charter advocates say the schools raise the quality of public education through experimentation and competition by allowing students and families to choose their schools. There are examples of this positive influence, particularly in districts with dysfunctional school boards. But as our study suggests, we must ensure that school choice means that families are doing the choosing, not the schools. It’s time to close loopholes that produce toxic competition between schools and harm our kids in lasting ways.