NJ Home | Services A to Z | Departments/Agencies | FAQs
Search: All of NJ NJ DOE

school, and two chose not to continue the application process because of transportation concerns. For three students, the parents decided not to enroll the students in the choice district, two students moved, 12 did not file the Notice of Intent to Enroll or filed it late, and four failed to file or filed late the notice to the district of residence regarding participation in the program. There were two districts that rejected the applications of two students identified as in need of special education services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:36B-7(c). In both instances, the districts rejected the students’ applications because the districts could not implement the students’ Individual Education Plans. There were also two students for whom there is no information.

The main difference between the application process for the 2000-2001 school year and the two-cycle application process for the 2001-2002 school year is that there were more students who completed the application process for the second year. In the first year, 208 students started the application process and 96 completed it; compared to the second year when 288 started the process and 212 completed it. There were also fewer ineligible students in the second year. This could be the result of better recruitment by the choice districts, which also explains why students applied on time to the choice districts in the second year. While parental decision-making still played a major role in why students failed to complete the application process, sibling issues did not factor into that decision-making process at all in the second year unlike the first year. The choice district lottery was not a factor in the second year because of the establishment of a waiting list process.

A total of 212 choice students enrolled during the two-cycle application process for the 2001-2002 school year. This doubles the enrollment of new choice students and triples the total number of choice students from 96 to 306. Of the 212 new choice students, three were previously parent-paid tuition students who automatically became choice students when Belvidere was approved as a choice district.

While the extra time for student recruitment and the additional application cycle have helped to increase the number of students participating, the success of the first year of the school choice program and the parents’ desire for an educational choice also played a major role in the expansion of the school choice program. Parents are staunch supporters of the program and are grateful that they are given a role in determining the educational setting for their children. There is a lot of interest in the school choice program as demonstrated by the monthly average of 2,800 hits on the school choice page on the department’s web site. While the choice districts receive most of the phone calls from interested students and parents, the department fields around 40 calls a month. Calls to the department are mostly from parents whose children are ineligible or who do not have a choice district near them.

This report provides demographic information regarding only the choice students who attended choice districts in the 2000-2001 school year because the students for the 2001-2002 school year are not yet in attendance, and the department is still collecting data for these students. Ninety-six choice students attended school in eight of the first 10 choice districts for the 2000-2001 school year. Of those, nine were previously parent-paid tuition students. After completing the application process, 105 students filed a Notice of Intent to Enroll in a choice district. Eighteen of those 105 are not attending a choice district. Figure 1 on page 8 indicates that of those 18 students, two were found to be ineligible because they did not complete the school year in the district of residence, two students chose to attend another school district, two chose to remain in the district of residence, two did not attend a choice district for transportation reasons, five parents made the decision for their children not to attend the choice district, one did not attend because a sibling was not accepted, one student was ineligible because the family moved out of state, and there is no information for three students. While it is early in the program’s implementation to draw conclusions, it appears that most students who had intended to enroll in a choice district but did not do so chose to enroll elsewhere. Thus, parents and students exercised a choice from the options provided to them through this program.

The pie chart in Figure 3 indicates that of the 96 choice students who attended choice districts in the 2000-2001 school year, 47 percent are female and 53 percent are male. Figure 4 indicates that 81 percent of the choice students are Caucasian, 11 percent are African American, and eight percent are Hispanic. The pie chart in Figure 5 shows that 39 percent of the 96 choice students attend the choice districts at the high school level, 20 percent attend at the middle school level, and 41 percent attend at the elementary school level.

Of the 96 choice students, 10 percent who enrolled in choice districts needed special education services. The 10 choice students were all accommodated in the choice districts. Of the eight choice districts that enrolled choice students for the 2000-2001 school year, only five enrolled students with special education needs, and there were no more than two students with special education needs enrolled in any one choice district. Of the 96 choice students, only two have been identified as in need of special education services subsequent to their enrollment in a choice district. One example is in Washington Township, where, because of the small class size, staff was able to identify that a student needed special attention early in grade one.

