Printer Friendly

Open enrollment and students with disabilities: issues, concerns, fears, and anticipated benefits.

ABSTRACT: Open enrollment is a hotly debated form of educational choice. More than 25 states have legislation establishing or expanding public school choice options. At an issues clarification working session, professionals, legislators, policymakers, parents, and students described issues and generated implications for serving students with disabilities. Participants identified three kinds of issues for districts and students: outcome, implementation, and demographic. Participants also expressed other concerns about choice: pupil benefit, parent involvement (or convenience), teacher/administrator job protection, change, and teacher workload.

* Public school choice is here. Providing parents and students with alternatives for school attendance is considered among the "most innovative and promising reforms to have gained momentum during the late eighties" (Chubb & Moe, 1990, p. 206). Nathan (1987) stated, "During the next decade, the trend toward more support among policymakers for expanding parental choice in education will continue to grow" (p. 751). President Bush (White House Office of the Press Secretary, 1990) declared that "expanding parents' right to choose public schools is a national imperative," and in America 2000: An Education Strategy he said, "If standards, tests, and report cards tell parents and voters how their schools are doing, choice gives them the leverage to act" (Bush, 1991, p. 12). Nathan (1989) described expected outcomes of choice: "While public school choice programs will not solve all of our school problems, well-designed plans can help provide the freedom educators seek, the expanded opportunities many students need, and the dynamism the public education system requires'' (p. 32). Many people argue that the fundamental purpose of choice is increased student achievement, higher graduation rates, and better student attitudes toward themselves, schools, and learning.

The federal government has sponsored several conferences on choice programs in the public schools; news stories, editorials, and popular news magazines are increasingly coveting issues related to the idea of providing parents, teachers, and students with greater options in education (Education Commission of the States, 1989a). More than 25 states have passed or proposed some form of school choice legislation (Education Commission of the States, 1989b; Ysseldyke, Lange, & Delaney, 1992). Several states have passed legislation promoting interdistrict choice as a way of providing broader educational options to parents and students. Some states provide educational alternatives only to students who have not been successful in traditional educational settings; for example, Second Chance Programs in Colorado require that students be out of school for at least 6 months before being eligible to enroll in any school in any district. Five states have postsecondary enrollment options that allow capable high school students to take courses at colleges and universities. Many school districts have intradistrict choice plans. Schools of choice in some states include magnet or residential schools. Lawmakers in many states currently are considering open enrollment legislation or awaiting recommendations from official boards or task forces charged with developing public school choice proposals, and six other states are considering more limited plans (e.g., for students "at risk" or those in the upper classes of high school).


Arguments for and against public school choice include issues such as excellence, equity, and achievement for less successful students. Among the strongest arguments for choice is the recognition that there is no one best kind of school for all students or all educators. Proponents argue that choice will enhance excellence and that students' academic achievement and attitudes will improve when families have the opportunity to select different kinds of schools (Raywid, 1990/1991). Some base their arguments for choice on market metaphors, contending that open enrollment will create efficiency: Schools will strive to be better, and those that fail to do so will be forced to change or to close.

Equity and stratification are also important issues. Opponents argue that choice will limit equity and will result in stratification as good students flock to high-quality schools and poor schools become dumping grounds for at-risk students, minority students, and students of poverty. Proponents contend that choice will extend new educational opportunities to parents of students from all backgrounds. They argue that we already have choice, but that it is restricted to parents with high incomes. Parents make school choices when they choose where to live; but such choice is often restricted to those who can afford to choose where they live or can afford a car to get to work. They contend that the tracking systems now in place are vehicles of stratification.

Choice is the term used to indicate that there are alternatives within public education and that parents, students, and teachers can exercise educational decision-making power by choosing among the alternatives. Research has examined the context and effects of allowing parents and students to select educational programs within a school district. Raywid (1989), in summarizing this research, divided the research into that providing a basis for student, parent, or teacher choice, that describing the choice context and organizational characteristics of schools of choice, and that documenting the outcomes of choice. She found little research on outcomes; and what exists remains correlational, not experimental.

Raywid (1989) cited from studies based on 139 "schools of choice" in 11 areas across the United States. Most of these studies focused on magnet schools at the secondary level, and most studies are unpublished. Although none of the studies examined effects for students with disabilities, several noted positive effects for "less successful" students. For example, Stevens (1985) found that both less successful and successful students had positive attitudes toward their schools. Sexton (1985) found that schools of choice have lower dropout rates than the district average, and Perry and Duke (1978) found improved student behavior in schools of choice. Raywid noted that effects on achievement have been documented through large databases (e.g., High School and Beyond, see Lee & Bryk, 1989) and that other databases may hold relevant information. Still, these data, like most others, are limited to alternative schools.


