update on school choice and enrollment...

UPDATE ON SCHOOL CHOICE AND ENROLLMENT RESOLUTIONS

June 28, 2012

Mission

Strengthen every neighborhood school to become a quality opKon while expanding choice opportuniKes in

the most cost effecKve way.

Table of Contents

1.  Current Choice OpKons 2.  Survey Results (Parents, Principals and Teachers) 3.  Choice: NaKonal Debate and Lessons Learned 4.  Enrollment Decline 5.  RecommendaKons 6.  Final ConnecKons to Original ResoluKons

Current Choice OpKons

1.  Magnets (Federal op+on) 2.  Permits with TransportaKon (PWT) (Federal op+on) 3.  NCLB‐Public School Choice (Federal op+on) 4.  Local Zones of Choice (LAUSD op+on) 5.  Open Enrollment (CA op+on) 6.  AlternaKve Studies (LAUSD op+on) 7.  School for Advanced Studies (LAUSD op+on) 8.  Romero Bill (CA‐wide op+on) 9.  Affiliated Charters (LAUSD op+on) 10.  Independent Charter 11.  Private School

: TransportaKon eligible

LAUSD School Choice Processes Timeline

October November December January February March April May

eChoices Application

available October 8

Magnet/PWT/NCLB-PSC

eChoices Application

Due

November 16

Romero Bill Applications Due

by January 1

Written decisions issued 60 days from receipt

eChoices confirmation/

correction letters sent

Late eChoices application due

(no NCLB PSC)

March 1st Intra-District Permits

Available

Zones of Choice

Applications and

Confirmation Letters are due

Schools for Advanced

Studies Applications

Due

Open Enrollment

Period Begins

Parent Survey Results (n= 3,348)

75

179

198

211

231

255

289

687

1,223

LD 6

LD 7

LD 4

LD 2

LD 5

LD 8

Not Sure

LD 3

LD 1

Number of Survey Respondents by Local District 37%

37%

9%

8%

7%

6%

6%

5%

2%

21%


•  Zones of Choice: •  34% familiar •  34% not familiar •  31% have never heard of ZOC

•  Magnet Schools/eChoices Process: •  85% familiar •  13% not familiar •  2% have never heard of Magnet/eChoices

•  Open Enrollment Process: •  62% familiar •  32% not familiar •  6% have never heard of Open Enrollment


3%

4%

18%

75%

No

I don't know

Maybe

Yes

If you could send your child to any LAUSD school, would you exercise that opLon?

68% 73%

59%

High School Middle School Elementary School

At what school level would you exercise the opLon to send your child to any LAUSD school?


2%

7%

33%

57%

Student would use public transportaKon

Would select the neighborhood opKon

Would need LAUSD to provide transportaKon

Parent would provide the transportaKon

If child requires transportaLon to his or her school of choice:



5%

14%

23%

39%

19%

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly Agree

I understand the school opLons available for my child in LAUSD

Survey Comments (n=113)

Major Themes: •  Choice processes are not streamlined

•  OpKons are confusing and Kme intensive to learn about

•  Request for choice training sessions •  New parents •  Parents with 5 and 6 year old students (Kindergarten & 1st grade)

•  LAUSD lacks an informaKon web presence for choice opKons

•  Confusion/frustraKon regarding the eChoices magnet applicaKon process: •  Why are students placed on a wait list? •  How does the point system work?

•  Request for more than 1 opKon on the eChoices magnet applicaKon

Principal Survey Results (n=288)

•  LD 4 had the largest representaKon among survey respondents (19%), followed by LD 1 (17%)

•  51% of respondents were elementary school principals •  Students should be require to ajend their neighborhood/zoned/boundary

school or choose from the current choice opKons: –  71% of respondents support the statement at the Elementary School level –  63% of respondents support the statement at the Middle School level –  60% of respondents support the statement at the High School level

•  23% of respondents believe high school students should have the opKon to select from among all schools in the District

Teacher Survey Results (n=2,339)

•  LD 1 had the largest representaKon among survey respondents (18%), followed by LD 2 (17%)

•  40% of respondents were elementary school teachers •  Students should be required to ajend their neighborhood/zoned/

boundary school or choose from the current choice opKons: –  60% of respondents support the statement at the Elementary School level –  51% of respondents support the statement at the Middle School level –  48% of respondents support the statement at the High School level

•  34% of respondents believe high school students should have the opKon to select from among all schools in the District

Cons as experienced through NYC and Boston: •  The 500+ page NYC school directory:

–  Overwhelming for parents, students and guidance counselors. •  Pajerns indicate that school choice is miKgated in its ability to

integrate schools by race, socioeconomic status and academic ability.

