.rcx. Pathways/ Response for Student Assignment in the Rochester City School District SECOND DRAFT 01.22.2018 Submitted by: Dr. Corliss Kaiser, PLC Associates, Inc. Dr. Timothy O?Neill, Western New York Educational Service CoLIncil SECTION 1 I. Introduction The Rochester Board of Education (?Board") through ResolutIon No. 2.016..- 17. 427 Resolution No 2016- 17: 504 and Resolution No. 2016?17 899, among other things requested the administration to review processes, protocols, and policy regarding student assignment and school improvement. PLC Associates and the Western New York Educational Council collaborated with the administration to reVIew the present Parent Preference/Managed Choice Policy No. 5153 and to prowde feedback on recommended options. Policy 5153 governs the assignment of students The pollcy was developed as a result of the 2001 Parent Preference/Managed Choice Plan by Mr MIchael Alves and Dr. Charles Willie (2001). The initial ?Parent Preference/Managed ChOIce Plan? by Alves and Willie and a follow-up ?Review of the RCSD.5 School ChoiCe ASSIgnment Policy? report by Alves in 2014 have been reviewed and are dIscussed herein. AddItIonally, two interviews were held with Mr. Alves to review questIons about the Parent Preference/Managed Choice Plan dated December 2001 and to gath'eVTV-hls thoughts on the present status of the Plan in the Rochester City School DIstrIct (RCSD) .-A Synopsis of the interviews is provided herein. II.. Backgro The Rochester City School District Board of Education requested a comprehensive analysis of enrollment trends, demographics, managed choice, feeder patterns, placement zones neighborhood schools and regional schools as summarized through the following resolutions: A. Resolution No. 2016?17:427 The Board requests a current assessment of: 0 Facilities capacities and elementary zone capacities; - Comprehensive educational needs related to building capacities; and A summary of anticipated impacts; and Recommended changes to each District School and free standing alternative school program B. Resolution No. 2016-17: 504 The Board requests: . Feedback on processes, protocols, and policy regarding student assignment and school improvement which specifically address Managed Choice recommendations on registration, enrollment, and transportation as they relate to poverty, Zone disparity, school choice. Examination of elementary educational needs related to building capacities and summarization of impacts and recommended changes to each school and alternative school. - C. Resolution No. 2016-17: 899 Resolution No. 2016-17:899 amends Resolution No. 2016-17342? in relevant part, to include exploration of possible regional schools, as envisioned by Great SChools for All coalition (see GS4A Report attached) and the impact that a regIonaI school (or several regional schools) might have on the District? 5 existing facility and zone capaCIty A. Historical Context In 1996, the Rochester City SchoOI. Board appomted a Schools of Choice Committee, made up of District staff, parents and communIty members to study Controlled Choice. The report representing this commIttee 5 work was received by the Board of Education in August 1997. In February 2000, the Board of Education took up direct exploration of Controlled Choice by convening a committee Of Tour (4) Board members. This Parent Preference Team formed a set of tentative agreements around which parents could make their desires for elementary student placement knewn mm to student assignment. In January 2001, the Board of Education voted unanlmously to embrace the concept that parents should choose the public school that' IS best smted for the educatIon of their child? and endorsed five fundamentals of Managed Choice: a All schools should be available to all students via preference selection; 0 Commitment to continuous improvement of all public schools and programs, - Commitment to provide sufficient and timely information and advice to parents; - A Fair and impartial school selection and assignment process; and 0 Continuous monitoring, evaluation, and improvement of the preference plan. The Board also directed the Superintendent to convene a planning team to help design a Parent Preference student assignment plan for elementary schools, and to present such a plan to the Board of Education. The policy was arrived at following the analysis of financial and 2 a administrative data compiled by the planning team, numerous conversations with professional educators, parents, and community members, and expert experience and observations. B. Charge of Parent preference/Managed Choice Policy No. 5153 The current Parent preference/Managed Choice Policy No. 5153 (attached as Appendix I: Policy 5153) promotes technical assistance and school improvement initiatives to improve the lowest achieving and least chosen schools in order to provide all students equal access to high quality educational opportunities. The Policy also endorses and directs implementation of three Student Attendance Zones. The zone model is predicated on establishing: Parent Information and Student Registration Centers in each of the three attendance zones; 0 A District- wide standard to determine the most educationally efficient and effective use of all elementary school facilities, A school assignment system that allows parent choice of students, assignment by rank order of preference within their respectIve Student Attendance Zone; - - Student assignments by computerized lottery ranked by sibling preference, proximity preference for 60% of avallable seats and socioeconomic fairness guidelines determined by Free and. Reduced Lunch ratios at each school Mandatory Assignments - Walk?in assignments based on avaIIable seats and Free and Reduced Lunch ratio Students remain in current schools untIl they complete the terminal grade Transfer options occurring at the time of assignment lottery or by September 30 of the school year - The practice of permIttIng only one school transfer during the school year and no voluntary transfer after September 30 City-wide schools that recrUIt students from each zone so that no student IS denied access because of where they live, i. e. proportionate access The opportunlty for parents of Special Education and Limited English Proficiency students to place their children in schools best suited to each child? 