The best choice plans offer different kinds of schools--different philosophies, sizes, approaches, and so forth. Various forms of choice exist. The most comprehensive open enrollment is a state-level policy, in which students may transfer from their home district to any other district because they want to do so. The only constraints on transfer are desegregation and space availability.

Minnesota is on the cutting edge in providing educational choice options to parents and public school students. Its open enrollment law, which has been effective since September 1990, is one of the most comprehensive and far-reaching educational reform efforts undertaken by a state. Minnesota was the first state to enact open enrollment legislation. Two others (Iowa and Arkansas) were quick to follow, with limited forms of open enrollment. Massachusetts, Nebraska, Idaho, and Utah now have enacted legislation as comprehensive as Minnesota' s. These laws have made mention of students with disabilities only in terms of disallowing discrimination in participation on the basis of disability. Nebraska has gone one step further in making special provisions for the funding of special transportation needs of students with disabilities who change school districts through open enrollment.

In the open enrollment program in Minnesota, any student entering kindergarten through Grade 12 may apply to attend a school or program located in a district other than the one in which the pupil lives. That transfer may occur if it does not have a negative impact on integration efforts and if the receiving district has room. Average state funding follows students who use this option. Most districts participated in this program, beginning in the 1990-91 school year. Still, certain conditions influence the implementation of the open enrollment option. For example, a student may be denied entrance to a district if the district lacks space overall, in a grade level, program, or school. Further, a student may be denied entrance if the district would fall out of compliance with desegregation guidelines or if enrollment of the student would have a negative impact on integration. Although individual school districts make their own decisions about acceptance and rejection of applications, they may not base their decisions on previous academic achievement, athletic or other extracurricular ability, existence of a disability, proficiency in the English language, or previous disciplinary proceedings for any applicant.


In all the discussion about choice, policymakers have made little mention of students served in special education programs. Yet it is probable that this reform initiative, like others, will have significant implications for the education of students with disabilities. To clarify the nature of these issues, we held an issues-clarification working session with educators, administrators, legislators, parents, students, and policymakers. The goal was not to obtain a large sample of responses about perceived issues, but rather to obtain and synthesize the thoughts of a group of knowledgeable people who had considered the implications of choice legislation. This was the first step in a 5-year investigation of the effects of open enrollment legislation on students with disabilities. We report this first step at this time because many states are considering choice legislation, with no apparent regard for students with disabilities.

Issues Derived From Existing Literature

We based our initial identification of issues on a thorough literature review, and project staff members brainstormed ideas during the development of a proposal to study open enrollment. We identified three groups of issues: (a) issues for students who change schools, (b) issues for students who do not change schools, and (c) issues for districts (see Table 1).

Issues Derived From Group Consensus Process

Fourteen professionals representing various levels of state and local education agencies and parent organizations were invited to attend a meeting in St. Paul, Minnesota, to clarify issues related to open enrollment and students with disabilities. Participants were three state legislators (two from Minnesota, one from Nebraska), two state department of education officials (one from Minnesota, one from Nebraska), three directors of special education, two teachers, two state education association professionals, one parent, and one parent-teacher organization representative. In addition, four students who had participated in enrollment options attended and took part in the meeting. Meeting participants were selected because they were individuals who had or were likely to have some involvement in open enrollment. The names of legislators, state department representatives, teachers, and students were suggested by people who had been involved in the initial development of the "choice" legislation in the state. The special education directors and parents were individuals from different areas of the state who were known to the investigators. Both of the state teachers unions (Minnesota Education Association and Minnesota Federation of Teachers) were asked to send representatives; one of the teachers present represented one of the unions.

The issues clarification meeting involved small-group discussion of the issues. Through a nominal group procedure, participants divided into small groups, discussed and ranked issues, and shared results with the larger group, for each of the three types of issues. During a whole-group consensus discussion at the end of the day, participants integrated the issues and organized them into conceptual categories.

During the group consensus discussion, participants clearly viewed issues for students as being separate from issues for districts, but did not consider it meaningful to distinguish between students who do or do not change schools. Further, participants argued that issues could be further organized according to three other categories: demographics, implementation, and outcomes. Participants considered demographic issues less important than those related to outcomes and implementation.