The choice student demographics are a reflection of the choices made by parents. The main focus of the school choice program is parental choice. The program puts decision-making in the hands of the parents who are given the opportunity to choose a different school or to choose to remain in the district of residence. No district can choose to send any particular student to a choice district and no choice district can choose to enroll any one particular student. The required random selection processes for both the sending and choice districts ensure a nondiscriminatory selection process. Furthermore, all choice districts are required to conduct a nondiscriminatory regionwide student recruitment process. This has been accomplished through practices such as the placement of ads in local newspapers, appearances on local cable shows, and the dissemination of flyers and brochures. In their outreach efforts, two choice districts with surrounding Latino communities disseminated flyers and brochures in Spanish. Thus, it is parental and student decision-making that influences choice student demographics which are not impacted by the student selection process. Although it is too early to draw any major conclusions, it appears that the demographics of choice students reasonably reflects the gender and race of the surrounding communities.

The current 11 choice districts are widely varied in district types. Figure 6 shows that there are five K-12 districts, two K-8 districts, one PreK-8, one PreK-12, one K-6 and one 9-12. There is one choice district in District Factor Group (DFG) A, three choice districts in DFG B, two choice districts in DFG CD, three choice districts in DFG DE, and two choice districts in DFG FG. The table in Appendix 1 provides information on the grade levels in which the choice districts have made seats available to choice students. Overall, 42 percent of the open seats in the 11 choice districts are at the grade nine level, 25 percent are in grade 10, 12 percent in grade six, five percent are in grade four, four percent are in grade eight, four percent are in grade seven, three percent are in grade five, two percent are in grade one, two percent are in grade two, and one percent are in grade three. One reason for the larger percentage of open seats at the upper grade levels is because both Englewood and Salem City have created new programs at grade levels nine and 10 and have made available a substantial number of seats at those grade levels. Also, three of the five K-12 choice districts have made seats available only in grades nine and 10, and the other two have made seats available at the grade-nine level.

Hoboken learned a valuable lesson regarding choice seat availability during the student application process for the 2000-2001 school year. Hoboken had made seats available in grades six and nine on the theory that since those are the starting grades for middle school and high school, that would be when students would be willing to switch schools. However, during the student application process for the 2000-2001 school year, Hoboken found that many parents would not enroll otherwise eligible students because they could not also enroll siblings at other grade levels. To address this, Hoboken made seats available in grades one through nine for the 2001-2002 school year, which helped greatly during the two-cycle student application process. As a result of this change, Hoboken has more than six times the number of choice students enrolled for the 2001-2002 school year. In the 2000-2001 school year the district enrolled three choice students, and for the 2001-2002 school year the district has enrolled 20 choice students.

To assist the first 10 choice districts during the first round of student applications, the Governor provided the districts with outreach funds to establish the required regionwide public information program and parent information center. [see N.J.S.A. 18A:36B-9; N.J.A.C. 6A:12-7.1(b) and (d)] The outreach funds were disbursed based on the size of the program in each choice district: $10,000 for each district with 100 or more available seats; $6,000 for each district with 50 or more but fewer than 100 available seats, and $4,000 for each district with fewer than 50 available seats. The department will provide outreach funds for the duration of the five-year pilot project. This will ensure that ample information is provided to eligible students and their parents concerning the fact that they now have additional choices for their educational setting.

The outreach funds enabled the first 10 choice districts to recruit students during the five-week window that was provided in the student application process for the 2000-2001 school year. Some choice districts were more successful than others in recruiting choice students in such a limited period of time. There are many reasons for this, including the location of the district, the surrounding communities, the potential sending districts, the effectiveness of the recruitment process, and the attractiveness of the district’s programs. The districts with small class size were able to attract the most students. Eight of the 10 choice districts have choice students enrolled for the 2000-2001 school year. The Englewood and Salem City choice districts do not have any enrolled choice students for the 2000-2001 school year, and Englewood has only one choice student enrolled for the 2001-2002 school year. This is due in part to the fact that both districts designed new programs to attract choice students. Englewood established new magnet academies, and Salem City established a new Pathways program. The first year of implementation of these programs in both districts was the 2000-2001 school year. Thus, it was difficult to attract students to a program that was not yet in existence in the districts during the student application process. Upper Freehold, which has an established agricultural program, was able to attract students because of the reputation of its program.