5 needs within Attendance Zones SuffICIent capacrty In each zone to accommodate the needs of Special Education and i rd EnglIsh Proficiency not enrolled In City-wide classes All" one School improvement and Visiting Committee for each of the three zones to monitor and publicly report on the schools at least annually including recommendations for low performing and underutilized schools and addressing ?V'Viihether each zone has a similar range of quality educational services as other zones iv. proposed Elementary School Parent Preference/Managed Choice Plan for the Rochester City School District? In 2000, the Rochester City School District connected with Mr. Michael Alves and Dr. Charles Willie to review student assignment practices. Alves and Willie conducted a demographic analysis of the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic characteristics of residential neighborhoods, assessed 3'93-33 the feasibility of reorganizing home-school attendance zones, reviewed existing facilities to discover ways to reduce overcrowding and underutilization, reviewed parent services, and consulted with transportation officials to determine length of bus trips. Their findings revealed that the average in student achievement scores tended to be negatively impacted by schools that are racially and/or socioeconomically isolated. These pertain to 80 percent or more of the student body consisting of low income students or students of color. It was recommended that programs be designed to attract socioeconomically diverse students to all schools. As a basis for their work, Alves and Willie used studies from another urban distribt where a Controlled Choice student assignment plan was implemented' In 1989. in that plan students were free to choose their schools and it was found that parents were moi'e likely to choose a school based on its quality, as opposed to its distance from the parents? home. Seventy percent of students chose to be transported to more attractive schools. Enrollment fairness guidelines were recommended to overcome the h'arrnfUI effects of racial and socioeconomic isolation. ln schools where there was racial and socioeconomic diversity, there were higher achievement scores than other schools. Th usfiit was7recommended that enrollment fairness guidelines designed to allow access to all District elementary schools be made available to all students -- - A. Diversified Learning Environments Alves and Willie used School?? No 14 as an example of the effects of diversified learning environments on student achIevement In RCSD Diversity was described as gender, race, ethnic, and socioeconomic heterogenelty Added to these items influencing student achievement were curriculum, multIple neighborhoods of Student recruitment, leadership styles and general culture. A majority of foucth grade students scored at levels 3 and 4 on the State Language Arts assessment placmg it in the top quintile of achievement scores among Rochester? 5 elementary schools Many features Set School No.14 apart. These characteristics included in addition to leadershIp and curriculum extended day activities, vacation and summer programs, inclusion opportunItIes for specral needs students, and language enrichment programs for students whose native language was nOt English. Furthermore, School No.14 offered outstanding music and art programs. The populatlon at School #14 included only 45 percent of students' In the home school attendance area, while55 percent came from other attendance areas. Alves and Willie concluded that these characterIstIcs should be considered' In achieving diversity within any school?s student body and that any school can become attractive regardless of location. it appeared that nearness of a school to its families was not nearly as important as the quality of education the school offers. B. Student Assignment Policy While the Rochester policy at the time indicated that elementary students were to attend a "neighborhood? school, Alves and Willie found that only 59 percent of the District?s elementary 4IPega students were enrolled in their home school. Three significant findings were cited in this regard: A student?s family income was having little effect on whether students did or did not attend their home school; There was no significant difference in the home school and non-home school enrollment patterns of African?American and white students; and The policy at the time of the study was not particularly effective for students who needed bilingual and special education services C. Transportation It was found that bus routes were disproportionately long and time consuming because of where students lived and where they attended schools. Further, it was noted that the qssue of students transferring into and out of schools throughout the school year had- caused a myriad of routing problems that had an adverse impact on both transportatiort costs and student travel times. Thus, the cost effectiveness of the District? 