•  Special EducaKon students and English Language Learners were

assigned students to schools that could not meet their academic needs.

•  Geographic and transportaKon barriers hindered many students from regularly ajending school.

Literature Review: Disadvantages of School Choice

Literature Review: Advantages of School Choice

Pros as experienced through NYC and Boston: •  “Deferred‐acceptance algorithm” ‐

–  80,000 NYC eighth graders –  700 high school programs –  weights student preferences and up to 12 priority schools

•  ParKcipaKon in the NYC matching system increased from 66% to 93% –  In 2011, 83% of the 78,747 NYC students matched to one of their top five schools.

•  Number of unassigned students dropped from 12.9% to 4.9% in Boston’s choice system.

•  GraduaKon rate increased from 41% to 56% between 2002 and 2008 in New York

City. •  The achievement gaps between Caucasian/African American and Caucasian/LaKno

students declined between 2002 and 2008 in New York City.

Enrollment Decline

84,054

92,053

102,523

113,386

580,031

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

620,000

2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Independent Charter Actual LAUSD K‐12 ProjecKons 5% Increase 2011‐2012 Constant

11% decrease

≈ 517,000

≈ 609,000

5% Increase

Charter Enrollment D

istrict E

nrollm

ent

Data has been provided by the divisions of Student Management Services and Charter.

Enrollment Decline Factors – Approximate WeighKng

High School Dropout 22%

Inter‐district Permits 21%

Charter School

Enrollment 17%

Changes to Kinder

Enrollment (SB1381)

8%

Demographic Shits in SoCal

32%

This pie chart represents the five factors that are, or soon will be, contribuKng most significantly to LAUSD’S decl ining enrollment. (The enKre pie chart represents the total decline, while each of the five slices represents the approximate weight ajributed to each enrollment decline factor.): 1.  Demographic shits in Southern CA 2.  High school dropout 3.  Inter‐district permits 4.  Charter school enrollment 5.  Changes to kindergarten enrollment

Enrollment: Encouraging Indicators of Interest in LAUSD Schools

1.  Increase in external Magnet applicants (2011‐2012) through eChoices

2.  Local zones of choice ajracKng independent charter students to LAUSD

3.  Our high schools that are showing improvement ‐‐‐ such as Garfield High School ‐‐‐ are beginning to ajract enrollment from other districts

4.  Dual Immersion programs ‐‐‐ such as Broadway Elementary ‐‐‐ are ajracKng families that would otherwise have let the District

RecommendaKons given Exis%ng Resources

1.  Educate CommuniLes and Schools about Present Quality School OpLons a)  Develop a comprehensive ‘one stop shop’ website for LAUSD choice

opKons b)  Develop professional development for/with parents, members of the

community, and community‐based organizaKons regarding choice, choice opKons and school quality

c)  Provide PD for designated site based personnel with the goal of having one or more informed school choice liaisons at every site

d)  Create supports for schools to effecKvely outreach


2. Increased Access to Expand Quality Choice Seats a)  Expand the eChoices process to include 3 opKons in addiKon to NCLB‐

PSC (fourth opKon for eligible students) b)  Expand current local zones of choice at the high school level only (e.g.,

create an Eastside zone of choice – or two – rather than several smaller independent school based zones)

c)  Create new zones of choice at the high school level only for 2013‐2014 (e.g., zones could be created in the Southeast ciKes)

d)  Promote school choice educaKon and behavior for all transiKoning 8th graders


3. Create Strategies to AWract & Retain Students a)  Create a comprehensive dropout recovery strategy b)  Align all documents related to inter‐ and intra‐district permits/

transfers c)  Set targets for the three enrollment decline factors with potenKal for

impact: i.  high school dropout rate ii.  inter‐district permits/transfers iii.  Improve the quality, and percepKon, of programmaKc offerings

RecommendaKons with Addi%onal Resources

1.  Educate CommuniLes and Schools about Present Quality School OpLons a)  Create geographically based Enrollment Centers to support families in making school choices

2.  Increased Access to Expand Quality Choice Seats a)  Expand Magnet seats b)  Expand GATE seats c)  Complete (K‐12) current feeder pathways for dual immersion d)  Create addiKonal K‐12 programming such as dual immersion and IB

3.  Create Strategies to AWract & Retain Students a)  Investment in programmaKc recommendaKons, coupled with more effecKve outreach that

includes accurate and specific informaKon regarding quality program offerings, will bring back enrollment

