Introduction to the Special Issue—School choice: Separating fact from fiction

Some Knowns and Unknowns About Developing Cognitive Excellence: History, Research Methods, Policy, and Politics

“…Finally, regarding the role of politics in the U.S., one of the core dimensions of political disagreement and debate in education between Democrats and Republicans is the issue of school choice (Berner, 2017;Henderson et al, 2021;Wolf, 2019). The development of cognitive excellence among highly talented students through gifted education opportunities should in principle not be limited to the type of intervention, type of school, or whether it is inside or outside of school, especially internationally since education systems and cultural and political contexts vary widely around the world (Sanchez-Escobedo, 2013) (For an argument regarding the rough functional interchangeability of interventions for gifted students, see Wai et al, 2010.) However, at least in the U.S. context, much of the research and advocacy regarding gifted education focuses on helping students in traditional public schools through programming in those schools.…”

“…When gifted programming is cut in traditional public schools, it is typically talented students from low-income or marginalized backgrounds who are likely to be left behind since they usually rely on their local public school to which they are zoned based on their parent's ability to live in certain locations (Wai & Worrell, 2020). The group that has options are students with parents who have resources and can move to another public school district by relocating to a better area (e.g., buying an expensive home) or providing homeschooling, tutoring, or private schooling if the public schools are not sufficient to meet their kids' needs (Wolf, 2019). Gallagher (2002) noted that parental preferences and school choice is an underleveraged area for gifted education advocates.…”

School Sector Mobility in an Urban School Choice Environment

“…In essence, mobility would be a positive when students are able to move from a lower performing education sector to a higher performing sector that meets student needs. Overall, school choice programs are shown to have a generally neutral to positive effect on student performance (with notable exceptions); however, results tend to be highly dependent on context and policy design, and the way in which student performance is operationalized (Dynarski, 2016; Hess, 2010; Wolf, 2017). In Milwaukee specifically, the MPCP has had a slight positive impact on student test scores, a positive impact on graduation rates and rates of college enrollment, and produced various other noncognitive impacts and externalities (Ford & Andersson, 2019, 2017; Carlson et al, 2014; Cowen et al, 2013; DeAngelis & Wolf, 2016; Flanders, 2018; Witte et al, 2014; Wolf et al, 2018).…”

“…The negative impacts of mobility can be particularly large in urban areas where poverty, evictions, and related high rates of residential mobility are present (Desmond, 2016; Metzger et al, 2018). However, there is also evidence that school choice policies designed to enable students to move from lower performing to higher performing school sectors can ultimately lead to performance gains for choosers (Cowen et al, 2012; Wolf, 2017). The basic premise of school choice theories, that educational performance will improve when parents move their children to more preferred schools, is inconsistent with the knowledge base surrounding student mobility in general.…”

“…school sectors can ultimately lead to performance gains for choosers (Cowen et al, 2012;Wolf, 2017). The basic premise of school choice theories, that educational performance will improve when parents move their children to more preferred schools, is inconsistent with the knowledge base surrounding student mobility in general.…”