5 then home school attendance pollcy suggested the need for a student assignment plan to reduce unnecessary student transportation costs. D. Home School Attendance Area Boundaries, Over the years home school attendance boundaries" were altered numerous times to address overcrowding and to reassign students because of scho0l closings and new school construction. ?Data suggested that boundaries were changed less often In the more affluent and less populated ?areas, while home schools with the largest reSident Student populations were located' In the most densely populated and poverty Impacted areas in the City. These findings called into question the viability and stability of the; DIstrIct home School attendance policy. E. Structural Displacement Not all students were. able to attend home schools under the then existing assignment policy due to space conSIderatIons About half of the home schools did not have sufficient capacity to seat at least 1,500 students Enqrc?illm??ntf??irness Guidelines To prevent the development of racially and socioeconomically isolated schools that may contribute to low student achievement, enrollment fairness guidelines were considered essential to the plan. Data collected by Alves and Willie (among other findings) indicated that nineteen of the twenty?one racially isolated elementary schools in Rochester were at or below the City-wide mean of 41.9 achievement at Levels 3 and 4 on the New York State fourth grade English Language Arts assessments. They felt compelled to look at ways to increase the number of diversified schools that served a diverse population of students. G. Elementary School Operating Capacities and Available Seats It was recommended that the District establish a standard for determining the most educationally efficient and effective use of elementary school facilities? either District-wide or by zone. In addition, an instructional capacity for each zone school was recommended that followed established criteria. Basically, each zone school was to have sufficient capacity (seat and instructional) to accommodate all of its regular, bilingual, and special education students at each level. A computerized lottery was suggested and developed to assign elementary students to zone schools of choice with the following priorities taken into account: - Siblings 0 Proximity - Socioeconomic fairness guidelines The lottery was to be used by the Parent Action Centers when students applied for early kindergarten assignments and when a school had more transfer applitants than available seats. Families were to select their top choices of schools. More specific information regarding the criteria for school choice are contained in the initial Alves recommendations attached (pp. 48- 53). in order to provide sufficient capacity to actommodate the instructional needs of special education students, schools were to reserve a percentage of special education seats proportionate to the zone? 5 speCIal education average. it was expected that parents of students with special needs be allowed the same as general education students, to choose a school best suited to their children? 5 needs WithIn theIr respective stUdent attendance zones. The same applied to Limited English Pro?cient- students- each zone was to provide enough ESL classes to accommodate LEP students H. Alves The primary recommendatlon was to subdivide the District into three zones consisting of a similar range of- elementary schools available by choice to students residing within the following areas: *9 Zone A student attendance located? In the northwestern area of the City -Zone?l?_5 loCated In the southwestern and southeastern area of the City - Zane; located in the northeastern area of the City Additional recommendations included a School Development Fund created to help finance innovative strategies to reduce concentrations of low achieving students and Parent Action Centers established in each zone to ensure that all student and assignment transactions were made in accordance with the plan?s enrollment fairness guidelines. Zone School Improvement and School Visiting Councils were recommended to provide oversight and encourage school improvement. These recommendations were considered in the design of the Parent Preference/Managed Choice Plan adopted by the RCSD Board of Education in 2002. V. Follow up: Review of the RCSD School Choice Assignment Policy in 2014, Michael J. Alves (Alves Educational Consulting) was commissioned by Dr. Bolgen Vargas to examine the implementation of the RCSD School Choice Assignment policy. As a result, all elementary, middle and high schools were included in the policy. Elementary ?home schools? were consolidated into three demographically equivalent Student Attendance Zones, and all middle and high schools became City-wide or inter-zone schoolslof choice. Factors driving the attendance zones included over 40 percent of elementary Students not being"'enrolled in their home schools and home schools being unable to accommodate all the Students living In their neighborhood catchment areas, while more affluent neighborhoods had Sufficient capacity. - 2004-2005 Plan begins with the creation of Northeast, NorthweSt and South Zones - 2007? 2008 Zone registratidn centers replaced by a single City? ?wide Center near Central Office. Reason for this was budgetary. 2013- 2014 the site moved to Central Off-ice and managed by the Office of Student Placement and Equity. The Central Office site was believed to be working-well, asparents had access to the registration process, in addition to staff that couldassist in the appropriate placement of students with disabilities and language assessment-?pf English Language Learners. Another effective element was the development of the ManagedgChoice: Lottery algorithm. It was determined at the time of the Alves report that the paper a'piplfiCatjon ptocess should be replaced by an online system. In 2014, there were eight-charter sChopls admitting students through a ?random lottery.? Charter schools? enrollment indicated that only (SI-percent of students were classified as Limited English Proficient and only 4 percent Special needs, in contrast to K- 8 enrollment with 15 percent LEP and 16 percent special needs. This strongly suggested that the charter schools were attracting K- Sregularlreducatlon population. The: intent'oftthejChoice Plan was to provide the District with an equitable framework for assigning student's andpromoting school improvement. There was little documentation that the Plan and consistently monitored. Zone School'linprovement and School Visiting Councils were to monitor the implementation of the Choice Plan and provide reports annually for each Zone. There was little evidence that the Choice Plan had been used to foster school improvement. Reports were generated annually by the Alves Group from 2004-2009. These reports identified the most and least attractive schools of Choice and were provided to the Student Placement Office. It was unclear whether the reports were provided to the Board or utilized by the Superintendent to inform school improvement efforts. 