May 29, 2012 1.  In September 2011, Dr. Orfield offered recommendations regarding student assignment  In January 2012, the Board adopted changes to.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
November 21, September 27, 2010 the Board requested an independent consultant study, review, and recommend adjustments to the Student Assignment.
Advertisements

Jordan School District Board of Education Boundary Recommendation for New Middle School in Herriman November 27, 2012 Teri Timpson, Administrator of Schools,
Square Peg and Round Hole… As parents and educators, the change in grading systems requires a fundamental switch in our thinking… 4=A 1=F 2=D 3=B.
The Metro Schools Learning Community LB 641. Learning Community/Timeline 1.September 2007 – Commissioner of Education certifies Learning Community (LC)
1 Gifted and Talented Task Force Presentation to the Howell Township Board of Education March 29, 2006.
Superintendent’s Report Monday, March 25, 2013 Donna M. Hargens, Ed.D. Superintendent Jefferson County Public Schools.
PDE Transportation Formula and Subsidies
TOKAY COLONY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING SEPTEMBER 17,
1 PROPOSED ATTENDANCE BOUNDARIES FOR HERITAGE AND NEEDHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETING APRIL 6, 2010.
UNIT 5 REDISTRICTING COMMUNITY FORUM mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
2011 – 2012 High School Attendance Area Committee.
Leader & Teacher SLTs 2014 – ComponentEvaluation for TeachersEvaluation for School Leaders Setting GoalsTeachers set two SLTs in collaboration with.
GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENT ASSIGNMENT BOUNDARIES Board of Education Meeting Eugene Street Board Room July 12, 2011.
Presented to the Board of Trustees Davis Demographics & Planning, Inc. Riverside, California February 10 th, 2009 Upland Unified School District.
After the Bell: Creating ESL Programs Beyond the School Day Dr. Silvia Restivo Coordinator of School Counseling and ESL Services Cynthia Hoffmann ESL Teacher.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
Kentucky’s New Assessment and Accountability Model June 2011.
Strong Schools, Strong Communities Strategic Plan Implementation Process and Roles Saint Paul Public Schools has designed the following process and roles.
District Realignment Education Committee June 7,
Cindy Hunt, Government and Legal Affairs Manager Oregon Department of Education.
November 7, Report on the community feedback Inform the Board on our progress on the recommendations from Dr. Orfield’s report Review the timeline.
Understanding the NRS Rosemary Matt NYS Director of Accountability.
Analysis of Salvador and El Centro School Boundaries SEPTEMBER 16, 2015.
Iredell-Statesville Attendance Line Review Spring Area Advisory Meetings.
LOUISVILLE From Possibility to Prosperity. Jefferson County Public Schools  28 th largest school district in U.S.  99,000 students (slightly increased.
Jefferson County eDays October 9, 2015 March 18, 2016 September 20, 2015.
Grading Policy Review, Recommendation and Rationale March 13, 2012 Mr. Ray Gravuer.
Michigan School Report Card Update Michigan Department of Education.
October Presentation Overview  Review of the Past  Board Motions – February 2015  Considerations & Guidelines  Board Announcements – October.
1 Forward by Design : Strategic Initiatives for the Long-Term Master Plan Mark B. Rosenberg Chancellor September 27, 2007.
Information Session for Students, Parents and Guardians Transition from Grade 8 to 9 Choices for Nine
The Toronto District School Board's Grade 9 Cohort and Post-secondary Pathways York-CASS Workshop, Toronto Robert S. Brown, York University/Toronto District.
DRAFT – FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Student Reassignment Survey Nash-Rocky Mount Public Schools October 1 – November 1, 2012.
Lecture 5 Dustin Lueker. 2 Mode - Most frequent value. Notation: Subscripted variables n = # of units in the sample N = # of units in the population x.
ASCCC Spring Plenary - April am - 11:15am Title 5 Part II: Discussion and Update Wheeler North, Michelle Pilati, Beth Smith.
October 7, Approved Attendance Boundaries FONTANA UNIFIEDSCHOOL DISTRICT.
SEMESTER TO TRIMESTER AND BACK Lessons Learned. WHO? WHAT? WHERE? WHEN? A HISTORY LESSON In , Mr. Joe Burks invited a few counselors to join him.
Board of Education Meeting April 22,  The Teaching, Empowering, Leading and Learning (TELL) Kentucky survey is an anonymous statewide survey of.
CONSOLIDATION OF SCHOOLS March 20, 2012 Prepared by Kelly Wood 1.
Opening of Schools Report Information Services October 15, 2007.
PERRIS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent’s Advisory Attendance Area Advisory Committee Report December 10, 2015.
Leadership/ communication and commitment O Safety Busing O Rules and Guidance O Reporting.
Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools Project Progress & Scenario Presentation for The Lexington School Committee March 8, 2016.
March 8, Presentation Overview  Review of the Past  Board Motions:  January, February, November – 2015  February – 2016  Education Act and.
Photos by Susie Fitzhugh Bell Times Analysis Task Force Getting students to and from school safely January 22 nd 2015.
Student Assignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools Public Forum & School Committee Workshop March 16, 2016.
Presentation to Board of Education 1 August 2014 Facilities Capital Plan Board of Education August 4, 2014 Stakeholder Engagement and Communications Services.
Glendale Community College: Statewide Accountability Reporting Edward Karpp Associate Dean, Institutional Research & Planning January 24, 2008.
School Accountability and Grades Division of Teaching and Learning January 20, 2016.
Student Reassignment Analysis for the Lexington Public Schools Project Introduction & Update for the LPS School Committee February 2, 2016.
Palomar College Presentation to Palomar College Board of Trustees March 11, 2008.
Regional Assessment Network (RAN) Update Chun-Wu Li, Ph.D. Assessment and Accountability Services Division of Educational Services November 21, 2014.
East Whittier City School District 2016 Local Control and Accountability Plan LCAP Community Meeting #3 May 27, 2016.
State College Area School District
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Scored at the Proficient level
EMBARGOED UNTIL SEPT. 29th, 2016 AT 12:01 AM
Building Enrollments & Recommended Capacities
Mechanicsburg Area School District
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
Framework for a Next-Generation Accountability System
RYE SCHOOL DISTRICT PRESENTATION TO THE RYE BUDGET COMMITTEE
Castallo and Silky LLC Jessica Cohen and Alan Pole, Consultants
School Improvement Ratings Rule 6A , F.A.C.
Fall 2018 Elementary School Boundary Process: Superintendent’s Recommendation (To take effect September 2019) November 8, 2018.
Demographic Redistricting Study
YEAR Curriculum.
Charter School Funding in Massachusetts Policy and Practice
Glendale Community College: Statewide Accountability Reporting
Vision for Success Local Goal Setting Part 1
Presentation transcript:

