In failing schools, how real is transfer option?

Last year, Jesús Uriostegui was eager for his daughter Citlalli to transfer out of Richards Career Academy, her failing high school on Chicago's southwest side. Under federal law, he and other parents with children in failing schools can request transfers to better-performing institutions.

Yet here in Chicago, that right remains largely on paper: There simply aren't enough schools that have remained off the "needs improvement" list to accept all transfer requests. Of the 19,000 Chicago kids who asked for transfers last year under the new federal law, only 1,100 got them. Citlalli was among those who did not.

Chicago's dearth of slots, though particularly severe, is not unique: It exemplifies a major impediment to the advance of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law in America's urban districts and sabotages the aim of giving students - especially those in failing inner-city classrooms - more "choice" in where they go to school.

While supporters of the controversial law say the problems will be worked out, the early experience of Chicago and other cities shows how the ideals of a law passed in Washington can be difficult to implement in the complicated world of urban education.

In the long list of consequences for schools under NCLB, the transfer option is one of the earliest to kick in - students can transfer after their schools land on the "needs improvement" list two years running - and carries some of the largest logistical headaches. Students can't transfer to schools that don't exist, after all, and - unless interdistrict agreements become an option - many cities may see scenarios like Chicago's, in which "choice" is largely meaningless. Next year, only 20 of 600 schools are likely to accept transfers.

"In big cities, it's going to be a problem," says Madlene Hamilton, a researcher with the Center on Education Policy in Washington. "Either they don't have room in the other schools or they just don't have the schools. They need to find other ways to increase capacity, either by opening more schools, or hiring more teachers, or getting space in those schools whatever way they can."

Champions of NCLB say the transfer option not only helps individual students, but encourage creation of better schools. Yet some critics see the provision as a veiled attempt to promote vouchers, and worry that it will drain floundering schools of resources and the brightest students.

Even the staunchest NCLB advocates agree transfers won't work everywhere. Many rural districts only have one school for each grade, and attending nearby districts could mean a 100-mile drive - or, in parts of Alaska and Hawaii, a plane trip.

In such cases, officials say, free tutoring (the next consequence to kick in after transfers) is an acceptable substitute. That's the route Chicago is taking. Last year it provided tutoring to 57,000 students, and expects that number to rise this year. Last month, the district sent all parents a letter telling them how to apply for both transfers and tutoring.

"What Chicago did this year is a perfect example of what every district should be doing," says Nina Rees, deputy undersecretary for innovation and improvement at the US Department of Education. She's pleased that Chicago is informing parents early on of their options, and encouraging schools-within-schools and new charter schools. The district also notes that 45,000 children whose neighborhood schools are considered failing exercise choice under the district's separate magnet-school program.

But some see a fundamental problem with the mandates, saying they deflect resources from reform efforts under way. As the law stands, they note, it's difficult for schools with large minority and low-income populations to get themselves off the failing list, even when they make improvements.

Page: 1 | 2