7 Paee in 2014, the District was using the Parent Preference/Managed Choice Lottery?s Controlled Choice assignment algorithm and was assigning the majority of students to their parents? preferred schools. However, it was found that there was a need for the IT Department and Office of Student Placement to make the Choice Plan more transparent and understandable/usable by parents and in multiple languages/formats. The Alves Report reflected the opinion that transparency of the process was key to equitable choice and school improvement. . VI. Alves Interviews November/December 2017 Two telephone interviews were conducted with Mr. Michael Alves in November and December 2017. Seven questions were posed to Mr. Alves: How did the current policy come about? 7 . What is the current state versus the (managed choice ideal/actual)? - Is it being implemented according to plan? Are there any barriers, exceptions orchallenges? 0 Does it make sense now? Why? .. a Are there other options? Whatsare they?? 0 Can the present policy be revised and how? . Are there any recommendations? Mr. Alves observed thatthe District was" highly segregated at the time he was initially contacted. Some schools were heajv?il?yrcrowded*whil? some were underutilized. Many students were not in their attendance arg??xhodls The administration, at the time, felt that Managed Choice made sense. Mr. Alves was-asked to doan analysis to find out how Managed Choice could be utilized. He and Dr. given access to necessary District data to complete the analysis. Based on {headateliernlfa'lyze'd; a Managed Choice Plan was developed for the District. It called for three attendance zoneseach having a Parent information Center and School Improvement Visiting CounCIlThe Plan called for the District to use a software system to provide choices to stud-(ants. Managed Choice also was to be used to identify attractive and non-attractive schools. Over time, Councils were to improve the quality of the non-attractive schools. The Plan was _d__?vised to provide choice to students within attendance zones, reduce the amount of busing and gradually improve unattractive schools. According to Alves, the Plan was being implemented from 2002-2008 and progress was beginning; however, oversight of the Plan was discontinued. Consequently, there was no reporting and little to no transparency. After that time, Alves observed that the Plan was not being followed and the issues that drove the adoption of the Plan resurfaced. Primarily, he found no evidence that the Plan was used to drive school improvement and that Parent Centers had been discontinued in favor of a central location in the District Office. The Plan was supposed to also have helped parents to better understand how to :1 8 I 5? 3: U131 apply for schools of their choice. if the School improvement Councils had been used, they would have ?jump-started? school improvement by replicating attractive schools and cut down on transportation costs. Alves further stated that the Managed Choice plan was to continue to bring about equity by using a number of factors in placing students such as poverty, parent education level, single parent and siblings. According to Alves, bureaucratic influences caused the concept of equity to be implemented only ?mechanically." innovative approaches were not implemented. Mr. Alves stated that ?the District would have benefited by applying for Magnet Schools grants over the years. ?He said the District could have developed controlled choice magnets that would have improved City schools. He also cited ?too much change and bureaucracy" as reasons for lack of progress of the Plan. Alves went on to state that "it iS not too late, to take a fresh look" (at the Plan). According to Mr. Alves the Plan should be family?centered,. fair and practical. Further, he contends that a solid partnership with the City could further support a famiiyecentered approach. More City resources should be made available to help chIIdren and families. With regard to the transiency of families, Mr. Alva-sn'favored leaving students in their schools, when parents moved, until the end of the school year Parents must understand that the District needs to operate efficiently. Mr. Alves went on to state that seats for students with speCial needs should be available In all schools in an equitable fashion. There Should not be schools that are over-enrolled with either special needs or ENL students. ThIs underscores the need for all schools to become attractive for all students. Mr. Alves suggested that the Path Forward team should review the concept of Managed Choice as a framework to customlze an approach for student assignment and school improvement. He would begin with the present Policy, implementing with fidelity, but ?tweak? it by analyzing variables as necessary He recommended oversight be provided for school improvement by re? establishment of School improvement Visiting Councils and Parent Information and Registration Centers. He Stated the present issues could have been addressed, but the monitoring stopped. Leadership in his view, should look at updating the Policy with the information now available. AddItIonaily, leadershIp should be helped to better understand and implement a revised Policy. Specifically he suggested the Path Forward team should: Assess where it is, currently, with regard to student assignment and school improvement Review use of the formula for the lottery. Study best practices for school improvement Develop strong magnet schools Review current research. The multi-variate model identifies the children most at~risk and least at-risk by examining family income, education of parents, size of the family, number of adults in the family, disability, ENL, etc. 91322:?: Place the most vulnerable students in the most attractive schools Engage the community in conversation Develop a strong, family-centered partnership with the City. Benchmark districts such as: Wake County, Charleston, Charlotte Mecklenburg, Cambridge