DOCUMENT RESUME ED 224 160 EA 015 253 AUTHOR Sugarman, Stephen D.; And Others TITLE School Sorting and Disclosure: Disclosure toParents as a School ReformStrategk. SPONS AGENCY National Insttt of Education (ED), WashingtOn, DC. PUB DATE Sep 82 GRANT NIE-G-78-0222 , NOTE 413p.; Portions of chapter 3 will notreproduce due to illegibility of original document. ,PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120) -- Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC17 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Classes (Groups of"Students); Courses;*Disclosure; Due Process; Educational Opportunities;Educational Policy; Elementary Secondau Education;, *Grouping (Instructional Purposee); Parent Participation; Policy Formation; School Choice; *School Policy; State Legislation; *Student Placement; Student Promotio14 Student Rights; Teachers; Track System (Education); Transfer Policy IDENTIFIERS California; *School Sorting ABSTRACT Investigated in this study are the school sorting process (how students arematched with schools,,courses, and teachers) and the possible positive effects ofmandating that schools disclose how .this process otctirs. After anintroduction, chapters 2 and 3 present,findings about thesorting practices in seven California school districts. It was found that mostschools do not have mechanisms for informing peopleabout school sorting. Examples of materials schools uge to inform parentsof other matters mandated by school law are.contained in chapter 3.Chapter 4 provides a theoretical basis for school disclosureby"investigating information disclosure in general. Chapter 5 listspossible virtues of disclosure, including increased parent "take-up"of the choices open to them, prevention of unfairpractitos, and greater public satisfaction with education. Chapter 6investigates possible negative effects of school disclosure, includingincreased costs, increased work for personnel, profeSsionaldemoralization, and parent confusion from information overload. Chapter 7 presents apolicy analysis of school sorting disclosure. Chapter 8examines the possibility of a , due process right to school sortingdisclosure. In chapter 9,a statutory analysis of school sortingand disclosure is undertaken. Conclusions and recommendations presented in chapter10 include the recommendation that social experiments in schoolsorting disc]osure be undertaken on the state level.(Author/JM) *********************************************************************** * * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that canbe made * * from the original document. *********************************************************************** U.S. DEPARTMENT OFEDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCAtION EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERICI Xts document has been reproduced as -Irice.ved trom the person or ort/anuatron orionatino It Minor chJnoes have been made to improve reproduebon quatdy PCents Ot v.ew or opeeons stated,r the docu- ment do not necessarily momentoffic0INIE poStion or pohcy SCHOOL, SORTING ANDDISCEOSURE: cFg . Disclosure to Parents as a SchoolRefofm Strategy V. I. 'pt,ephen D. Sugarman- with Lee S. Friedman: John E.Coons:and Annette Lareau September: 1982 11(IE G-78-0222 to a Acknowledg?ments I want to express my appreciation tothe National Institute of Education for sponsoring this researchproject. It'sgave me the opportunity to think about matterspotentially critical to the healthy future of public education.' The project also facilitated my continued fruitful collaborationwith Let Friedman and Jack Coons on problems, of educationalpolicy. of talented was fortunateto.be ablt to enlist the help graduate students to do fieldresearch and to'vonduct literature reviews on a wide range ofsubjects. Annette Lareau carried-the-laboring oar in this respectf SteveOlsen, Mike McCann and Patty Ratliff alsocontributed importantly.' Connie Curtin', Sharon'Johnson and Emogene Sheid haveperformed admirably in producing what has turned outto be a very long, manuscript. 'Although there have been many changes at NIEduring the course of thisproject, Ron Anson, my- program officer, has remained -- alwaysvpatient and alwaysencouraging. I ap grateful not only for his continuedsupport but also for his having given me opportunities to present someof My ideas' to other NIE staff members.and to otherNIE grantees.at conferences and meetings over the-past few years. Steplien D. Sugarman Berkeley, California September, 1982 -2- millionminmm--- 2630C 7/30/82 i , G , .. CHAPTER 1 , 'AN INTRODUCTION TO INFORMATION AND SCHOOLS: SHAPING OUR ISSUE' 'A . Table of Contents 0 1 ., I. Informatioll and Schooling Generally , , . ' . d. , 4 II. School Sorting and Disclbsure i t ., 1 .. '.1 .. ,. 