Both Salem City and Englewood have developed and implemented extensive outreach and recruitment plans. Englewood went out into the communities in all potential sending districts and made presentations regarding its school choice program. The district also contacted the guidance offices in all potential sending districts. Salem City produced a 10-minute video that was shown at many of the schools in the potential sending districts. These efforts, along with newspaper ads and articles, brochures and flyers, were all part of an overall effort to recruit students. Attached in Appendix 2 you will find brochures for the new programs in Englewood and Salem City. Both these districts must overcome other issues not related to the school choice program in order to attract new students. Department staff is working closely with the two districts to develop student recruitment strategies. Given time, the department expects these districts to attract more choice students.

Overall, the choice districts have had success with the school choice program, which has brought many benefits to their districts. The department holds three to four choice district meetings each year with the superintendents and staff of the choice districts and county office staff from the counties in which choice districts are located. At these meetings information is exchanged and issues are discussed. The collaboration among the choice districts and between the districts and the department has been an integral component in helping the program move forward. These meetings have proven to be very useful to the choice districts and to the department in assisting in implementation of the program, as discussed more fully in section F.

Choice students in attendance at choice districts for the 2000-2001 school year come from 27 different districts (see Appendix 1). A choice student’s district of residence is referred to as a sending district. A sending district has the option to limit its students’ participation in the school choice program. N.J.S.A. 18A:36B-7(b) allows a sending district to pass a resolution that limits the enrollment of its students in a choice district to a minimum of two percent per grade per year and/or seven percent of the total student body, or to a maximum of 10 percent per grade per year and/or 15 percent of the total student body. If a sending district passes a resolution with enrollment percentage limitations above the minimum amount, then it must be approved by the Commissioner based on criteria established in N.J.S.A. 18A:36B-7(b)3. Of the 27 sending districts, only 16 have passed enrollment limitation resolutions. Figure 7 shows that most sending districts that passed resolutions limited resident students’ enrollment in choice districts to two percent per grade per year.

Slightly more than half of the sending districts have passed enrollment limitation resolutions. This demonstrates that some sending districts are not concerned that the school choice program will have a negative impact on their districts. This could be because sending districts receive impact aid for each resident student enrolled in choice districts as choice students. In year one, the participating sending districts will receive 75 percent of the normal weighted core curriculum standards aid for each resident student enrolled in a choice district as a choice student, in year two 50 percent, and in year three 25 percent. The superintendent of Winfield, a sending district to Kenilworth, wrote this about the school choice program, "That program has proved to be a tremendous financial advantage to a small district like Winfield."

One of the purposes of the school choice program is "…to enhance efficiency by allowing a redistribution of students where some districts are overcrowded and others are under-enrolled." [see N.J.A.C. 6A:12-1.1] It appears that the school choice program is fulfilling this purpose. Sending districts that are overcrowded are not concerned with a negative impact from the school choice program. The superintendent of Phillipsburg, a sending district to Bloomsbury, said that the 11 Phillipsburg students who attended Bloomsbury in 2000-2001 represent such a small percentage of the district’s 3,300 students that the effects on Phillipsburg will be minimal. The superintendent of the Folsom choice district, said, "for the most part, the sending districts have been very cooperative, mostly because the school choice program is helping to relieve overcrowding problems."

The department has assisted sending districts through the provision of written information and presentations at county superintendent roundtable meetings. Department staff has been responsive to all sending district inquiries. These efforts and the provision of impact aid helped to limit any possible negative impact on sending districts. Based on the fact that not all sending districts have adopted enrollment limitation resolutions, it appears that such resolutions may not be necessary to limit a negative impact on sending districts. In fact, two sending districts have rescinded their resolutions.

The 2000-2001 school year was the first year of implementation of the school choice program. The department assigned two professionals to work full-time on the program and to report directly to the Assistant Commissioner of Information & Management Services. The unit is responsible for the development, administration, evaluation and refinement of the school choice program. The unit works with staff of the Joint Committee on the Public Schools in evaluation of the program and drafting of legislative amendments. The unit also prepares amendments to administrative code as necessary. The unit develops the application used by districts interested in becoming choice districts and oversees the selection of choice districts, the administration of the local school choice programs, and the ongoing refinement of the program to meet student, parent, and district needs. The unit has taken a collaborative approach to implementation of the school choice program and has established a strong working relationship with each choice district.