and White Plains SECTION 2 l. Recommended Pathways We recommend three Pathways be considered by the Board to improve the current approaches to student assignment and school improvement as follows: A. Pathway #1 Revised Managed Choice Review and revise the current Managed Choice Policy. Re?establish the relationship with Michael Alves to review the Policy and its fidelity to the initial Plan. Advantages: Providing every student with the opportUnity-to attend high quality schools in a zone in proximity to their homes is an advantage. A The revision of the current Policy would be less disruptive than implementing a new model. The Policy was working' In its initial phases and according to Mr. Alves, should be reviewed to improve current student assignment and school improvement practices. Controlled Choice is a natIonally recognIzed approach which is being successfully implemented' In several urban areas in the country. The current Policy, if updated to_:_fencompass current issues, would allow the District to replicate expand the number of seats available in schools parents are seekIng The PolIcy, if rewsed could change the current practice regarding student assignment family moves to a. different zone. This practice turns all schools into a City? ?wide draw thus affecting seat capacity and transportation. if the practice is changed to require students to change schools if the family moves outside the zone, it would' Improve the capacity and seat issues. Re evaluation of zone boundaries should better balance schools and allow parents more school choices closer to home. Re?establishing Parent Information and Registration Centers should help to stabilize transiency and help the District to become more family?centered. Re-establishing Visiting and School improvement Councils should provide the needed oversight of school improvement, thus increasing the number of attractive schools over time. Disadvantages: Students who experience housing instability may need to move between schools and zones The replication of attractive programs will have cost and space implications. The budget will need to be adjusted to reflect program needs. Parents may ?push back? because of changes in residency. Presently, students may stay in their current schools until their terminal grade is completed even if parents move. Response: Beginning with the Coleman Report (1966), a growing body of research indicates that school integration? by race and socioeconomic status is good for childreni? Using approaches such as Controlled Choice is helping to achieve socioeconomic Integration Leaders divergent backgrounds are promoting school integration to raise student achievement 0f disadvantaged students. On the post-secondary level, studies show that placing students in diverse college settings benefits all students, not just those from dIsadvantaged backgrounds. Students who are different from each other are exposed to novel ideas and challenges, leading to improved cognitive skills. in addition students can learn better how to navigate adulthood and prepare for employment' In a diverse society. Research is also emerging on the effects of socioeconomic integration in education. Studies find that diversity promotes deeper learning, critical thinking, and problem? ?solving skills, improves intergroup relatIonshIps as well as decreases behavioral issues. In summary, the benefits are cognitive, social and emotional Attending racially diverse and economically balanced schools benefits all stI'Idents and is associated with smaller test score gaps between differing racial and ecogomic backgrounds. Achieving socioeconomic Integratlon will be a challenging task for however, when compared to other optIons should bring the best results for students academically, socially and emotionally. it is crUCIal that the District work with the City, the community, and families to ensure success over. tIme The District and community must be patient as the Managed Choice policy Is reVIewed updated and implemented. A strong partnership with the City, establishment of parent participation, and consistent oversight of the process, is mandatory. To increase the number of attractive schools, the District is presently engaged in developing the Path ForWard to improve programs in the District. Here, again, oversight (educationally and financially), Is necessary. School by school and program by program, the District has the ability to move forward in developing a working student assignment policy, improved schools and stronger student achievement and social-emotional development. Grade Configurations: City- Wide Schools: Rationale: Provide families with. Action Required: B. Pathway Managed Choice some with neighborhood Zone features Recommendation: Controlled Choice with Neighborhood/Community Zone School Features Description: Student Assignment Elements Stability by. reducing the number of transitions and keeping families within the Provided priority access to neighborhood elementary schools Comprehensive Community High School(s) in each zone Access to City-wide elementary schools (lottery) Access to City wide high schools (lottery) Proportionate distribution of programs and services across the Neighborhood/Community Zone PreK-6 or prek?8 (pre- 5 or 6 lower/6 or 7?8 upper) 7?12 (7-8 lower, 9- 12 upper) School of the Arts Montessori World of Inquiry School K?12the School Without Walls Edison Young Men?s Leadership'Academy . City-Wide Programs (Big Picture All?City, Young Mothers, Academy, New Beginnings, Interim Health, RIA, etc.) eqUitable high quality instructional programs including accelerated course work and the arts acce55ible to all students equitable educational services for English Language Learners/Multilingual Learners and Students With Disabilities Neighborhood/Community zone Suppo?tive relationships and collaboration among schools and community resources cleani'options for the continuum of instructional programs PK 12 Determine new boundaries for Neighborhood/Community Zones (elementary and secondary) to ensure zone equity and stability based on current data Identify