ERIC ED463928: Academic, Socioeconomic and Transportation Correlates in a Rural Public School Voucher System.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the 1997-98 school year, the town school boards of rural Rutland County, Vermont, established a regional school choice collaborative. Key program features were limits on the number of choice students from each school; no exchange of money between school boards; a lottery to determine admission at schools with excess applicants; parent/student responsibility for student transportation; and provisions related to special education, athletics, and disciplinary issues. In view of current efforts in the Vermont legislature toward expanding school choice, this paper reports on the first 4 years of the Rutland program. Surveys were completed by 60 of the 63 school-choice students, who comprised about 2 percent of eligible students. About three quarters of respondents transferred from smaller to larger schools, and two thirds moved toward a school in the region's center. No competitive improvement effects were found for either the schools or the students in the program. The relationship between school quality (test scores) and popularity of choice was weak. Student reasons for transferring were about evenly distributed among attraction to new school, dislike of old school, and social factors. Almost all students were satisfied with the change, but their average grades (low B or high C) were unchanged. Students tended to choose schools in areas of higher income. Other than satisfaction, the program produced no benefits and, if the money followed the child, would threaten the existence of several small high schools. (Contains 16 endnotes and the student questionnaire.) (SV)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.567 | 0.043 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".