May 29,

 In September 2011, Dr. Orfield offered recommendations regarding student assignment  In January 2012, the Board adopted changes to the elementary plan for the  May 14, 2012, we presented to the Board our analysis for consideration for  Today we are reviewing the considerations and providing answers to questions that were asked at the May 14 th work session 2

January 9, 2012 the Board approved changes to the Student Assignment Plan for which: 1.Established a new diversity guideline based on census block groups for elementary schools 2.Included ESL students in an elementary school’s diversity index 3.Included kindergarten students in a school’s diversity index 3

1. Change 18 census block groups from a Category 3 to a Category 2 2. Apply the diversity guideline to all grade levels (K-12) 3. Include English as a Second Language (ESL) students in a middle and high school’s diversity index. 4. Align Moore High boundary with Moore Middle 5. Consider elementary school cluster configurations 4 Revised to include recommendation 3

5

Category 1Category 2Category 3 IncomeLess than $42,000 $42,000- $62,000 More than $62,000 % whiteLess than 73 %73-88%More than 88% Educational Attainment (6 point scale) Up to an Associate’s degree (Less than 3.5) College courses beyond an Associate's degree ( ) College courses up to a bachelor’s degree and beyond (More than 3.7) Each block group is defined as a 1, 2 or 3 6

 Further study has identified 18 census block groups calculated as Category 3 that have a JCPS minority student population of more than 35%  Recommend that those block groups become a Category 2 7

8

9

 All middle and high schools will use a diversity index based on census block groups  Each school will have a diversity index between 1.4 and 2.5  ESL students will be considered in a middle or high school’s diversity index 10

Middle School Diversity Index (Resides) Carrithers2.1 Conway1.8 Crosby2.5 Farnsley1.6 Frost1.9 Highland2.2 Kammerer2.2 Knight1.8 Lassiter1.6 Meyzeek1.5 Middle School Diversity Index (Resides) Moore1.9 Myers1.9 Newburg2.2 Noe1.2 Olmsted North1.5 Olmsted South1.5 Ramsey2.3 Stuart1.9 Thomas Jefferson1.5 Westport2.0 11