elementary schools to remain City-wide Identify secondary schools to remain City?wide Determine the criteria for program options* Establish timeline for transitioning to Neighborhood/Community Zones Pr Wide students with cs SChOOIs/pmg rams in Proximity to their neighborhoods Could potentially reduce transportation costs significantly Potential cost implications stajj?ing, program and space Neighborhood options available but parents do not lose City-wide choice Stabilizing neighborhoods, reducing mobility Facilities could limit neighborhood options in parts of the City Equitable access to programs Lack of adult supervised Passage parents want busing; do not want children walking through neighborhoods without adult supervision Equitable resources - currently, learning spaces, programs are not equitable across District Choice will be limited Could provide pilot models for School 33-East, School 17 and the 19th ward Full Transition from managed choice would take years Could inadvertently cause District segregation Restibnse: The ManagedfChoice with Neighborhood/Community Zone School Features option allows for some choice" while supporting placement in ne ighborhood schools for those who choose. Changing boundaries could also open up choices for some families. However, it may be difficult to determine what is fair and practical in assigning some students and not providing neighborhood options for all. What does proportionate distribution mean and how will it be decided? What factors will be used? How long cou Id the development of this process take? How do we better serve those families who do not have access to more attractive schools? 13l5t'evs Neighborhood schools can provide benefits to students as well as the greater community. They can promote healthy exercise (biking and walking), encourage parental involvement, and increase access to extracurricular activities. The community can benefit from a neighborhood school when it serves as a neighborhood anchor, functions as a community center, and a source of social cohesion. For neighborhood schools to be successful in high poverty urban areas the following must be considered: 0 Providing a process for actionable school improvement plans to be developed for all schools with consistent commitment of school officials over time. . 0 Providing sufficient resources in neighborhood initiatives to enable planning and delivery of human services to families 0 Providing incentives to schools that have improving student achievement in high poverty neighborhoods - - - 0 Providing incentives to families for staying in high- poverty neighborhoods with unattractive schools 0 Working with City officials to improve housing' In all high? ?poverty neighborhoods. School districts and city governments must build a solid relatIonshIp to Work on common long- term goals to improve schools and neIghborhoods - In order for the needs of those students remaining in neighborhoods with underperforming schools to be met, it is necessary to address neIghborhood needs and housing conditions, as well as improving schools. High rates of student poverty, reSIdentIal instability, neighborhood crime, and distress undermine the performance; of schools' In poor neighborhoods. School performance reinforces and perpetuates residential patterns fueling a cycle of poverty concentration, segregation, and neighborhood dIstress The United States Department of Education has concluded that student achievement is depressed when half of. the student body lives' In poverty and ?seriously? depressed when over 75 percent of students live in poverty. if the option of Controlled Choice with NeIghborhood/Community Zone School Features' 15 the RCSD preferred approach, it is imperative that plans to Improve schools In all neighborhoods, especially those with a higher percentage of unattractive schools be deveIOped with consistent commitment and oversight. Such a plan would be even. stronger if the District works with the City to improve housing, services, and qualIty-I of Me In nelghborhoods C. Pathwayii-?B: Multidimensional Socioeconomic Model - Diversity: All available seats must be allocated and assigned in a way that promotes diversity and avoids racial/ethnic segregation and is fair to all student populations. Multidimensional Socioeconomic plans ensure that available seats are proportionately allocated to low and non-low SES students. Schools of Choice. No students are assigned to a school based solely on home address. All parents choose schools they want their children to attend by rank-order preference before their child is enrolled in the school district. Parent Information and Engagement: Parents must have equal access to information they need to make informed decisions about the schools they desire for their children. This can be achieved by creating Family Resource Centers. Transparency: All aspects of school choice application and assignment must be made transparent. All parents must understand the process, particularly if the process is generated by computer. Race?Neutral Assignment Priorities: First-choice school assignment primarily isgivenrto siblings and students who reside closest to a school. Stability of Assignment: Students already enrolled in the school districtstay in their assigned school of enrollment until they complete that sthool?s highest grade. Controlled Choice Assigned Students: Controlled chbice' is used't'o 'assign students at the entry?grade of the district?s elementary, middle'and high schools. Assignment Lotteries and Walk-In A55Ignments Cbintrolled choice districts utilize a transparent online ?batched process and computerized assignment lottery to assign a school district? 5 e?try "grade and Voluntary transfers. The application and algorithm must be transparent and in accordance with the plans diversity goals, assignment priorities Earnidiirs?'at cont?ii'ol. walk-in students are assigned on a first- come/first-served basisito a school-of choice with available seats. Available Seat and Efficient of Schools: No schools are allowed to become overcrowded while other schools remain underutilized. The number of students admitted to a school Is dietecminediby the number of available seats at an applicant? 