8/2/82 No Wang Copy . cHAPTER 2 SCHOOLaORTINGPRACTICf-§: EVIDENCE FROWFIELD RESEARCH Table of Contents . e' 1 Introduction O //-Part I: Assigning Students to Teachers 3 Ae\ 3 A. Elementary Schools Delegation Of Authority 6 . 1. 2. Criteria: Two Norms -- Balanceand Individualized Treatment 11 3. ,Parental Requests 18 23 , 4. Notification 5. New Students 23 25 B. Junior High Schools 1. Rand& Assignment With Some Tracking 25 2."'The Process 29 33. 3. Notification ,4, .New Students 33 C 'High Schools 34 34 1. Course Assignment 37 f. Class Selection -- ArenaScheduling . 41 3. Arena.Sche'duling Drawbacks . 4. Program Changes at the Outsetof the Year 49 I - Part II: Changing TeachersAftgr The School Year 51 Begins ¶ 51 A. Parent Initiated Changes 56 8, School Initiated Changes 58 Part,III: Promotion and Retention 66 Part IV: School Assignment and Transfer . I. 67 - A. School Assignment Procedures 69 B. Intra-District Transfers 77 C. tnterLDistrict Transfers 80 Part V: Field Methods . 1904C 8/2/82 CHAPTER 3 DISCLOSURE OF SORTING PRACTICES: EVIDENCE FROM FIELD RESEARCH Table of'Contents Assignment to Teacher 2 A, Assignment tp Teacher in Elementary Schools: DiSclosure of Information B. Assignment of Teacher in Junior HighSchools: Disclosure of Information 9 C. Assignment of Students to Teachers in High Schools: Disclosure of Information . 13 Changing Teacheri After the School Year Begins: Distiosure of Information 15 III. Promotion and RetentiOn: Disclosure of Information 16 Disclosure of IV. School AssLgnment and Transfer: Information 17 V. Existing Methods for NotifyingDistrict Parents of Matters MSndated by California Law 21 2528C 7/29/82 * ,.. ar .. , ., CHAi,TER 4 ., Jr c., or MODELS OF INFORMATIONDISCLOSURE kl I Table of Contents 1 I. Informed Choice e . 18 II. The Citizen's Right to Know . ... .... 1 18 A. Consent of the Governed . , B. Take-Up of Entitlements 22 .. o Control of Official AbUse 34 C. , 41 , ;II. Conclusion: Information is Power , 4 or 2694 c8/1/82 'CHAPTER5 CONNECTINGINFORMATION THEORY,TO SCHOOL SORTING Table of Contents - - I. Take-up and Informed Choice Introduction B. Take-up and Disclosure A C. Informed Choice and Disclosure 17 Control of Abnuse and Consent of the Governed . 23 .) A. Sorting Abuse 23 B. Consent af the Governed 28 III. Outreach v. Access 30 p. 3782C 8/1/82 CHAPTER 6 THE' COSTS OF DISCLOSURE Table of Contents 2 I. Dollar Costs and Who ,tlear.s Them 4 II. Professional DemoralizationRisks III. Potential Differencesin Benefkts by Class 9 -IV. Pos'ible IneffectivenessGenerally. 9 A. Studie's of 'Consumer Disclosure Laws Goverriffiental Oisclosure Laws 12 - B. Studies of 18 V. "ExcessiveInformation" CHAPTER 7 SCHOOL SORTING AND DISCLOSURE: POLICy CONSIDERATIONS 3 II The PoliCy Framework A. Types and Levels of Disclosure 3 4 B. Five Key Questions II. Applying-the Framework: Teacher Assignment in Elementary.Schools 8 8 A. Potential Benefits.Frafi-Disclosure I .0 1. Disclosure Alt.erngtives - Informed Choice/Takeup of Entitlements 9 2. Disclosure Alternatives -..Control ofOfficial Error and Abuse . 12 3. Disclosure Alternatives 2 Consentof the Governed 14 15 4. Summaxy Table B. Current^Voluntary Disclosure 17.4-. C. The Probability of Changing theBehavior..or Opinions of the Information Recipient' ,.20 26 D. the°Probable Direct School Response E. Potential Indirct Impact onSubstanti've Policies 31 33. F. Overall Analysis . 40 '.:II. Other School Sorting Decisions A: Pisignmene-to Classes in Junior and Senior High School 40 k). School' Assignment and Transfer; Changes After the Year Begins; Promotion and Retention 4q- 54 IV. Conclusion .?,r .1.0 6t CHAPTER 8 . LEGAL ANALYSIS CF SCHOOL S9RTING ANDDISCLOSURE: CONSTITUTIONALVMSIDERATIdNS. Table 'crf Contents . .: I. Is Thet4 A Constitutional Due processRiga To Some Disclosure Abo0t SchoolSorting, 2 A. Procedural Due process - It'S o Objectives 2 . B. The U.S. Supreme Court's 2-Step Approach to Procedural Due Process ., . , ./- . 1. Step 1: Is the Claimant Being"Depyped": of "Liberty or property) « A .. ....'6.ft. ; .8 , .Z. Step 2: What Process is Due, , . , C. Does School Sonting Implicate the Required 11 liberty or Property Interests, , - 0 1. Supreme Court Precedent 2. Educational Due Process in the LoWerCourts . 19 3. Composite Precedent Reviewed 30 4. Analogies From Other Fields 33 5. Application of Precedent !Themes to School Sorting -42 . D. What Process Might Be Due? 1. Individualization a'nd Two-way Communication 44 .2. The Cost-benefits Calculus'in,Prior School Cases . 48 3: Applying Matthews.to SchoolSoreing 55 - E. Other ApproaChes to Individualized Due Process 61 Aequired Rulemaking. 66 A 1. 4 6867C CHAPTER 9 LEGAL ASPECTS OF SCHOOLSORTING .AND DISCLOSURE STATUTORY ANALYSIS 0 I. Existing California School Disclosure Laws A. Affirmative duties to disclose .. 1 B. Access to information rights 3 - .IT. _FTC Proposed Disclosure Rules*With Respectto,