This study examined how eight rural, high-impact Minnesota school districts (defined as those losing or gaining a high percentage of student population due to school-choice implementation in fiscal year 1995) responded to school choice policy. Data from semistructured interviews with each district's superintendent were sorted and analyzed. In each case, financial shifts in revenue due to school choice have substantially affected programs, staffing, and resources. High-loss districts reported increased class sizes, elimination of specific academic programs, and cuts in extracurricular offerings. High-gain districts were able to decrease class size, expand field trips and curricula, and equip schools with the latest technology. Also, high-loss districts have shouldered proportionally more special-education costs, leaving less money available for regular programs. Some parents use the threat of school choice transfer as a bargaining chip in power struggles. Open enrollment opens schools to harsher criticism. Some superintendents view neighboring district heads as rivals, not colleagues. Choice, a "fait accompli," seems a nonissue for tenured teachers. The requirements of a voluntary free-exchange system or competitive market model may not conform with the reality of school choice policy as implemented in Minnesota. (12 references) (MLH)