Many parents have long complained about the policy, pointing out that some families face transportation difficulties—in addition to concerns about maintaining a place in their local community—when they are not assigned to one of their top choice schools.

A few of the candidates have deeper criticisms of the program, contending that controlled choice has largely failed to achieve its fundamental purpose.

“The current controlled choice policy has not desegregated Cambridge elementary schools,” Grassi said. “We have schools that are racially and socio-economically imbalanced far beyond system-wide averages and approved variances within the policy.”

Because Cambridge’s controlled choice system allows students to apply to transfer schools—and because certain schools have special programs that make them disproportionately popular—some classrooms inevitably end up imbalanced. This resulting lack of diversity, Grassi said, is partly to blame for the city-wide achievement gap.

To solve this problem, Nolan has proposed to open up more places at the most sought-after schools and to incorporate “new models for under-chosen schools to attract more families.”

Turkel suggested a similar strategy, emphasizing that “the school system must become more responsive to parent/guardian desires.”

Most of the candidates agreed that the new committee needs to reexamine the entire controlled choice process, including the algorithm itself.

But Fantini, a current committee member, said he believes that the plan can be “sustained” without significant modifications.

BUDGET

Especially in the current economic climate, the district’s budget has also emerged as a primary area of focus for the prospective school committee members.

Cambridge’s spending per pupil is unusually high, but its standardized testing scores remain low—a contrast that has prompted many of the candidates to question whether the district has been utilizing its resources wisely.

In the 2006-07 school year, Cambridge allotted $24,467 to each student, according to the Massachusetts Department of Education. On average, surrounding districts—such as Boston and Newton—spent about $10,000 less per student.

Tauber, who co-chaired the district’s budget committee last year, said that she believes this spending needs extensive review.

“We need to formally evaluate our programs to determine their continued funding,” she said.

Harding, who could not be reached for comment, wrote on his Web site that the district needs to reallocate its funding to improve math and science programs at all levels.