High SchoolDiversity Index (Resides) Atherton2.1 Ballard2.3 Doss1.9 Eastern2.5 Fairdale1.7 Fern Creek2.0 Iroquois1.4 Jeffersontown2.1 Moore1.9 PRP1.9 Seneca1.6 Southern1.8 Valley1.8 Waggener2.1 Western1.5 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Current 6 Cluster Plan with Changes to 18 Block Groups Cluster Number of Schools Average Diversity Index% Cat. 1% Cat. 2% Cat. 3% FRL% Minority% Af-Am Max Distance Cluster %63%3%80%48%41%18.7 Cluster %64%3%83%49%29%13.8 Cluster %63%3%78%52%38%17.3 Cluster %48%19%66%54%35%17.5 Cluster %32%41%52%46%33%25.8 Cluster %39%33%55%49%37%21.4 District %51%18%69%50%36% % of students who applied in application period (Feb 1- March 1) were assigned to 1 st or 2 nd choice Will require boundary adjustments because of capacity issues in Cluster 4 19

 Dr. Orfield offered a 13-cluster arrangement and he recommended that district fully review his draft of cluster arrangements and adjust for capacity and transportation 20

21

All clusters meet diversity goals All clusters are within capacity All clusters are more geographically compact, thus reducing the extreme distances within clusters Proposed 13 Cluster Plan Cluster Number of Schools Average Diversity Index% Cat. 1% Cat. 2% Cat. 3% FRL% Minority% Af-AmMax Distance Cluster %96%4%74%24%13%11.6 Cluster %62%5%79%45%40%15.3 Cluster %50%1%84%64%55%6.7 Cluster %50%1%92%62%45%12.0 Cluster %67%0%86%47%22%10.5 Cluster %46%2%85%61%38%8.1 Cluster %68%8%70%51%33%6.9 Cluster %60%32%48%39%22%13.5 Cluster %52%37%53%44%29%17.1 Cluster %44% 37%41%22%15.5 Cluster %21%33%62%60%47%16.6 Cluster %32%15%78%56%49%13.5 Cluster %16%36%65%58%49%12.4 District %51%18%69%50%36%12.3 N OTE : THIS DATA DOES NOT INCLUDE STUDENTS IN MAGNET OR SPECIAL SCHOOLS Revised

ClusterMax Distance (miles) ClusterMax Distance (miles) Average Average

24

On-line application process Automate the assignment process Communication procedures Return to Board June 11 th 25

26

1. What was the method for changing the block group categories to account for differences between census and JCPS student population? We evaluated all block/groups for significant differences between % minority reported in the general census and that of JCPS students residing there. The 18 block/groups identified displayed significant differences between the Census count and actual JCPS populations, and had an average % minority that was not only higher than the category to which they were originally assigned (category 3), but also higher than the corresponding category (in this case, Category 2). 2. What is the diversity index for all schools (attends and resides) based on the current index and the adjusted index? (Attachment #1) 3. What is the diversity in the magnet schools? Do they follow the diversity guideline? Yes, all schools follow the guideline (Attachment # 1) 27

4. How did we decide on the guideline of 1.4 to 2.5? Dr. Orfield recommended this range as a way to achieve diversity in each school 5. How do the cluster configurations compare in terms of the percentage of students from category 1, 2, 3 and the range of diversity indices? There is a difference between the 6 and 13 clusters in the percentage of students that reside in category 1, 2, and 3 block groups. Under both configurations, the range allows for all clusters and schools to meet the diversity guideline. 6. How many ESL students reside in the Moore Boundary change area? There are 7 ESL students that reside in this boundary area 28

7. How many additional buses will be needed during the transition to the 13 cluster plan? We estimate that no additional buses will be needed. Ten additional drivers may be needed for grandfathering. These numbers assume current ridership stays the same. 8. How many buses will be reduced after grandfathering is over in the 13 cluster plan? Approximately 25 buses will be reduced and an additional elementary routes will be eliminated. 9. How many depots will we be able to reduce with the 13 cluster plan? All 9 elementary cluster depots will be eliminated after grandfathering is complete. 29

10. How many students travel the maximum distance in the current cluster plan? Approximately 375 students 11. How many students arrive home after 5 p.m.? As of May 16, 2012 there are 807 students. All buses are cleared by 5:10 on a normal day. 12. How many complaints have we received about students traveling too far? Anecdotal records indicate very few 30

13. How many choices are available for each cluster configuration? On average there are 14 cluster schools in the 6 cluster configuration and 6 schools in the 13 cluster configuration. District-wide magnets would still be available under both configurations. 14. How will magnet schools fit in the 13 cluster configuration? The same magnet choices will be available to students. 15. What are student’s first choices by school? (Attachment # 2) 16. How many students would be grandfathered? 78% of students will remain in the same cluster 31

17. What is the timeline and process for applying to schools for ? 18. Will the regions be aligned to the clusters? We will share more information about operational changes at a future board meeting 32