Table 2 summarizes the issues considered most important for districts and students, organized according to outcome, implementation, and demographic concerns. These 29 issues will need to be considered, watched, and documented as choice is implemented. They are issues that set the research agenda on choice for students with disabilities.


Outcome Issues for Students with Disabilities

Participants identified five specific outcome issues: student satisfaction; parent satisfaction and involvement; effects on performance, behavior, and attitudes; environmental quality; and dropout rate. The participants' consensus is reflected in the following sections.

Student Satisfaction. Students would be more satisfied or have a better attitude toward school if they had an opportunity to select the school they attend and if the school is designed to meet their learning styles and interests. Students indicated that the choice option was critical to their changing schools and districts, and that they were happier and doing better in their new school.

Parent Satisfaction/Involvement. The parents of students with disabilities will be more satisfied with their children's school performance and more involved in their children's schooling when they have an opportunity to select the school their children attend. This argument probably is most relevant to students in elementary schools. In contrast, for some secondary-level students, like the limited sample present at our issues-clarification working session, parents tended not to be involved in school change decisions. One student summed up his perception of parent involvement: "Everybody kind of forced their parents into this decision."

Effects on Performance, Behavior, and Attitudes. Another major outcome was the effect that changing schools (or not changing schools) would have on student behavior, attitudes, and academic performance. Students with mental disabilities might move to districts where they believe they will have greater freedom, or where they might receive better instruction. A central issue is the extent to which student academic performance will improve or diminish as a result of changing schools (or of choosing to remain when the district becomes one of excellence). Participants also indicated that student behavior might either improve or deteriorate. School personnel told us that student behavior is often related to the behavior of other students in the school. Others indicated that student behavior is a function of how effectively the school works with students.

There are other issues regarding effects on academic performance, attitudes, and behavior. School personnel and students tell us that although many changes are made by students seeking a school that better meets their needs, many students with disabilities are moving in an effort to avoid problems. Often, they believe they have no friends and want to move to a school where they can make friends. On the other hand, students with disabilities also tell us that some students choose not to change schools because their home school is where their friends are.

Environmental Quality. Participants were concerned about the extent to which open enrollment would alter the quality of school environments and instructional environments. They indicated that the effects could be either positive or negative. For example, an administrator argued that the move to raise standards to keep large numbers of students would result in improved instructional quality. Others suggested that an influx of large numbers of students with disabilities would result in instruction of lower quality and an overall low-quality educational environment.

Dropout Rate. People are concerned about the potential effect of open enrollment on the dropout rate. They argue both sides of this issue. For some, enabling students to change districts will avert them from dropping out. They point to the success of the High School Graduation Incentives Program and Area Learning Centers in Minnesota in helping several thousand students who had dropped out return to school (Nathan & Jennings, 1990). Others argue that open enrollment legislation will increase the dropout rate. They contend that students with disabilities will experience increased difficulty as schools raise their standards.

Implementation Issues for Students with Disabilities

Participants in the working session identified five major implementation issues: least restrictive environment, provision of information, transportation, reasons for nonparticipation, and dropout as an independent variable.

Least Restrictive Environment. Students with disabilities may choose to change school districts to be placed in a setting that is either more or less restrictive than their current setting. At the extreme, this includes changes made to receive or not receive services, since eligibility criteria differ among school districts; and a student who is eligible in one district may be ineligible for special education services in another.

Many of these decisions involve due process and heatings. An administrator at our working session expressed concern that open enrollment would lead to a series of "end runs," in which parents who were unsuccessful at a due process hearing would shift their child to another district and go through another hearing. This administrator said, "They could do this over and over again until the district 'gets it right.'"

Provision of Information. Before students or parents can take advantage of open enrollment, they must know about the opportunity to do so. There may be differences in the ways in which parents or students with disabilities and other parents learn of open enrollment. Students with disabilities may be encouraged by their home district to enroll elsewhere, or they may be encouraged to stay. At the working session, a representative of the Parent Teacher's Association (PTA) highlighted this concern: "There's a high percentage of parents out there who don't have the faintest idea what's going on in school. So they must be educated about choice so they can help their kids."

Transportation. When a decision is made to have a student attend a school outside his or her district, it is the responsibility of the parents to transport the student to the new district's boundary line. What happens when the student who transfers has severe disabilities that require special forms of transportation (such as wheelchair access and the availability of oxygen)? Will students be denied the opportunity to change districts because of special transportation needs? Is this then a denial of equal protection and a violation of the open enrollment statute?