Final ConnecKons to Original ResoluKons

ResoluLon RecommendaLons

Resolved, That within 60 days the Superintendent will submit a comprehensive strategy, budget and plan for expanding enrollment in the Los Angeles Unified School District by at least 5 percent over the next three years;

•  Create a dropout recovery strategy •  Align all documents related to inter‐

and intra‐district permits/transfers to ensure consistency and usability for all parents

•  Make complete (K‐12) current feeder pathways for dual immersion

•  Create addiKonal K‐12 programming such as dual immersion and IB

•  Set targets for enrollment decline challenges that have potenKal to be impacted

•  Expand Magnet seats •  Expand GATE seats



Resolved further, That the Superintendent iniKate a comprehensive review of GATE tesKng and idenKficaKon within the District that disaggregates numbers of students currently tested and idenKfied by significant demographic categories, local district, board district and zip code and report back to the Board with a plan to authorize a District wide assessment strategy for all students at a grade level recommended by the Deputy Superintendent of InstrucKon;

•  ConKnuaKon of mandatory GATE tesKng for all LAUSD 2nd graders

•  Make GATE tesKng more readily available for private school students and other students wishing to transiKon to LAUSD

•  Establish Kmelines for review of students to determine eligibility via CST performance and noKficaKon to family and school

•  Expand the number of GATE and highly gited seats available system wide.



Resolved further, That the Superintendent iniKate a similar review of magnet school outreach, enrollment and locaKons of available programs by significant demographic categories, local district, board district and zip code; and be it finally

•  “Assessment of LAUSD Magnet Offerings,” Board Informa+ve, March 19,2012

•  “Analysis of Magnet On Time Applica+ons for 2012‐2013 Enrollment,” Board Informa+ve, May 21, 2012

Resolved, That the Office of IntegraKon report back to the Board within 120 days about the risks and benefits of creaKng a “three choice” magnet applicaKon process for the 2013‐14 school year.

•  Expand the eChoices process to include 3 opKons in addiKon to NCLB‐PSC (fourth opKon for eligible students)


ResoluLon CauLons and RecommendaLons

Resolved, That the Governing Board of the Los Angeles Unified School District instructs the Superintendent to study and issue a report which would indicate the advantages and risks of removing boundaries for schools in order to give parents the flexibility for their children to take advantage of all seats in high‐performing schools, . . . and, be it finally

•  Shared choice expansion lessons learned from NYC and Boston which include several cauKons regarding preparedness to serve all populaKons

•  Educate communiKes and schools about present quality school opKons (e.g. comprehensive and up‐to‐date LAUSD choice website)

•  Provide PD for designated site based personnel – informed school choice liaison at every site

•  Create geographically based Enrollment Centers to support families in making school choices


ResoluLon CauLons and RecommendaLons

Resolved, That the Superintendent will return to the Board within 90 days with alternaKves and recommendaKons for a new Open Enrollment Policy that will serve all students District‐wide and will allow all students and their families to select the school that best meets students' educaKonal needs.

•  Expand current local zones of choice at the high school level(e.g., create an Eastside zone of choice rather than several smaller independent school based zones)

•  Create new zones of choice at the high school level for 2013‐2014 (e.g., zones could be formalized in the Southeast ciKes)

•  Assess choice expansion using results to plan conKnued expansion at high school and possible expansion to middle school

•  Remain ajenKve to the potenKal unequal impacts of rapid expansion of choice opKons

Enrollment Decline Charter Enrollm

ent District E

nrollm

ent

* Represents actual enrollment numbers as of 2011‐2012. Enrollment numbers represent projecKons for future academic years. ** Independent charter enrollment, as depicted by the bar graphs, is projected to increase by 35% over this 3 year Kme horizon. Data has been provided by the divisions of Student Management Services, Budget Services & Charter.

84,054

113,386

581,445*

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

500,000

520,000

540,000

560,000

580,000

600,000

620,000

2011‐2012 2012‐2013 2013‐2014 2014‐2015

Independent Charter ** Actual LAUSD K‐12 ProjecKons 5% Increase 2011‐2012 Constant

10% decrease

≈ 525,709

≈ 610,000

5% increase

Enrollment Decline Factors – Approximate WeighKng

High School Dropout 25%

Inter‐district Permits 22%

Charter School

Enrollment 18%

Demographic Shits in SoCal

35%

This pie chart represents the four factors that are, or soon will be, contribuKng most significantly to LAUSD’S decl ining enrollment. (The enKre pie chart represents the total decline, while each of the four slices represents the approximate weight ajributed to each enrollment decline factor.): 1.  Demographic shits in Southern CA 2.  High school dropout 3.  Inter‐district permits 4.  Charter school enrollment

update on school choice and enrollment...

Documents