The unit collaborates with the choice districts. Three to four times a year, a choice district meeting is held to discuss the school choice program. One of the purposes of the meetings is to brainstorm issues related to the school choice program. The department’s collaborative approach has resulted in improvements to the school choice program. One example of the benefits of this collaborative approach is the improvement in the student application process. At one of the first choice district meetings, several of the choice district superintendents made suggestions related to the student application process. One suggestion was that the student application process should be extended from the fall to the spring because many parents aren’t focused on the following school year in the fall. Another suggestion was that the fall application timelines should be extended from October to November to give both parents and choice districts more time before the first application deadline. The department was able to address these suggestions when the State Board of Education amended the school choice program regulations. The first step in the student application process was moved back from October to November, and a two-cycle student application process was established. The first cycle is in the fall and the second cycle is in the spring. These new approaches developed in response to concerns expressed by choice district superintendents made a substantial difference in the second year of student recruitment.

The unit works closely with each choice district to assist in implementation of the school choice program in each district. It assists in the development of choice district student recruitment and public information campaigns by attending open houses and assisting in the dissemination of materials. It develops and maintains a school choice web page that provides extensive information on the school choice program.

The unit also assists and responds to sending district and parent inquiries. Many calls are fielded from parents who are interested in learning about their options when it comes to the education of their children. Some parents are surprised at the lack of options, especially since many are not given an option under the school choice program because of the small size of the pilot. Department staff has presented information regarding the role of sending districts in the school choice program at county superintendent roundtables and is available to answer any questions. The unit also assists districts interested in becoming choice districts through presentations at board of education meetings or meetings with the superintendents.

Choice districts have been very successful in this first year of implementation. All choice districts have established excellent public outreach campaigns. Student recruitment in all of the choice districts has resulted in an increase in choice student enrollment. The choice districts have also successfully integrated the choice students into their student body. Choice students and their parents are invited to school functions even before the students are in attendance. Choice districts have also been extremely cooperative in providing the department with the necessary data for program evaluation.

Districts have responded to choice district status by developing new programs. In Englewood and Salem City, where there are no choice students yet, the resident students have already benefited from the new programs developed as a result of the districts’ choice status and offered in those districts. In Salem City, the teachers welcomed the opportunity to play an integral role in the design of the new programs and are enthusiastic supporters of the school choice program in that district. Their enthusiasm spills into their classrooms benefiting the resident students. With its new programs, Salem City was able to lure back resident students enrolled in other districts. The aid generated by these students has already paid the salary for the teacher of the new Performance Dance Pathways.

One of the theories behind the school choice reform initiative is that when parents have an educational choice, there will be constructive competition among districts. The theory holds that once competition is introduced into a public school system, it will also spur districts other than choice districts to improve programs, which will have an ultimate benefit for all students. This theory has proved true here in New Jersey in Salem County. Even though there are no choice students in Salem City, the competition has already benefited students attending two districts in that county. Salem City resident students benefit from the new Pathways program created to attract choice students. In competition with Salem City’s new programs, Salem County Vocational School District created similar programs to attract Salem County students. Thus, students in both Salem City and in the Salem County Vocational School District have benefited from the competition created by the school choice program, and, overall, Salem County students have benefited.

Other choice districts expanded or improved their program offerings. These program improvements have affected, for the most part, the entire choice district, not just the grade levels opened up to choice students. Kenilworth expanded the Reading Recovery program from a half-day to two full days. That program is in the elementary school and Kenilworth has choice seats available only in the high school. Mine Hill improved its science program through the addition of a full-time science teacher. Bloomsbury improved its health and speech programs through additional staff instructional hours. Cumberland Regional purchased supplies and equipment for its agricultural program and renovated its greenhouse.