5 grade level. aCCurate and real-time seat control is essential. Student Transportatlon Controlled choice transportation costs can be contained by gIvmg priorities to students who are within close proximity to a particular schdol Or by Creating clusters to include five schools that are closest to the student? 5 home and other schools for purposes of educational equity. School improvement: Identify schools that are most and least in need of improvement. Under-selected schools should be targeted for school improvement measures to increase the number of high quality integrated schools. Magnet Schools: Magnet schools have been integral to the development of implementation of controlled choice since its inception in Massachusetts in the 1980?s. Existing magnet schools in a district should continue to offer distinctive and attractive programs while the district plans to replicate magnets or create new magnet schools. Student Achievement: Controlled choice plan must be achievement focused. Schools attract parents when they demonstrate effective instruction. A school district must ensure that each of its schools can meet the educational needs of children. Districts may also promote achievement diversity by identifying socioeconomic status and achievement. Response: Many elements of the Multidimensional Socioeconomic Model are evident in the District?s present Managed Choice Policy. As stated in the response to Pathway it isin theDistrict?s best interest to continue with the foundation already developed for implementing controlled choice to assign students. In assigning students, the Multidimensional Socioeconomic Model promotes diversity and avoids segregation. In successful SE5 plans (Champaign, IL and Wake County, NC, among others) magnet schools and selective enrollment high schools highlight key- determinants Such as family' Income, and parent? 5 or guardian? 5 educational attainment leVel along with number of adults in the household and the socioeconomic characteristicsfiof the" student? 5 residential neighborhood. These factors are strongly correlated with achievement and a child?s ability to learn, especially In the early grades. - In Champaign IL, 3 controlled choice SES aSSIgnment policy that allocates seats for low SES students was implemented' In 2009. Over 85 percent 0f the students have been assigned to their first? choice school and no school hasbecome racially re?segregated. The controlled choice plan is transparent and allowsparentsto monitor-the school?choice application on a real-time basis and to change the assignment lottery is conducted. Over 95 percent of parent?s self-report the information requested-for assignment. If the information requested for assignment is not provided, residential block-group census data is used. The SES plan utilized in Wake County, NC is characterized by residential and controlled choice urban/suburban student assignment system based on specific census tracks with varying SES characterIstIcs a parent does not accept the assigned base school, they are given the option to transfer to another base school in accordance with controlled choice assignment priorities All studentassignm?nts are completed by way of a software system created by Alves Educational Consultin'gIQro'gp. Turnaround Schools In high?poverty schools, children are likely surrounded by children who are less likely to be academically engaged and more likely to act out. Students in high-poverty schools are more likely to change schools often creating instability in classrooms. We know that students learn from each other. Research supports the advantage of having high achieving peers in the classroom. As well, parents are important to a child?s academic success. For many reasons, working several 16 9a, a jobs or not owning a car, low-income parents are only half as likely to volunteer in schools or become part of the school community. Principal and teacher turn-over is high in impoverished schools and recruitment of the best teachers and administrators is difficult in high-poverty schools. All of the above factors greatly affect the ability of high? ?poverty schools to improve student learning High- p?overty schools are generally unable to provide the positive learning environments that children require. One way to turn around a high-poverty school is by turning these schoolsinto{magnet schools where there is student and parent mix. A component of the MultidimensiOnal iSocioe?cOnomic Model is the deveIOpment of magnet schools to improve diversity and academic achievement. Magnet schools are known for attracting better teachers as well as student and parent diversity. However, it is- critical that the magnet school is well- -designed providing the type of programs parents are seeking. One such school, Wexford Elementary in Lansing; ?irMichigan transitioned from a consistently underachieving school to a Montessori Magnet School. Within'four years a school that?was underutilized became an oversubscribed school With a diverse population Wexford moved from a failing school to achieving overall Adequate Yearly Progress,- In several categories students are outperforming students statewide. Seeking diversity and economic balan'Ce has improved other schools such as the North Carolina Magnet Schools and the Tobin 5ch00l in. CambrIdge Massachusetts. Using magnet schools to turnaround the performance of low-Income students is backed by four decades of research finding that the SES composmon Of a school profoundly affects student achievement. Further, it is well documented that concentrated residential poverty reduces verbal ability and stunts opportunity for quality, economically integrated schools are shown to improve student achievement highly considered. The MultIdImenSIonal Socroeconomlc Model offers all that the present Managed Choice Policy offers. and more it descrIbes in detail, all of the factors that deveIOp diverse, high achieving schools and offers strategles to accomplish not only diverse student assignment, but also