This article begins to unpack the complex effects of the policies of both the small schools and choice on students with special needs. Drawing on qualitative data collected throughout the 2008-2009 academic year and a range of quantitative data from New York City’s public high schools, the author shows that while small schools and choice are intended to expand schooling options for all, students with special needs often find that when entering the public high school choice process, their selection set is narrowed. For families of students with special needs, the lack of adequate special needs resources can preclude schools from being considered as viable options. In addition, schools of choice engage in practices to deter higher need students from applying. The combined influences of parent decision and school choice processes result in between-school sorting, with larger institutions receiving the bulk of the higher need population of students, which is reflected in the city’s enrollment data. The findings raise questions about not only the effects of the small school reforms, but also about the role of choice policies in the public educational system.
AdnettN.DaviesP. (2005). Competition between or within schools?: Reassessing school choice. Education Economics, 13(1), 109-121.
2.
Advocates for Children (2005). Leaving school empty-handed: A report on graduation and dropout rates for students who receive special education services in New York City. New York: Advocates for Children.
3.
AncessJ.AllenD. (2006). Implementing small theme high schools in New York City: Great intentions and great tensions. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 401-416.
4.
ArsenD.PlankD.SykesG. (1999). School choice policies in Michigan: The rules matter. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
5.
ArumR. (2000). Schools and communities: Ecological and institutional dimensions. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 396-418.
6.
ArumR. (2009). All choices created equal? The role of choice sets in the selection of schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 191-208.
7.
BernardH. R. (2002). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd ed.). New York: Alta Mira Press.
8.
BloomfieldD. (2007). American public education law primer. New York: Peter Lang Primer.
9.
DiMaggioP.PowellW. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
10.
DiMartinoC.JessenS. (2011). School brand management: The policies, practices and perceptions of branding and marketing in New York City’s public schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisianna.
11.
EstesM. B. (2004). Choice for all? Charter schools and students with special needs. Journal of Special Education, 34, 257-267.
12.
HarrisS. (2002) Children with special needs and choice: Five stories. Preventing School Failure, 46(2), 75-78.
13.
HeckR. (2004). Studying educational and social policy: Theoretical concepts and research methods. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
HemphillC.NauerK. (2009). The new marketplace report: How small-school reforms and school choice have reshaped New York City’s high schools. New York: Center for New York City Affairs, Milano New School for Management and Urban Policy.
15.
HochschildJ.ScovronickN. (2003). The American dream and the public schools. New York: Oxford.
16.
HoweK.WelnerK. (2002). School choice and the pressure to perform: Déjà vu for children with disabilities?Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 212-221.
17.
IatarolaP.SchwartzA.StiefelL.ChellmanC. (2008). Small schools, large districts: Small-school reform and New York City’s students. Teachers College Record, 110, 1837-1878.
18.
JenningsJ., (2010). School choice or schools’ choice?: Managing in an era of accountability. Sociology of Education, 83(3), 227-247.
19.
JenningsJ.HaimsonL. (2009). High school discharges revisited: Trends in New York City’s discharge rates, 2000-2007. New York City: Class Size Matters.
20.
JessenS. B. (2009, July7). The illusion of “fresh ground”: The conflicts that have arisen from the political contexts of the new small schools movement. Teachers College Record.
21.
JonesB. D. (1999). Bounded rationality. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 297-321.
22.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58, 697-720.
23.
Lacireno-PaquetN.HolyokeT.MoserM.HenigJ. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to market practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145-158.
24.
LopezA.WellsA. S.HolmeJ. J. (2002). Creating charter school communities: Identity building, diversity, and selectivity. In WellsA. S. (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity (pp. 129-158). New York: Teachers College Press.
25.
McKinneyJ. (1996). Charter schools: A new barrier for children with disabilities. Educational Leadership, 54, 22-25.
26.
MilesM. B.HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27.
New Visions for Public Schools (2002). Promising practices series: Special education inclusion. New York: New Visions for Public Schools.
28.
New York City Department of Education (2008). The New York City directory of public high schools, 2008-2009. New York: Author.
29.
New York City Department of Education (2009). Chancellor Klein announces more than 80 percent of students admitted to a top choice high school for the fourth consecutive year. New York Department of Education press release. Retrieved from http://www.schools.nyc.gov
30.
Office of Civil Rights (2009). Letter to David Bloomfield Re: Case No. 02-06-1153. Retrieved from http://www.edwonk.com
31.
OrfieldG.LosenD.WaldJ.SwansonC., (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
32.
PallasA. (2009). Questioning the Office Of Civil Right’s decision about small schools. Retrieved from http://www.gothamschools.org
33.
RobenstineC. (2001). Public schooling, the market metaphor, and parental choice. Educational Forum, 65(3), 234-243.
34.
ScottJ. (2005). School choice and diversity: What the evidence says. New York: Teachers College Press.
35.
SimonH. (1986). Rationality in psychology and economic. Journal of Business, 59(4), 209-224.
36.
ThurlowM.SinclairM.JohnsonD. (2002). Students with disabilities who drop out of school: Implications for policy and practice. National Center of Secondary Education and Transition, 1(2), 1-8.
37.
WeinsteinM.JacobowitzR.MaguireC.SaundersT.FruchterN. (2007). Stability in student and teacher characteristics, the first ten years: A study of small high schools in New York City. New York: Institute for Education and Social Policy, New York University.
38.
WellsA. S. (1993). Time to choose: America at the crossroads of school choice policy. New York: Hill and Wang.
39.
WelnerK.HoweK. (2005). Steering toward separation: The policy and legal implications of “counseling” special education students away from charter schools. In ScottJ. (Ed.), School choice and diversity: What the evidence says (p. 93-107). New York: Teachers College Press.
40.
WestA.HindA. (2007). School choice in London, England: Characteristics of students in secondary schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2-3), 498-529.