Many choice districts were able to improve the technology in the district. Bloomsbury and Kenilworth purchased new classroom computers. As part of the new program development to attract choice students, Salem City installed a new interactive video distance learning classroom. Kenilworth added a computer technician. Cumberland Regional purchased additional equipment to maintain and upgrade current technology.

This first year of implementation has shown that the school choice program has helped to reduce class size. School choice aid enabled the Kenilworth choice district to reduce the class size of the sixth grade by adding an additional section. Sixth-grade students benefited, even though Kenilworth made seats available in grades seven through 10 and no choice seats were made available at the sixth grade level. Mine Hill reduced class size at the fourth-grade level because school choice aid enabled the district to hire an additional teacher. The superintendent of the Folsom choice district noted, "Through the addition of a first grade teacher, we were able to keep the class size of the first grade to under 20."

Although skeptical at first, most teachers in the choice districts now fully support the school choice program. A Kenilworth teacher, said, "At first, I was anxious about the school choice program, but now, after having choice students in class, I think it is a great program that has only benefited the district."

The school choice program has benefited teachers and staff in the choice districts. Many of the choice districts were able to hire additional teachers and staff members. Salem City hired a performance dance teacher. Kenilworth hired a music teacher. Mine Hill hired a full-time fourth grade teacher, a full-time science teacher, and a full-time custodian. In Upper Freehold Regional, a high school staff position was saved and a middle school staff position was added. Folsom added a first grade teacher. A teacher’s job was saved in Washington Township, which used school choice aid to save the position of its physical education teacher.

Teachers also benefited in choice districts that were able to reduce class size. Teachers benefited from more focus on professional development such as in Cumberland Regional, which increased its staff development offerings. Choice district staff benefited in Bloomsbury, which added a day to the guidance counselor’s schedule and added hours to the nurse’s schedule.

While we are only in the first year of implementation of the school choice program, it appears that the program has brought tax relief to some of New Jersey’s taxpayers. The communities of some of the choice districts have benefited from the districts’ involvement in the school choice program. Folsom was facing a tax increase of over 25 cents. School choice aid enabled them to reduce the proposed tax increase to five cents. School choice aid replaced lost state aid in Bloomsbury, thus ensuring no tax increase for that community.

The school choice program has also increased the communities’ interest and involvement in local education. For instance, in districts considering choice status, there are more than the usual numbers of community members in attendance at school board meetings. In choice districts, the communities have shown an increased interest in what is going on in the school district.

The Interdistrict Public School Choice Act of 1999 established provisions to ensure that the school choice program does not interfere with the balance of any district’s student population diversity. The act defines "student population diversity" as the ethnic, racial, economic, and geographic diversity of a district’s student population. [see N.J.S.A. 18A:36B-4(b)] Based on the first year of implementation of the school choice program, it appears there has not been any interference with the balance of any choice district’s student population diversity. In some choice districts, such as in Kenilworth and Mine Hill, the choice students actually increased the student population diversity. The superintendent of the Kenilworth choice district said, "The school choice program has increased the richness of our schools."

It also appears that there has been no interference with the balance of the student population diversity in any sending district participating in the school choice program. There are many reasons for this. First, choice districts open up a limited number of seats, and students apply from many different sending districts. Around four to five students on average come from any one sending district, and those students compete for the limited seats in the choice districts with students from other sending districts. Also, some sending districts have limited the number of resident students who can participate in the school choice program. Thus, the number of students from any one sending district is such a small percentage of the sending district’s total student population that any impact is negligible. For example, for the 2000-2001 school year, 11 choice students came from Phillipsburg, the largest number of choice students from any one district. Given the fact that the district’s total student population averages 3,300, 11 choice students would have no impact on the district’s racial balance. Furthermore, those students ultimately selected to be choice students will not necessarily be from the same ethnic group. Also, in some of the choice districts, the communities surrounding the districts have the same ethnic, racial, economic and geographic diversity. Superintendents in those choice districts report that the choice students are similar to the choice districts’ resident students. For these districts, there is no impact on the student population diversity in either the choice districts or the sending districts.