In some districts, parents are getting together in groups to arrange the transportation of their children. Parents who transport their children are entitled to partial reimbursement for transportation costs. This raises concern among administrators who express fear that open enrollment will involve extensive paperwork.

Reasons for Nonparticipation. At this point, we do not have good data on why parents may choose not to have their children with disabilities change schools. The extent to which active choices are made may be different among the various categories of students. Participants in our issues-clarification meeting told us it would be important to document the reasons for decisions not to transfer. A director of special education indicated that she was very anxious to document the reasons why parents did not transfer their children when they really wanted to. She indicated that, in her experience, parents sometimes feel they do not have the power to transfer their children. She was less concerned about parents who feel empowered and act on the opportunity to transfer. A representative of a teacher's union indicated that a lot of parents and students decide not to transfer because "they feel trapped and see no way out."

Dropout as an Independent Variable. In some states, dropout status is a criterion for participation in certain enrollment options. Some states enable students to participate in enrollment options (such as High School Graduation Incentives) or to attend any high school of their choice if they have dropped out of school. At issue here is the extent to which students will drop out of school to be eligible for enrollment in new programs. At our working session, an administrator put the issue well when he said that school personnel could simply tell a youngster who is over 16, "Well, if you really want to go somewhere else, you can just drop out of school for more than three weeks, come off enrollment, and do it on your own."

Demographic Issues for Students with Disabilities

The primary demographic issues were related to fairness, equity, and who transfers.

Fairness and Equity. A major concern regarding open enrollment is the extent to which all students will have an equal opportunity to change schools. To the extent that students with disabilities have the same opportunities as those without disabilities, fairness may be demonstrated. To the extent that they do not learn of open enrollment options, or are coerced to leave or stay in a district, or are denied the opportunity to transfer, unfairness or inequity may be evidenced (and, of course, this can happen for students without disabilities, as well).

Who Transfers? Specific types, categories, or kinds of students may elect to transfer under enrollment options. For example, students with learning disabilities might opt to change districts far more often than those with emotional disabilities. Students with mental retardation who are of one race may choose to remain in their district of residence while those who are not of that race may choose to transfer.

Issues of "who" transfers may also be related to the educational background of families. Teachers attending our working session told us that students who transfer are from families who are "educationally in touch, economically in touch, who advocate, access, and participate." Others argued that this is not the case, pointing out that research by Nathan and Jennings (1990) showed that students from families who had received welfare or general assistance in the past 5 years were overrepresented in the group of students who transfer schools.

Many parents have indicated that they choose to transfer their children as a matter of convenience (the receiving school is nearer their office, or nearer the day care center to which they transport their other children). There are demographic considerations here. Single mothers indicate that they transfer their children because the day care services they use for a younger sibling are in the receiving district. Or they indicate that they have their children attend school within walking distance of a caretaker's home. Others point out that such decisions are beneficial. They may enable a parent to spend more time with their child, provide better supervision, or even to work and pay taxes.

Outcome Issues for School Districts

Issues related to what happens to districts that gain and lose large numbers of students with disabilities include program excellence, assessment practices, gain and loss of personnel, program costs, changes in levies, and effects on special education child counts.

Program Excellence. As school districts try to keep their current students enrolled and to attract new students, they strive to create programs of excellence (or at least instructional programs they view as being "better"). Will districts be able to maintain good programs if they gain large numbers of students with disabilities? Will districts develop innovative, high-quality special education programs to attract students with disabilities? There is more than one side to the issue of excellence. Participants in our working session indicated that parents of students with disabilities in their district believe the student has the right to attend school in the resident's district. The parents go to school personnel and say, "My child has a right to be here, you shape up the program so that it meets his needs and can accommodate him."

Assessment Practices. Districts vary in their assessment of newly entering students. Some districts are willing to rely on the records the students bring with them, but others require entirely new psychoeducational evaluations. Will an influx of students with disabilities create a new set of demands to assess these students?

Gain/Loss of Teachers and Related Services Personnel. Is one of the outcomes of open enrollment legislation gain or loss of teachers? Do districts that gain students also gain teachers? Or does teacher availability function as a criterion in admissions and transfer decisions? Some of the participants in our working session indicated that gain or loss of teachers was irrelevant. For them, the "bottom line" was whether students were better off.

