In 2008, McKinney ISD compiled a list of districts that used Socio-Economic as evidence that the policy was wide spread, active and successful.
Wake County Public School System (North Carolina) – abandoned the policy in 2010 in spite of protests from national activist groups. Wake County has experienced high growth, using school proximity with “little drama” to determine attendance zones. Socio-Economic policy is gone.
Cambridge Public Schools (Massachusetts ) – this district with only about 6,000 students and a single high school adopted the “Controlled Choice Policy” to allow parents a 1st, 2nd and 3rd choice in March 2007. Socio-Economic policy is replaced with Choice.
School District of LaCrosse (Wisconsin) – instituted a parental choice system, noting “that ‘one size does not fit all’ when it comes to education, the District provides both traditional, neighborhood school options as well as several choice programs and charter schools.” Socio-Economic policy is gone.
Berkeley Public School (California) – Dude, it is like Berkeley, of course the Socio-Economic policy lives.
Brandywine Public School District (Delaware) – has a school choice program. No socio-economic policy.
Manatee Public Schools (Florida) – always used school choice, not socio-economics. “The expansion of Choice at the elementary level for the 2000/2001 school year piloted three major initiatives. The Choice process was used to populate the district’s first three magnet schools. Transportation was provided to elementary students seeking choice within a designated Cluster Area to reduce mobility rates. No socio-economic policy.
Minneapolis Public Schools (Minnesota) – no evidence of a Socio-Economic student redistribution plan. No socio-economic policy.
Omaha Public Schools (Nebraska) – continues to use Socio-Economic busing, although is is getting greater scrutiny, as the board president notes “the district needs to look closely at whether transportation is the best place to spend the district’s money” and “True diversity comes from a great education.” Socio-economic policy is alive, but threatened.
Rochester Public Schools (New York) – although RPS was earmarked to receive grant money from the state of New York, they note “District is demonstrating that high levels of learning and growth do not have to be tied to race and income in contrast to some beliefs in our schools and community regarding race, ethnicity and socio-economics.” No socio-economic policy.
San Francisco Unified School District (California) – no student busing. Students are required to utilize public transit. No socio-economic policy.