During this first year of implementation of the school choice program, it appears that there has been no significant impact on the transportation programs of the choice districts that enrolled choice students. Choice districts are required to provide transportation to eligible choice students, and they receive transportation aid for each enrolled choice student. Most choice districts accept student applicants from a 20-mile radius. Only two choice districts, Folsom and Cumberland Regional, accept student applicants from beyond a 20-mile radius. Of the eight choice districts with enrolled choice students in the 2000-2001 school year, four provide bus routes for their choice students and four provide aid in lieu of transportation. All choice district superintendents agree that the amount of administrative time it takes to oversee the transportation of choice students is negligible. However, a few of the choice district superintendents expect this to change as the districts enroll additional choice students in the coming years.

The transportation of choice students is not a big issue in the choice districts. In Kenilworth, a choice district that provides bus routes for choice students, the biggest issue was that the district established one bus stop in each town, which was done for efficiency purposes. Initially, the parents of choice students were not totally satisfied with that arrangement. However, after they realized the expense of door-to-door transportation, they all agreed with the approach the district had taken. In Folsom, another choice district that provides bus routes, the choice students were accommodated on the routes already established in the district. However, in future years, the district may have to establish an additional route for the choice students.

Even though it is early in implementation, it appears that the program overall has significantly benefited not only choice students, but resident students, the community, teachers, staff, programs, and facilities in the choice districts. The superintendent of the Cumberland Regional choice district, stated "Our participation in the school choice program will benefit our overall program in the delivery of the Core Curriculum Content Standards. School choice aid will allow us to increase program offerings and reduce class size."

Although it is far too early to draw conclusions, after the first year of implementation of the school choice program, it appears that the program has been effective in increasing educational opportunities for students and parents in the communities surrounding choice districts. The program has also been effective in helping choice districts to improve or increase educational program offerings, reduce class size, lower the local property tax burden, hire teachers, and purchase technology equipment. The program has also helped to reduce the enrollment in overcrowded districts while assisting under-enrolled districts.

The school choice program was designed to be a small, limited, controlled pilot project to test whether interdistrict public school choice is an educational reform initiative that would work in New Jersey. As such, it has begun on an expected small scale with 96 choice students enrolled in 8 choice districts for the 2000-2001 school year. The choice student attendance numbers for the first year are low because of the truncated application timelines that took place over the winter holidays. The new two-cycle student application process, excellent choice district recruitment campaigns and the promotion of the program by choice students and parents all helped to increase student enrollment dramatically. The number of new choice students doubled for the 2001-2002 school year and the total number of choice students tripled, thus demonstrating the success of the first year of the program.

An additional choice district has been added for a total of 11 choice districts, and the department expects to approve an additional two choice districts for the third year of the program. However, it is possible that there will not be 21 choice districts because there are some counties where the student population is growing in every district. This will further limit the size of an already small pilot test.

The school choice program is a program that gives parents a choice. Parents decide whether they want to participate in the program. Participating districts cannot select the students that participate in the program, and choice districts must conduct an unbiased student recruitment process. In that context, although the number of enrolled students is small and it is too early to reach conclusions, it appears that, generally, the demographics of the choice students reasonably reflect the gender and race of the surrounding communities, and the diversity of the student bodies in the participating districts has remained balanced.

It appears that the funding for the program has benefited both choice and sending districts. Impact aid and enrollment limitation resolutions have mitigated any negative effects on sending districts. School choice aid has benefited choice district communities, resident students, teachers, and choice students.

It appears that a benefit of the school choice program has been its impact on program development and improvement. Many choice districts have created new programs or improved existing ones. Resident students of the choice districts are benefiting from the improvements choice districts are making to their programs. One district that is not a choice district has also created new programs in response to the approval of a choice district in the county. It also appears that the school choice program has enabled choice districts to reduce class size.

Choice district superintendents and participating parents and students are extremely enthusiastic. Choice districts are working very hard to offer the best programs to choice students and resident students. Choice parents are grateful for the opportunity to send their children to an educational setting of their choice. Choice students are also grateful to attend the choice districts and are easily integrated into the resident student body. Overall, with its small beginning, which was by design, the school choice program has been effective in the first year of implementation in increasing educational opportunities in the public school system without disrupting that system.

Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Legal Statement | Accessibility Statement