Excess Program Costs. Excess program costs must be paid by the resident district. To what extent will resident districts be willing to pay large excess costs, especially for students with severe disabilities? How do excess-cost considerations affect transfer decisions? When are excess costs considered excessive, and who makes that decision?

Changes in Excess Levies. Districts accepting students under open enrollment receive funds from the state to pay for the student's education. They do not receive excess levies that may have been imposed by the district. Districts receiving large numbers of students with disabilities may end up short of cash. Proponents of choice point out that districts decide how many students to admit.

Effects on Special Education Child Counts. Child counts can become an issue in two ways. When districts employ different eligibility criteria and students with disabilities transfer, they may be counted differently. This may affect reimbursements, especially in states that employ weighted funding formulas,

Implementation Issues for Districts

Participants identified seven issues for districts in implementing open enrollment: criteria for transfer; planning; provision of information; local control; transportation; criteria for identification; and mainstreaming.

Criteria for Between -District Transfer. School districts must specify the criteria they will use to make decisions about acceptance or rejection of applicants for transfer under open enrollment. Each district is responsible for developing reasonable and nondiscriminatory approval guidelines. Although the guidelines cannot include existence of disabilities, previous academic achievement, or disciplinary proceedings, they can include capacity of a program or building. Anticipated district space needs (e.g., for students in the district who will be referred and placed during the year) can be a reason for not accepting a transfer. It is expected that differing guidelines among school districts will affect transfer. Participants in our working session wanted to know specifically who in a district would have responsibility for ensuring that criteria were fair and nondiscriminatory.

Parents with sufficient financial resources have found a way to cope with criteria for transfer. Participants at our working session said that when some parents were denied the option to transfer their child, they simply informed the school, "I'm moving into the district and you'll have to take her anyway."

Planning. Some administrators expressed concern about the effects of open enrollment on planning. Districts must plan ahead in assignment of pupils to programs, meeting staffing needs, allocating resources, and so forth. In Minnesota, students who wish to transfer must apply by December 31. Such requests affect planning, especially for students with disabilities who require expensive programming. Participants in our working session called our attention to another aspect of planning. When parents request transfer, they complete an application form, which asks whether the child has a special need. Parents at our working session asked, "What happens if the parent simply decides not to let the district know that the child is a student with disabilities? On the first day of school the school is confronted with a student with disabilities, but didn't know they were getting the student." Other participants countered that this has always been the case; schools may receive students from out of state or from another district and may not have information about disabilities.

Provision of Information. Provision of information to parents and students about open enrollment options is an important part of advancing the equitable use of these options. Districts differ in the procedures they use to inform people of options.

Local Control. Participants expressed concern about the effects of open enrollment on local control. Some participants argued that open enrollment will harm small schools and districts because they cannot provide expensive services and will lose students. This may result in school closings and decreased local community input. Other participants argued that schools will need to become more sensitive to parent and community desires to keep up enrollment. They contended that choice will enhance local control. They also argued that choice will lead to more cooperation among school districts. In fact, Urahn (1991) reported that open enrollment in Minnesota led to increased cooperation among school districts.

Transportation. Under Minnesota law, "sending" districts are not required to transport students and "receiving" districts are required only to transport from the district boundary. If a family is below the poverty line, as determined by the federal government, parents can be reimbursed by the nonresident district for the costs of transporting their children to and from the district border. Does this apply to special forms of transportation that may be required for students with disabilities? Will transportation requirements act as a disincentive for transfer of students with disabilities? At our working session, an administrator said he would not want to be involved in the large amount of paperwork required to process reimbursements for parents who were below the poverty line. He indicated this would be a special concern for students with disabilities, a disproportionate number of whom are from families in poverty. Forms for reimbursement of transportation expenses are actually completed by parents. Parents must report financial information, as well as miles traveled daily. The districts reimburse the parents. District administrators complete a list of payouts each month and report this (one line for each family) to the state.

Criteria for Identifying Students with Disabilities. Districts use differing criteria to identify students with disabilities. Districts may modify their criteria to limit or encourage students with disabilities to participate in open enrollment.

Mainstreaming. The initiative to mainstream students with disabilities may influence parental decisions about changing districts, and this in turn may influence the mainstreaming initiative.

Demographic Issues for Districts

Native American Schools. In some locations (e.g., in northern Minnesota), school district boundaries may be contiguous with reservation boundaries. At issue is the extent to which Native American students will attend districts outside a reservation. Some residents of reservations indicate that they prefer their children to attend schools where they live and that are composed entirely of other Native Americans.