school imprO?Vement and parent engagement. it emphasizes strict oversight of the student assignment process, the creation of magnet schools, school improvement for all schools and the inclusion of parents through parent centers. Some schools are presently over utilized. With better oversight the district should be able to maintain accurate, real~time seat control. Using proximity and creating clusters or attendance zones can contain transportation costs. Most of these characteristics are present in the Managed Choice policy, but oversight of the Policy is lacking. It is imperative that the district incorporate appropriate oversight in order to ensure fidelity to the Policy. Overall Challenges 1. Inasmuch as the District has embarked on a very significant redesign initiative requiring expertise to guide, monitor and evaluate, it is important to recognize that the District has not been able to maintain strong, consistent District leadership in the recent past. This is particularly relevant because the likelihood of achieving systemic change without leaders, is not high. One of the unintended consequences in situations like this involves the District staff and perhaps the community as well. They often see efforts to introduce systemic change as not significant because they have come to expect regular changes in District leadership. They may also believe that initiatives associated with leaders seem to fade away with changes in leadership personnel. 7 2. There appears to have been more concern with the mechanics of stUde?ts placement and the state of schools facilities, rather than the development oanew educational opportunities and the enhancement of instructional design ahd?delivery. There is a delicate balance between these components DeSired educational programming should inform student placement?anid/or modifilCatiolns in school facilities. 3. Lastly, as the Path Forward is District needs must be addressed concurrently. For example, placement and-programming for special education students and English Language LearnerS?ShQUId beadd'fessed immediately. 18 5322 Bibliography Alves, M, Fulfilling the Promise of Brown and Diversity Conscious Choice-Based Assignments. National Conference on Magnet Schools. 2014 Champaign Socioeconomic Controlled Choice Student Assignment Plan. 2012 Jargowsky, Paul A., and Kami, Mohammed El, School Context and Neighborhood Effects on Student Achievement. University of Texas at Dallas. 2009 Kahlenberg, R.D., Turnaround Schools That Work: Moving Beyond Separate but Equal. Century Foundation. 2009 Study Finds Re-Segregated Neighborhood Schools in Oklahoma City Fail to MeetDistrict Promises of Achievement and Equity. Harvard Graduate School of Education. September 16, 1966 The Benefits of Socioeconomically and Racially integrated Schodls and Classrooms. The Century Foundation. February 10, 2016 - The Realities of Urban School Reform. Brookings Institution Turner, M.A., and Berube, A., Vibrant Neighborhoods, SfUccessful Schools: What the Federal Government Can do to Foster Both. Urban Institute. July 2009 Wells, A.S., Fox, L. and Cordova-Cobo, D., How Racially Diverse Schools and Classrooms Can Benefit All Students. The Century Foundation, February 9, 2016 Whitehurst, Grover J., New Evidence on School choiCe. and Racially Segregated Schools. Brookings Institution. Vol 2. #33. AG. 2009. ?Following Different Pathways: Social Integration, Achievement, and the Trarn?sit?ionto High School,? p. 13 (Author manuscript; final edited version published in of Education, November 1; 116 (1): pp. 69?97). Additional References (As cited on page 20) Lee, V.E. and Julia, -B._Smith. ?Effects of School Restructuring on the Achievement and Engagement of Middle-grade. of Education. July, 1993. Retrieved from JSTOR. Neild, R7.C. During the Transition to High. School: What We Know and What Can Be Done.? The"; ?Future of Children. Spring, 2009. p. 58. Neiid cites the work of Schiller (seenote 59) and Falbo et al., noting that the transition to high school is often the point at which parents elect "to grant their children greater autonomy. See Falbo, T., Laura Lein, and Nicole Amador. ?Parental Involvement during the Transition to High School.? Journal of Adolescent Research, 16, 5 (2001): pp. 511?29. Available through SAGE Journals. Seidman, E., et. al. ?The impact of School Transitions in Early Adolescence on the Self-System and Perceived Social Context of Poor__L_eran__ Youth.? Childeevelopment. April, 1994. p. 519. Retrieved from JSTOR. Wigfield, A., Susan L. Lutz, and A. Laurel Wagner. ?Early Adolescents? Development across the Middle School Years: Implications for School Counselors." Professional School Counseling. Fall, 2011. pp.114- 115. citing M. and Dante Cicchetti. ?Children?s Relationships with Adults and Peers: An Examination of Elementary and Junior High Students.? Journal of School 35 (1997). pp. 81?99. Available thrOUgh ScienceDirect. Board Resolutions Nos. 20164.7: 427, 504- 652: 899 Resolution No. 2016/17: 427 The Board requests a current assessment of: Facilities capacities and elementary zone capacities; Comprehensive educational needs related to building capacities; and A summary of anticipated impacts; and Recommended changes to each District school and free standing alternative school program Resolution No. 2016/17: 504 The Board requests: Feedback on processes, protocols, and policy regarding student assignment and school improvement which specifically addresses Managed Choice recommendations on registration, enrollment, and transportation as they relate to poverty, zone disparity, and school choice. Examination of elementary educational needs related to building capacities and summarization of impacts and recommended changes to each school and alternative school. Resolution No. 2016/17: 899 Resolution No. 2016472899 amends Resolution No. 2016/17: 427 in relevant part, to include exploration of possible regional schools, as envisioned by Great Schools for All coalition and the impact that a regional school (or several regional schools) might have on the District?s existing facility and zone capacity.