Small Rural School Districts. Open enrollment may result in widespread movement of students with special needs from small, rural school districts to larger districts with more program options. Some rural districts may find it nearly impossible to carry on viable special education programs.


Participants in the working session suggested that much of the emotion surrounding discussions of choice is a result of differing perspectives on the topic. These perspectives focus on several concerns about "choice."

For some people, the central concern is pupil benefit. They argue that there is no one kind of school that is best for all students, and that students will profit differentially from different kinds of schools. They argue for (or against) choice on the basis of pupil benefits and pupil outcomes in the form of improved behavior, attitudes, or academic performance. They tend to see district concerns as largely irrelevant. Districts, they might say, exist for (to meet the needs of, to serve, for the convenience of) the student.

For other people, choice is a matter of parent involvement or parent convenience. They argue for or against choice, using as a criterion the extent to which it increases the parent's involvement in the school or the extent to which it makes life easier or better for parents. Issues or concerns arise as a function of the extent to which choice enhances or interferes with parent involvement, parent satisfaction, and perceived quality of life.

Many concerns about choice relate to job protection. Just as some special educators worry about losing their jobs as students with disabilities are integrated into regular education settings, so too some are worried about losing jobs when students change schools.

Fourth, the key concern for some people has to do with change. Some people simply view choice as a threat because it may mean having to change.

Finally, some of the fears and concerns about choice are concerns about workload. In many arguments raised by participants at our working session, the real concern was that choice might mean more work.

These concerns should be explored as open enrollment legislation is implemented. Collection of data will provide empirical evidence in response to concerns that are now often largely matters of opinion.


Bush, G. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Chubb, J.E., & Moe, T.M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 306702)

Education Commission of the States. (1989a). Policy guide: A state policy maker's guide to public school choice. Denver: Author.

Education Commission of the States. (1989b). Survey of state initiatives: Public school choice. Denver: Author. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 320255)

Lee, V., & Bryk, A.S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62(3), 172-192.

Nathan, J. (1987). Results and future prospects of state efforts to increase choice among schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 68(10), 746-752.

Nathan, J. (1989). Public schools by choice, Minneapolis: Free Spirit.

Nathan, J., & Jennings, W. (1990). Access to opportunity: Experiences of Minnesota students in four statewide school choice programs, 1989-90. Minneapolis: Center for School Change, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. (ERIC Reproduction Document Service No. ED 330084)

Perry, C.L., & Duke, D. (1978). Lessons to be learned about discipline from alternative high schools. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 11(4), 78-90.

Raywid, M.A. (1989). The case for public schools of choice (Fastback 283). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.

Raywid, M.A. (1990/1991). Is there a case for choice? Educational Leadership, 48(4), 4-12.

Sexton, P. (1985). Trying to make it real compared to what? Implications of high school dropout statistics. Journal of Educational Equity and Leadership, 5(2), 92-106.

Stevens, M. (1985). Characteristics of alternative schools. American Educational Research Journal, 22(1), 135-148.

Urahn, S. (1991). Open enrollment study: Survey of school district superintendents, 1989-90. St. Paul: Research Department, Minnesota House of Representatives.

White House Office of the Press Secretary. (1990). National education goals. Washington, DC: Author.

Ysseldyke, J.E., Lange, C.M., & Delaney, T.J. (1992). School choice programs in the fifty states (Research Report No. 7). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Enrollment Options for Students with Disabilities.


JAMES E. YSSELDYKE (CEC #367), Professor and Project Director, and MARTHA L. THURLOW (CEC #367), Assistant Director, College of Education, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. BOB ALGOZZINE (CEC #147), Professor, Department of Teaching Specialties, University of North Carolina-Charlotte. JOE NATHAN, Director, Center for School Change, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota.

Preparation of this article was supported in part by Grant No. H023C0004 from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. The views expressed are those of the authors, and not necessarily of the funding agency,

This article was prepared as a part of the Enrollment Options for Students with Disabilities Project at the University of Minnesota.

Manuscript received December 1991; revision accepted November 1992.

[Tabular Data Omitted]
COPYRIGHT 1993 Council for Exceptional Children
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1993 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ysseldyke, James E.; Thurlow, Martha L.; Algozzine, Bob; Nathan, Joe
Publication:Exceptional Children
Date:Mar 1, 1993
Previous Article:"I've counted Jon": transformational experiences of teachers educating students with disabilities.
Next Article:Maternal labeling of gifted children: effects on the sibling relationship.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2016 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters