Approach to Data Collection and Organization of Information …boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/UpdateChoiceEnrollment... · 2012. 6. 14. · In the last decade, school choice options

2

Approach to Data Collection and Organization of Information Obtained Several approaches to data collection were used to address the two resolutions:

The Division of Intensive Support and Intervention assembled, and worked closely with two cross-functional working groups to compile the information that subsequently informed the recommendations that appear in the following report.

o An internal working group, comprised of individuals with areas of responsibility that touched one or both of the resolutions met, agreeing to contribute data and analysis to address one or more of the areas in the relevant resolution(s).

o A stakeholder feedback group, comprised of representatives from United Teachers of Los Angeles, Associated Administrators of Los Angeles, Parent-Teacher Association, and several community based organizations met five times to discuss aspects of the resolutions, review research about the strengths and weaknesses of existing choice processes nationally, assist with the design of surveys (described below), and help to formulate and/or react to proposed recommendations.

o Details regarding both working groups and their respective participants can be found

in the Appendix portion of this report.

The team sought to develop a comprehensive list of choice options available within the system as well as a comprehensive list of the factors contributing to LAUSD’s declining enrollment. We used the two groups above, as well as archival research and data collection, to accomplish this task.

The team reviewed the extant research on choice in relatively large systems (New York City,

Chicago, Denver, and Boston) and the school choice literature more broadly to better understand the potential issues and benefits of moving to a full choice system. Members of the team contacted individuals within most of these systems to do short interviews as needed.

The team engaged in an iterative process to develop recommendations, vetting with the two

working teams, the Division of Intensive Support and Intervention, and other groups. The intent of this process was to crosscheck emerging recommendations for feasibility and interest across the different stakeholder groups.

Summary of Findings related to the Open Enrollment/Full Choice Resolution This summary is divided into three sections – an overview of the literature on school choice, with an emphasis on larger systems that have been or are attempting to implement full choice, a description of the most prevalent forms of choice within LAUSD, and an overview of the findings from the surveys administered to parents, principals and teachers concerning choice in LAUSD.

3

Findings from the School Choice Literature Research has long suggested that families exercise choice before their child is even enrolled in a school. Families often choose their place of residence based upon school district or local school quality. Attendance boundaries, access to transportation, and community resources have great influence over neighborhood school characteristics. Student attributes such as socioeconomic status, academic ability, race, English language acquisition status, social/behavioral characteristics, and other preferences influence school and community demographics.

Formalized school choice has a number of potential benefits, including increased student academic outcomes and improved alignment between student needs and programmatic offerings. School choice has the ability to create competition between schools for enrollment and provide information about the supply of and demand for specific programmatic offerings.

Recent research has yielded specific demographic patterns emerging from current school choice programs. Minority parents are more likely to choose racially segregated schools which can be lower achieving (1). Low-income parents are less likely to exercise choice, and are more likely to remain in low achieving schools. Generally, parents tend to choose schools closer to their home, even if they live in neighborhoods with underperforming schools (2). Higher Socio-Economic Status (SES) parents are better able to navigate the choice process and procure appropriate placements for their children. By exercising choice, parents are more likely to be satisfied with their school and be more motivated to be involved with the school community (3).

There is a strong correlation between families who exercise school choice, race and socioeconomic status, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of school choice information and access. African-American students are nearly twice as likely as students of other races to apply for an alternative school and disadvantaged parents are the least likely to exercise school choice (4). Both advantaged and disadvantaged parents are likely to choose higher-performing schools, but advantaged parents tend to access the highest performing schools, while disadvantaged parents choose schools that are marginally better than their home school (5).

Several of the nation’s largest school systems have adopted full choice models for open enrollment. New York embraced full choice at the high school level in 2003. Boston adopted choice for students entering Kindergarten, 6th and 9th grades in 2006. Both New York City and Boston had robust public school market places. Boston already had a centralized enrollment process in place, whereas, New York had to address geographic and enrollment disparities throughout the boroughs in the new process. Denver Public Schools is in their first year of school choice selection and Chicago Public Schools plans on implementing school choice in the 2012-2013 school year. (1) Garcia, D. R., McIlroy, L. and Barber, R. T. (2008), Starting Behind: A Comparative Analysis of the Academic Standing of Students Entering Charter Schools. Social Science Quarterly, 89: 199–216. (2) Kasman, Matt (2012) How Families Choose Schools: What We Can Learn From School Application Data. Paper presented at the Association for Education Finance and Policy Annual Meeting, Boston, Massachusetts, March, 2012 (Kasman, 2012). (3) Hausman, C., & Goldring, E. (2000). School community in different magnet program structures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 80-102.). (4) Betts, J. R., Rice, L., Zau, A., Tang, E. and Koedel, C. R. (2006). Does School Choice Work? Effects on Student Integration and Achievement. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California. (5) Phillips, K. J. R., Hausman, C. and Larsen, E. S. (2012), Students Who Choose And The Schools They Leave: Examining Participation in Intradistrict Transfers. The Sociological Quarterly, 53: 264–294.

4

In 1993, New York City attempted to create a school choice system by allowing parents to choose any elementary or junior high school in the city; however, the poorly advertised reform did not provide transportation and failed to be effective. After an unsuccessful attempt, the reform was abandoned but is said to have inspired the school choice efforts of the Bloomberg administration.

In 2003, New York City resurrected the idea of school choice. However, this time an infrastructure was developed in an attempt to better support the initiative. Using the “deferred-acceptance algorithm,” New York City created a centralized high school allocation process for rising 8th graders and placed 80,000 students in over 700 high school programs. Students ranked up to 12 of their preferred schools in order and the deferred acceptance algorithm placed students according to a combination of factors including preference, availability and proximity. Participation in the NYC matching system increased from 66% in the program’s first year to 93% in 2011. The matching system has proved efficient – of the 78,747 NYC 8th grade students in 2011, 93% matched to one of their top five schools.

The deferred acceptance algorithm that was used to match schools and students in New York City was modified to suit Boston’s public schools (6). In Boston, the school choice initiative reduced the number of unassigned students from 12.9% to 4.9% (7).

During the initial implementation phase of the school choice initiative, the graduation rate in New York City increased from 41% in 2002 to 56% in 2008. During the same time period, the achievement gaps between Caucasian/African American and Caucasian/Latino students declined between 2002 and 2008 in New York City. While it is impossible to discern the positive impact of the school choice initiative independently of other systematic reforms taking place during the same time period, there appears to be a positive relationship between school choice and performance outcomes when systematic choice is implemented with fidelity and supported with adequate resources.

The design and implementation of the New York City school choice initiative was not without drawbacks. Many students, parents and guidance counselors found the choice process overwhelming. The high school directory was over 500 pages in length. This proved both intimidating to families and cost prohibitive for widespread distribution. In particular, New York City struggled to accommodate Special Education students and English Language Learners in appropriate school settings that met their academic needs. Geographic and transportation barriers also hindered many travelling students from regularly attending school (8).

The effects of school choice’s ability to increase access to quality schools and equitable educational experiences for all are unclear. Research found that admissions and guidance counselors have a significant impact on student placements. Patterns indicate that school choice is mitigated in its ability to integrate schools by race, socioeconomic status and academic ability. Low achieving students tend to make more, less selective choices. Higher achieving students make fewer, more selective choices. Both groups of students are at a disadvantage if they do not place in the first round and are most likely to get their fifth choice, indicating the importance of appropriate guidance and wise selection choices.

(6) It has also been successfully used to create residency placements for medical school graduates. (7) Adams, Susan. “Un-Freakonomics.” Forbes Magazine. August, 2010. (8) O’Day, Jennifer A., et al. 2011. Education Reform in New York City. (Eds.) Ambitious Change in the Nation’s Most Complex School System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ed Press.

5

The New York City public school choice system that was designed to spur competition and increase equity had unintended consequences. Although the NYC Department of Education hosted admissions fairs and published a lengthy high school directory, many parents did not have the ability to understand and research all of their options. Socio-economic factors also played a role, because upper-middle-class parents tend to have more knowledge about navigating the matching process. While the new choice system was fairer and increased the number of student placements, overworked guidance counselors were often unable to assist families with their choices. As a result, school choice options were more readily available to savvier families. A study demonstrated that, in 2008, black and Hispanic students had a tendency to rank higher-performing schools on their lists even though they usually ended up being accepted at schools which did not perform as well, perpetuating a lack of access to quality school options and furthering educational inequities (9).

The potential pros and cons of expanding school choice are heavily dependent upon the ability of communities, schools and districts to inform parents with adequate information and urge them to utilize the resources to make high quality choices for their children. Without proper outreach, our research suggests, it is unlikely that many parents will make informed school choices that increase satisfaction and improve student proficiency. Washington, D.C. created a costly, detailed school choice website that enabled parents to compare public school options, but it was not widely used (10). Overall, nationwide there have been low participation rates in the No Child Left Behind-Public School Choice program indicating, at a minimum, that written notification about school choice is likely inadequate to provoke change. For choice, competition and selection to effectively increase student satisfaction and achievement, students and families must be well informed of their choices. When school choice is not accompanied with adequate information, training and support, school choice can further alienate disenfranchised parents and perpetuate inequity. Parents need access to effective tools and detailed, accurate, relevant information in order to select the appropriate school for their child (11). Description of current in-district choice options/processes and participation rates

In the last decade, school choice options in LAUSD have expanded exponentially through a variety of mechanisms including rapid growth in charter schools, intra-district choice (e.g., magnet programs and non-neighborhood schools), and inter-district choice. Over the past 20 years, Los Angeles charter school enrollment has grown to 84,054 (12) while private school enrollment has steadily declined to an estimated 75,000 students (13). Families who participate in one or more choice processes available within LAUSD can choose from over 30 magnet schools and 142 magnet programs, approximately 170 charter schools and 6 Zones of Choice. There are currently 58,000 students enrolled in magnets and 25,210 students on the 2012-2013 on time application wait list. Intra- and inter-district choice programs also remain in demand. Approximately 12,192 students receive inter-district permits to leave LAUSD, annually (14). Another 1,427 students opted into LAUSD through inter-district permits during the 2011-2012 school year. (9) Robbins, Liz. “Lost in the School Choice Maze.” New York Times. May, 2011. (10) Buckley, Jack and Mark Schneider. Charter Schools: Hope or Hype? 2007. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. (11) Lubienski, C. and Gulosino, C. (2007). Choice, Competition, and Organizational Orientation: A Geo-Spatial Analysis of Charter Schools and the Distribution of Educational Opportunities. Retrieved March 18, 2008 from the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education’s Occasional Paper Series: http://www.ncspe.org/publications_files. (12 )2011-2012 LAUSD Charter Schools Division Independent Charter School Enrollment (13) 2011 Student Management Services (enrollment of ~400 private school institutions within LAUSD boundaries) (14) Number represents a three year average as of 2010-2011

6

Federal and state policies also have altered the school choice landscape. The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act expanded school choice for families by allowing students to transfer out of their neighborhood school if it failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress targets for two or more years. Inclusive of continuing and newly selected NCLB-PSC students, 527 LAUSD students exercise their NCLB-PSC rights, as of 2012-2013. The Romero Bill, enacted by the California State Legislature offers students in the state’s 1,000 lowest performing schools the ability to attend another school with a higher API regardless of their district of residence.

Los Angeles Unified School District has historically offered families the ability to choose between multiple school models. Over the years, the variety of options has continued to expand and includes federal and state programs for school choice in addition to options offered by the district. Families have found the plethora of school choices and processes overwhelming. A sampling of the most popular schools choices is described below.

Magnets are the most common choice option for families. Nearly 58,000 students (10%

of the District) attend themed magnet schools. Admission is dependent upon successful completion of the eChoices application, availability and weighted lottery.

Permits With Transportation (PWT): A court ordered voluntary integration program for which the district provides transportation to all eligible students, grades K-11, who live within the boundaries of the LAUSD. Families must complete the eChoices application.

No Child Left Behind-Public School Choice: The District offers all students enrolled in a

Program Improvement (PI) school and Schools-At-Risk for PI the option to transfer to a non-PI school. Transportation costs for this program are a mandated NCLB cost and are paid for through a set-aside in the district’s Title I budget. Transportation to the new school is provided to students who have enrolled in the NCLB-PSC program based on District guidelines that conform to federal mandates. Priority for NCLB-PSC eChoices applications must be given to the "lowest achieving children from low-income families." Students who participate in the NCLB-PSC program are not eligible for the free Supplemental Educational Services that are providing at their home (sending) school.

Local Zones of Choice: Geographic areas comprised of multiple campuses that offer students living in an attendance boundary the opportunity to select and rank various school models in order of preference to determine their school of attendance. LAUSD currently offers six Zones of Choice: Belmont, Robert F. Kennedy, Sotomayor, Eastside, Lincoln and Fremont.

Open Enrollment: enables any LAUSD student to apply to any regular, grade appropriate

LAUSD public school that has seats designated for open enrollment. Application forms are available at the school site. The form must be signed by an administrator at the school of residence and the requested school. The list of schools is available at www.lausd.net in May of each year.

Intra-District (LAUSD School to LAUSD School) Permits: Permits may be granted for

any LAUSD students to attend another school within the boundaries of LAUSD. Permits are based on parent employment, safety and protection, childcare, specialized program,

7

senior status (5th, 8th, or 12th grade), or continuing enrollment. Paper applications are available at all LAUSD school sites or can be obtained online at www.studentpermits.lausd.net beginning March 1st each year.

Alternative Education and Work Centers (AEWC): Educational alternatives for high

school age teens who have been out of school 45 days or longer, and who want to earn a high school diploma or equivalency certificate. Any out-of-school youth may request an enrollment conference to assess students’ interest, high school credits, and map out a plan tailored to meet the student's educational and vocational training needs. The curriculum is competency-based, which means that the program allows for open entry/open exit enrollment.

Schools for Advanced Studies: Application-based programs designed to increase

educational options and increase professional training to support the development of gifted and talented youth. The Schools for Advanced Studies course content is modified to match the students' achievement level or capacity for learning. The SAS program is offered to LAUSD resident students in Grades 1-12 who meet one of the following three criteria:

(1) -- Demonstrated ability in all four critical-thinking and problem-solving skills in their primary language. (2) --Percentile scores of 85 or above in both total reading and total mathematics on standardized norm-reference tests or --Scaled scores on the California Standards Test (CST). (3) Identification as gifted in any of the categories by an LAUSD school psychologist.

Romero Act: The Open Enrollment Act (“Romero Bill”), allows pupils attending the 1,000 lowest achieving schools in the State of California (“Open Enrollment Schools”) to apply to enroll in higher achieving schools, regardless of their residence. Receiving school districts are not required to admit students who meet enrollment criteria until the start of the school year. Transportation is not provided.

Findings from Parent, Principal and Teacher Surveys (Copies of the three surveys can be found in the Appendix portion of this report)

The Division of Intensive Support & Intervention (DISI) conducted surveys of those individuals who would be most impacted by potential changes in the school choice options offered at LAUSD: parents, teachers/assistant teachers and principals/assistant principals.

To capture the voice of LAUSD’s parent community, we distributed surveys (in English and Spanish) at LAUSD’s Parent Summit that took place on May 5th, 2012 at USC. A copy of the bilingual survey was provided in each of the bags participants received the morning of the Summit. Families in Schools staff had a booth on the day of the Summit and provided support to parents who had questions regarding the survey. We received 131 completed surveys: 60 in English, 71 in Spanish. The same bilingual survey was distributed electronically through LAUSD’s Internal Communication’s parent listserv (which is inclusive of 130,000 parent/guardian email addresses). Superintendent Deasy emailed the electronic survey link to LAUSD’s parent community on Wednesday May 9th, 2012. The survey window closed at

8

midnight on Sunday May 20th, 2012. The parent community had 12 days to complete the survey. The parent survey yielded 3,293 completed parent surveys.

A similar distribution methodology was used for both our teacher/assistant teacher and principal/assistant principal stakeholder groups. The teacher survey was distributed electronically through LAUSD’s Internal Communication’s teacher listserv (inclusive of all LAUSD teachers and assistant teachers). Superintendent Deasy emailed LAUSD’s teacher community on Tuesday May 8th, 2012 with a link to the electronic survey. The survey window closed at midnight on Friday May 18th, 2012. This allowed our teacher community 11 days to complete the survey. The survey was distributed in English only, and by the close of the survey window we received 2,339 completed teacher surveys. Finally, Superintendent Deasy emailed our principal community on Monday May 14th, 2012 with a link to the principal specific choice survey. The principal survey closed at midnight on Sunday May 20th, 2012. This allowed our principal community 7 days to complete the survey. Completed principal surveys totaled 288. The DISI also partnered with AALA to help with the distribution of the choice survey for principals.

Parent Survey Analysis Survey respondents who identified themselves as living in Local District 1, 37% (n=1,223), represented the Local District with the highest participation rate, followed by Local District 3 at 21% (n=687) of respondents. Approximately 9% (n=289) of survey respondents were unsure which Local District they lived in. The survey had the least amount of parent participation from Local District 7 and 6; 5% (n=179) and 2% (n=75) respectively. We conducted analysis to see whether or not there was a relationship between where a respondent lives and how they responded to the survey questions regarding choice preferences. The data was quite consistent showing little to no variation in question responses according to Local District of residence.

Survey participants were asked about their familiarity level with the following three choice options currently available to LAUSD parents and their students: Local Zones of Choice (where applicable), Magnet Schools and the eChoices Process, and LAUSD Open Enrollment. Our survey results demonstrate that the greatest numbers of parents are most familiar with LAUSD’s Magnet program and the eChoices application process, with 85% of respondents responding that they were familiar with the magnet/eChoices application process. Approximately 62% of surveyed parents responded that they were familiar with LAUSD’s Open Enrollment process, and 34% of respondents responded that they were familiar with LAUSD’s local zones of choice. It is not surprising that the Local Zones of Choice option has received the lowest level of familiarity among survey participants. The majority of Local Zones of Choice exist in Local District 4, while over a third of survey respondents reside in Local District 1.

Survey respondents were then asked if they could send their child to any LAUSD school, would they exercise that option. Three-quarters (75%) of respondents said they would exercise that option, while 18% thought they might, 4% did not know, and 4% of respondents would not exercise that option. Of those respondents who would exercise the option to choose any school in the district, 59% indicated they would do so at the elementary school level, 73% at the middle school level, and 68% at the high school level. (Respondents were given the option to check all school levels that applied.) Transportation is indelibly tied to the notion of school choice. As a result, survey respondents were asked if their child required transportation to his or her school of choice, how that need would be addressed. Most of the respondents (57%) said they would provide the transportation themselves, while 33% would need

9

LAUSD to provide the transportation. Another 7% said they would select the neighborhood option (which would not require transportation), and 2% of respondents responded that they would have their child use public transportation.

When presented with the following statement --- I understand the school options available for my child in LAUSD --- 58% of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed, while 42% of respondents either felt neutral or disagreed/strongly disagreed with the above statement. The end of the survey gave parents an opportunity to provide comments. Approximately 3% (n=113) of respondents provided optional commentary. Their comments can be categorized into one of the following four themes:

1) Confusion regarding their choice options (particularly the eChoices point system and the Magnet wait list),

2) Request for training on choice options, 3) Request for a comprehensive (and up-to-date) website with all relevant choice

information, and finally, 4) A request for the expansion of the number of schools that can be selected through

eChoices.

Teacher and Principal Survey Analysis A slightly different electronic survey, as compared to what parents received, was distributed to the LAUSD teacher and principal community. We received 2,339 completed teacher surveys and 288 principal surveys. The results of the parent survey demonstrated a fairly significant appetite for choice, and expanded choice, among surveyed parents. However, teacher and principal survey results support a desire to either continue with the current choice policies that are in place or require students to attend their neighborhood school. 71% of surveyed principals believe that a child should either be required to attend their neighborhood school or have access to current choice options at the elementary school level. Additionally, 60% of teachers agreed with the above statement at the elementary school level. The survey results demonstrate that the level at which both teachers and principals agree with keeping current policies in place and/or requiring students to attend their neighborhood school decreases slightly when applied to the middle school aged student (63% principals, 51% teachers) and decreases yet again in the context of high school aged students (60% principals, 48% teachers).

The survey results demonstrate that teacher respondents were more supportive of expanded choice, across all school levels, as compared with principal respondents. The greatest level of variance is at the middle school level: 27% of teacher respondents believe that middle school aged students should be required to select from among all schools in the district, while only 16% of principal respondents agreed with the statement (a difference of 12%). At the high school level, 34% of teacher respondents support the policy to require students to select from among all schools in the district, as compared to 23% of principal respondents. Summary of Findings related to the Increasing Enrollment in LAUSD Resolution

The resolution calls for the expansion of student enrollment by 5% over a 3-year time horizon. However, this is a particularly significant challenge given the declining enrollment environment within which LAUSD is operating. As of the 2011-2012 academic year, LAUSD had a total enrollment number of

10

roughly 580,000 students. That number is projected to decline by roughly 11% over the next 3 years; resulting in an estimate total enrollment number of 517,000 students by the 2014-2015 academic year. The following are the five factors that are (or soon will be) contributing most significantly to LAUSD declining enrollment:

1) Southern California’s demographic trends 2) LAUSD high school dropout rate 3) Inter-district permits and transfers 4) Senate Bill 1381 (the change in date by which a child must be 5 years old to enroll in

Kindergarten) 5) Independent Charter Enrollment

According to the California Department of Education’s Demographic Research Unit, LA County contains the largest number of students statewide, but enrollment is projected to decline by 12%, or 191,024 students, over the next 10 years, as of 2010, due to continuing declines in birth cohorts and increases in out-migration. A decline in birth rates and increases in out-migration are larger macro trends that are not likely to be impacted by policy decisions made by the Board of Education. However, the remaining four enrollment decline challenges have the potential to be positively impacted by the leadership and work of the Board of Education. Recommendations related to these challenges are offered after a description of information requested regarding the Gifted And Talented Education program (GATE). Magnet Program Quality Assessment An assessment of the magnet schools and centers offered by LAUSD was conducted using the district’s revised School Performance Framework (SPF). The SPF is used to evaluate school performance in terms of student achievement using a variety of measures, both status and growth related. To review additional details about the SPF, including the specific metrics measured to capture school performance and how the framework differs --- across school levels --- please visit the Superintendent’s webpage. The table below provides a brief summary of how our magnet schools and centers are distributed across the five performance tiers, broken out by school level. 44% of elementary and middle school magnets are classified as Excelling according to the SPF, as compared to 36% of senior high school magnets. 80% (n=51) of elementary school magnets are classified in either one of the top two performance tiers, as compared to 81% (n=39) of middle school magnets and 49% (n=29) of high school magnets. Neither elementary school magnets, nor middle school magnets have any schools classified as Focus, according to the SPF. There are two high school magnets that are classified as Focus schools.

For aBoar Gift The refer Curr Studcomp2012studeGAT Ther

additional anrd Informativ

ed And Tal

resolution crral rates, an

rent Snapsho

dents in the Gprehensive c2 school yearents were enTE enrollmen

re are six wa

1) Inad

2) H

twAGn

3) S

ad(ssc

4) C

dal

nalysis of theve provided

ented Educ

alled a revied waitlist an

ot of the GAT

Gifted and Tcontinuum or, $13 per G

nrolled in GAnt was 4,206

ays through w

ntellectual Advanced in r

High Achievewo consecuti

Arts/reading/Grade 2 only

orm-referen

pecific Acaddvanced levesecondary), ocience or soc

Creative Abilifferences wlternative so

e Magnet prin the Appe

ation (GAT

ew of specifind identificat

TE Program

alented Eduf services to

GATE child wATE. Total H6 (6.1%).

which a stud

Ability: Studerelation to th

ement Abilitive years at hEL* (elemen: Students wced, group a

demic Abilitels in either or mathematcial science.

lity: Studentwithin the envolutions.

1

ogram by Boendix.

TE)

ic informatiotion issues, a

m

cation progro further theiwas allocatedHispanic GA

dent can be id

ents whose gheir chronolo

ty--Grade 4 ahighly advanntary), Engli

who demonstradministered

ty: Students English-Lantics. Student

s who charavironment, c

11

oard District

on pertainingall discussed

rams (GATEir personal and. As of June

ATE enrollm

dentified for

general intellogical peers.

and above: Snced levels iish/EL* (secrate high ach

d measure of

who functionguage Arts/ts in Grades

cteristically challenge ass

t and theme,

g to the GATd in the follo

E) receive difnd academice, 2011, a to

ment was 37,1

r GATE:

lectual deve Students ca

Students whoin both Englcondary), anhievement of verbal and n

on for three c/reading/EL*9-12 may al

perceive sigsumptions, a

, please refer

TE program,wing section

fferentiated c developmeotal of 68,364106 (54.3%)

elopment is man only be te

o consistentllish-Languag

nd mathemation a nationallnon-verbal s

consecutive y* (elementarlso be consid

gnificant simand produce

rence the Ma

including ns of this rep

instruction aent. For the 24 LAUSD ) and total Bl

markedly sted one tim

ly function fge ics. ly standardizschool abiliti

years at highry), English/dered in eith

milarities or unique

agnet

port.

and a 2011-

lack

me.

for

zed, ies.

hly /EL*

her

12

5) Leadership Ability: Students who show confidence and knowledge; influence others effectively; have problem-solving and decision making skills; express ideas in oral or written form clearly; show sense of purpose and direction.

6) Ability in the Performing or Visual Arts: Students who originate, perform, produce, or

respond at exceptionally high levels in either dance, music (voice), drama, or in drawing or painting.

Waitlist and identification issues The most common GATE identification and referral process occurs in the Intellectual Ability category. In the 2011-2012 school year 13,231 students have been referred for Intellectual Ability evaluation. Students can be tested using a variety of assessments, depending upon their abilities.

During a typical referral, the teacher completes the GATE referral application. The District then sends a letter to parents requesting consent for an IQ assessment. Once a parent consents to have their child tested, a support unit psychologist approves the paperwork, and the student goes on the wait list for testing. The exam percentage for gifted designation is 95% for honors, Advanced Placement or gifted clusters. The threshold for highly gifted students is 99.9%, but eligibility is dependent upon a score of 99.5% for admission to a highly gifted magnet.

Depending on the recommendations in the referral, the psychologists’ assessment will either be one to one or a group evaluation. Commonly used Intellectual Ability tests include the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI), Stanford Benet, Ravenswood, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Testing can take several hours, not including the psychologists’ drive time, final assessment, designation paperwork, and child placement. The Gifted and Talented Education program currently has 3,891 students on the wait list. Wait list students have been referred at the local school site for Intellectual Ability and await testing by a licensed psychologist.

Students with High Achievement Ability are identified based upon their CST scores. Each year, schools are sent a list of students that are eligible for High Achievement Ability based on their standardized test performance. Schools must then complete the paperwork, acquire a parent signature and return the paperwork to the GATE office for processing.

GATE paperwork from other public schools is accepted so long as students were identified using similar Intellectual Ability tests; however, even with valid paperwork, out of district GATE students must go onto the general wait list in order to have the psychologist verify placement.

Three years ago, LAUSD piloted universal consensus testing for all second graders in Local District 6. The pilot proved effective and was approved for District-wide implementation. 2011-2012 was the second school year in which every second grade student in LAUSD was tested for gifted abilities using the Otis-Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT-8). The OLSAT-8 does not differentiate between gifted abilities and therefore is not used to identify highly gifted students. In 2010-2011, 45,524 2nd grade students were assessed and 1,101 (2%) scored between 90-94% and 979 (2%) students scored 95% or above. All second grade students will be tested in the 2012-2013 school year provided that funding remains allocated to the GATE budget for this testing.

Referral Rates by Local District In Local District 6, psychologists use TIP I/II to test groups of kids and find more under-identified

13

minority students. GATE employees perform additional duties for access and equity and conduct proactive recruitment. Each one has a dozen schools where they go out and test.

Local Districts 4 and 5 have the highest number of schools that have not referred any Gifted or Talented Students in the 2011 school year. The GATE plan for the Office of Civil Rights agreement includes shared accountability to better monitor the Educational Service Centers and School Sites to ensure all eligible students are being referred for GATE testing equitably throughout the district.

The GATE office stores their data in the System B database which requires manual input and typically requires a couple of hours per child. There is a year-long backlog for filing GATE paperwork. Two employees are responsible for processing all of the LAUSD eligible and non-eligible applications. The school sends a participation letter to families and parents’ must consent. Student records then go in the CUM and placement for the following year is offered. Currently, there is a 50% annual turnover of volunteer GATE coordinators because teachers are no longer compensated with differentials for providing services to GATE students.

Recommendations Given Existing Resources (Low to No Cost) Parents want more choices and the ability to easily access their school options. Given current funding levels and resources, there are cost-effective measures that can improve communities’ understanding of choice options to improve access and equity.

1. Educate Communities and Schools about Present Quality School Options

a. Develop a comprehensive ‘one stop shop’ website for LAUSD choice options Parents are now faced with a seemingly overwhelming number of school options that they must understand in order to make an informed choice about where to enroll their child and how each option might contribute to meeting their child’s needs. There are at least 14 school choice programs in the LAUSD and no comprehensive training to inform parents about all of their school choice options. The current choice options in LAUSD are not presented as a coherent selection of choices. Current choices are run as individual programs with discrete requirements, applications, schedules and resources. Each program has a separate notification and training process. Depending upon the program, families are often required to apply throughout the year for multiple choice-based options. As the array of options increases, access and equity questions arise as to whether families have adequate knowledge and understanding of their choices to make decisions with regards to their child’s education. The external messaging campaign regarding school choice should complement school site training and build upon existing outreach. New resources for families should include a comprehensive ‘one stop shop’ website for LAUSD choice options. An electronic platform with an interactive map should be created to allow parents to explore all school options by geographic region. The map should include all school types and models the District currently offers: traditional in-district schools, independent charters, affiliated

14

charters, Magnet schools and centers, Small Learning Communities (SLC), Pilot and ESBMM schools. The website should include the process, timeline and eligibility criterion for each option and link to the existing online platforms and applications for Magnet/eChoices and the various Zones of Choice. The map can and should provide information on the location of the school, a brief summary of the schools’ offerings (academic focus, special education and English language learner related resources, school leadership information etc.), and comprehensive but understandable relevant information regarding past and present academic performance (SPF final classification and accompanying 1-pager, School Report Card, and Data Summary Sheet). Parents and schools will be able to use the site’s graphical representation of all district schools by model and accountability ranking to understand their SPF rankings, learn about different school models and share best practices for school improvement.

b. Develop professional development for/with parents, members of the community, and community-based organizations regarding choice, choice options and school quality The results of the parent survey on school choices demonstrate parental support for the District to both expand and streamline choice options. Only 19% of parents indicated they have a strong understanding of school choice, yet 75% of parents said they would definitely exercise their school choice options. Qualitative parent survey comments support the quantitative survey results. In their comments, many parents clearly indicated their confusion about school choice options and processes. Several surveyed parents requested training on accessing school choice. In collaboration with Families in Schools, the Public School Choice team has developed an extensive community outreach campaign to convey information about reform strategies, academic progress and school quality. The information campaign is designed to expose communities to the benefits of a high quality education, learn how to examine performance indicators using the LAUSD’s School Report Card and School Performance Framework and begin to develop the tools to advocate for high quality neighborhood schools. Participants learn about their role as a partner to the school in supporting their child’s education and builds parents’ ability to explore key, evidence-based components of a quality school, while identifying positive learning elements and areas for growth. Intended for use with schools going through Public School Choice, this professional development should be modified to be relevant more broadly in collaboration with parents, members of the community, and community-based organizations.

c. Provide PD for designated site based personnel with the goal of having one or more informed school choice liaisons at every site Education about school choice options begins within LAUSD. Stakeholder group members expressed concern that school site employees are unfamiliar with school choice

15

options. As a result, principals, teachers, guidance counselors and parent liaisons are ill equipped to advise students and families about the full array of schools that are available. Although schools in feeder-receiver patterns are responsible for articulation information, many school leaders are not familiar with the programmatic offerings and specialized programs that are available through school choice options. It is recommended that professional development be provided for designated site based personnel in order to have an informed school choice liaison that is prepared to explain school choice options and processes at every school site.

d. Create supports for schools to effectively outreach The outreach that is currently performed by the Magnet/eChoices office, Zones of Choice and receiver schools, including fairs, mailings and advertisements, should continue and be used to expand outreach. Neighborhood schools should utilize the training obtained by their designees to reach out to the local community and inform them of the programmatic offerings available at the school site. The outreach campaign might be expanded upon to train a cohort of community outreach facilitators, who could, in turn, train parent coordinators (or other designees) in all of the schools. The designee at each school (with support) could then be responsible for training the parents and school community about quality schools, their options and support them through the school choice process.

2. Increased Access to Expand Quality Choice Seats a. Expand the eChoices process to include 3 options in addition to NCLB-PSC (fourth

option for eligible students) In order to meet actual and anticipated parent and student applications for existing school choice, students and families will be allowed increased access to Magnet and eChoices seats. By expanding the number of available selections in the eChoices process to include 3 options, in addition to a fourth NCLB-PSC option for eligible students, students will have a greater chance of being accepted to a magnet program. Students who previously had to choose between applying to a magnet or an NCLB-PSC school will have the option to select three magnet schools and PSC-NCLB. If a student is not accepted to a magnet, they will remain eligible to attend an NCLB-PSC school. The ability to rank additional options will also inform Student Integration Services with a more accurate understanding of the supply and demand for magnet and No Child Left Behind Public School Choice programs.

b. Expand current local zones of choice at the high school level only Matriculating 8th grade students will continue to be given the opportunity to rank the high schools within their local Zone of Choice as appropriate. In areas with extensive choice, such as the East Educational Service Center, an Eastside Zone of Choice could be created to allow students full choice rather than remaining restricted to the independent

16

school based zones in their neighborhoods. Rather than maintaining several, existing smaller independent school based zones, the District could expand current local zones of choice at the high school level by creating “mega” or “expanded” zones of choice. For example, an Eastside Zone of Choice – or two – would allow students to choose between several shared campus zones. Students could utilize public transportation to attend schools outside of their geographic boundary.

c. Create new zones of choice at the high school level only for 2013-2014 In 2013-2014, LAUSD could also expand upon Zones of Choice at the high school level in areas that historically have had few, if any, school choice options. With so many new campuses having opened in close proximity to one another within the past few years, there are many opportunities to create Zones of Choice and allow students to select their schools, allowing access and equity to students that have not traditionally had local school options. The South East Cities are communities that historically have not had convenient access to school choice. By creating Zones of Choice in Bell, Huntington Park and South Gate, students would be able to rank the educational programs of their choice without having to travel outside of their community.

d. Promote school choice education and behavior for all transitioning 8th graders All of the recommendations offered so far will contribute to creating a district-wide culture of support for choice that in turn will contribute to the success of LAUSD’s expanded choice options. This should help LAUSD avoid some of the pitfalls that have hampered the move to system wide choice in other large systems. Further, it may well result in the creation of a more equitable and accessible school choice system. Finally, it may also contribute to increasing enrollment through the return of students (and families) who have chosen to attend schools outside the system (in other words who have been choosing from options that are not part of LAUSD, such as private schools, inter-district permits to other school systems, or private schools). As one entry point to promote system wide education programs about choice within LAUSD, in preparation for their transition to high school during 2013-2014, every single 8th grade student (and his/her parents) should have the opportunity to review their options for high school, be they Small Learning Communities within their neighborhood school, magnet/eChoices high school options, and/or schools in a zone of choice. Further, 8th graders should have the opportunity to rank their high school selections through all available on-line mechanisms. Each 8th grade student should receive eChoices training so they can sit with their parent/guardian, discuss the educational options that exist for them and rank their schools of choice should they desire to be part of the eChoices application process. All components of this process – training, support, execution of choice processes, and parent and student opinions about each of these components – will be monitored

17

throughout 2012-2013, with mid-course corrections made as feasible. A comprehensive review of outcomes will result in modifications for students who will transition to high school in 2014-2015 and a determination of the feasibility of expanding this process to all elementary school students transitioning to middle school for the 2015-2016 academic year. A small pilot of a process for some elementary students transitioning to middle school in 2014-2015 will be undertaken to ascertain interest in choice at this level and additional information and/or supports that may be necessary to support choice at this transition point.

3. Create Strategies to Attract & Retain Students a. Create a comprehensive dropout recovery strategy

LAUSD loses over 13,000 students, annually (15), who choose to drop out of high school. It is strongly recommended that a comprehensive dropout recovery strategy be created to address student dropout rates. The strategy should encompass expanded programmatic offerings to retain students, remediation coursework, alternative programming to meet students’ needs and strategies to recover students. Even reducing the dropout rate by 10%, annually, has the potential to bring over one thousand students back into the school system every year.

b. Align all documents related to inter- and intra-district permits/transfers Senate Bill 2444 has changed the annual application requirements for inter-district permits. After parents have been granted an inter-district permit, they are only required to submit documentation when their child matriculates or transfers to another out-of-district school. LAUSD schools have multiple forms of documentation (some current and some outdated) at school sites for both inter- and intra-district permits and transfers, which school-based personnel believe confuses parents and discourages them from applying for permits to attend LAUSD schools. The paperwork is cumbersome and confusing, and some believe that it is complicating the District’s ability to track transfer students. It is recommended that the District streamline the paperwork for inter-district permits and transfers to attract parents, reduce reporting errors, and better track student movement across and within the system’s borders.

c. Set targets for the three enrollment decline factors with potential for impact It is recommended that the Board of Education require the Superintendent to set targets in the following areas and work closely with district staff to implement policies and procedures to attain the goals of attracting and retaining enrollment:

i. high school dropout rate ii. inter-district permits/transfers

iii. improve the quality, and perception, of programmatic offerings

(15) Adjusted Grade 9-12 dropout total, CDE for 2009-2010

18

Recommendations Given Additional Resources

1. Educate Communities and Schools about Present Quality School Options a. Create geographically based Enrollment Centers to support families in making school

choices. The proliferation of choice options in recent years has resulted in multiple application processes that are not well-aligned with regards to outreach, timelines and notification. The myriad of opportunities to exercise choice have necessitated an overhaul of the choice system and the dedication of resources to manage the choice processes within the geographic boundaries of each Educational Service Center (ESC). The creation of geographically based Enrollment Centers to support families in making school choices would simplify the choice process and facilitate the work to educate communities about their options.

The Enrollment Centers would establish common timelines and practices to facilitate enrollment outreach, school selection and final notification. The Centers would be responsible for interfacing with parents, creating programmatic brochures describing eligible schools, determining available seats, assigning new students, managing transfers and service provision. The Enrollment Centers would also sponsor school tours, enrollment fairs; ConnectEd phone calls would facilitate the matriculation process from feeder schools. The Enrollment Centers would be located on District property, each staffed with a clerk and a community liaison. Aside from personnel costs, additional funds would be necessary to cover the cost of school brochures, enrollment fairs, a website for families to locate schools and learn about their programmatic offerings, bus tours and the online process for school selection.

2. Increased Access to Expand Quality Choice Seats

a. Expand Magnet Seats The LAUSD Magnet program is highly successful. Students who attend magnets are often enrolled in a much higher performing school than their locally zoned campus. Traditionally, parents have had the opportunity to list only one magnet option through eChoices. Expansion of high quality magnet seats, coupled with the recommended revisions to the application process will potentially increasing an applicant’s likelihood of matching to his or her magnet school of choice. Current plans for magnet expansion include the creation of Sylmar Leadership Magnet High School and the expansion of Sylmar Math Science Technology Magnet High School. A new High Ability/Gifted/Highly Gifted Magnet High School will open the campus of South Region High School #12 in 2013-2014. It is strongly recommended that the District allocate additional resources to expand the number of high performing Magnet seats in the District from ~58,000 to 100,000 seats, roughly keeping pace with

19

charter growth and providing parents with additional, quality school choices within LAUSD.

b. Expand GATE seats In order to increase GATE participation, the Educational Service Centers and Central Office Executive Leadership Team need to promote a culture at the school site level that emphasizes the importance of accurate and timely school site monitoring of the GATE referral process. Thousands of children who have either met the criterion or are on the bubble (and thus should be referred) for High Achievement Ability have not been referred, processed and received finalized parent consent for GATE certification. A revised procedure should be implemented to ensure that every GATE High Achievement Ability eligible child is referred and processed. Of the thousands of students on the waiting list for Intellectual Ability testing, many are students who have already been identified as gifted or highly gifted by another public school district. A separate process for students who have been identified as gifted or highly gifted elsewhere should be created in order for those students to receive placement without the delay of being handled as a potential candidate for Intellectual Ability testing. Linking the GATE database with other District information systems will allow students with CST scores that qualify them for High Achievement and Specific Academic Abilities to automatically generate referrals in the information system. Streamlining the identification process will expedite referrals, notification, evaluation and placement.

c. Complete (K-12) current feeder pathways for dual immersion There are several thematic programs in the District that are not articulated throughout the K-12 grade span. Parents are looking for educational options that allow their child to pursue a course of study throughout their elementary and secondary education. It is recommended that LAUSD conduct an analysis of its current programmatic offerings and offer K-12 feeder pathways for specialized programs such as dual immersion. For example, a community with a Mandarin immersion elementary school should have a guaranteed pathway for their student to continue their studies in Mandarin throughout their middle and high school education.

d. Create additional K-12 programming such as dual immersion and International Baccalaureate Parent demand for specialized K-12 programs such as International Baccalaureate (IB) and dual immersion schools continues to grow. As K-12 feeder pathways are created, additional K-12 programs for dual immersion and IB should be created to satisfy demand and attract additional enrollment from families that have sought such programs outside of the District.

20

3. Create Strategies to Attract & Retain Students

a. Investment in programmatic recommendations, coupled with more effective outreach that includes accurate and specific information regarding quality program offerings, will bring back enrollment The Los Angeles Unified School District has made significant strides to reduce overcrowding and offer families placement in their local schools. As the number of thematic programs and options for students has increased, so has interest in school choice. It is recommended that the district take the necessary steps to educate the community about its educational programs, continuously improve the quality of all schools and offer parents and students the ability to pursue their educational interests. The district’s investments in quality and variety have shown promise with regards to retaining and attracting enrollment; therefore, additional investments are likely to reduce declining enrollment and spur reenrollment by parents who have chosen options outside the system.

Conclusion The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is exploring ways to attract families that have left the district and encourage enrolled students to access the school choice options available district wide. Currently, there are multiple ways a family can employ choice within the boundaries of LAUSD. As choice options are expanded for our families, it is imperative that families are not only equipped to navigate LAUSD’s choice system but also can evaluate and identify the best school option(s) for their child. With families as our partners, the availability of quality school options to all students, regardless of residence, race and socio-economic status is fundamental to the Los Angeles Unified School District’s mission for all youth achieving. If you have any questions, please contact Donna Muncey at 213-241-7000. ATTACHMENT: Appendix (105 pages of additional data and information)

Appendix: Table of Contents Pages January 10th, 2012 Resolution 1-2 January 17th, 2012 Resolution 3 Stakeholder Working Group Overview 4 Stakeholder Working Group PowerPoints 5-66 Stakeholder Working Group: Copies of Sign In Sheets 67-74 Stakeholder Working Group Meetings’ Agenda 75 Annotated Bibliography 76-78 Board Informative: Assessment of LAUSD Magnet Offering 79-83 Parent Choice Survey (English & Spanish) 84-89 Principal Choice Survey 90-97 Teacher Choice Survey 98-105

21

c: Michelle King Jaime Aquino David Holmquist Enrique Boull’t Jefferson Crain Rachel Bonkovsky Estelle Luckett Ada Snethen Stevens Melissa Schoonmaker

Rena Perez Bruce Takeguma Kelly Barnes LaRoyce Bell Arzie Galvez Barbara Tobias Sharon Jarrett Barbara Fiege Antonio Plascencia

UPDATE ON SCHOOL CHOICE AND ENROLLMENT RESOLUTIONS

June 12, 2012

Mission

Strengthen every neighborhood school to become a quality opJon while expanding choice opportuniJes in

the most cost effecJve way.

Table of Contents

1.  Current Choice OpJons 2.  Survey Results (Parents, Principals and Teachers) 3.  Choice: NaJonal Debate and Lessons Learned 4.  Enrollment Decline 5.  RecommendaJons 6.  Final ConnecJons to Original ResoluJons

Current Choice OpJons

1.  Magnets (Federal op+on) 2.  Permits with TransportaJon (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.  AlternaJve 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

: TransportaJon 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 transportaJon

Would select the neighborhood opJon

Would need LAUSD to provide transportaJon

Parent would provide the transportaJon

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

•  OpJons are confusing and Jme 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 informaJon web presence for choice opJons

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

•  Request for more than 1 opJon on the eChoices magnet applicaJon

Principal Survey Results (n=288)

•  LD 4 had the largest representaJon 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 opJons: –  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 opJon to select from among all schools in the District

Teacher Survey Results (n=2,339)

•  LD 1 had the largest representaJon 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 opJons: –  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 opJon 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 miJgated in its ability to

integrate schools by race, socioeconomic status and academic ability.

•  Special EducaJon students and English Language Learners were

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

•  Geographic and transportaJon 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

•  ParJcipaJon 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.

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

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

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 ProjecJons 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 WeighJng

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, contribuJng most significantly to LAUSD’S decl ining enrollment. (The enJre 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 ajracJng 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 ajracJng families that would otherwise have let the District

RecommendaJons 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

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

community, and community‐based organizaJons regarding choice, choice opJons 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 effecJvely outreach


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

PSC (fourth opJon 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 ciJes)

d)  Promote school choice educaJon and behavior for all transiJoning 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 potenJal for

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

RecommendaJons 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 addiJonal K‐12 programming such as dual immersion and IB

3.  Create Strategies to AWract & Retain Students a)  Investment in programmaJc recommendaJons, coupled with more effecJve outreach that

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

Final ConnecJons to Original ResoluJons

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 addiJonal K‐12 programming such as dual immersion and IB

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

•  Expand Magnet seats •  Expand GATE seats



Resolved further, That the Superintendent iniJate a comprehensive review of GATE tesJng and idenJficaJon within the District that disaggregates numbers of students currently tested and idenJfied 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 InstrucJon;

•  ConJnuaJon of mandatory GATE tesJng for all LAUSD 2nd graders

•  Make GATE tesJng more readily available for private school students and other students wishing to transiJon to LAUSD

•  Establish Jmelines for review of students to determine eligibility via CST performance and noJficaJon to family and school

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



Resolved further, That the Superintendent iniJate a similar review of magnet school outreach, enrollment and locaJons 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 IntegraJon report back to the Board within 120 days about the risks and benefits of creaJng a “three choice” magnet applicaJon process for the 2013‐14 school year.

•  Expand the eChoices process to include 3 opJons in addiJon to NCLB‐PSC (fourth opJon 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 cauJons regarding preparedness to serve all populaJons

•  Educate communiJes and schools about present quality school opJons (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 alternaJves and recommendaJons 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' educaJonal 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 ciJes)

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

•  Remain ajenJve to the potenJal unequal impacts of rapid expansion of choice opJons

Documents

Approach to Data Collection and Organization of Information …boe.lausd.net/sites/default/files/UpdateChoiceEnrollment... · 2012. 6. 14. · In the last decade, school choice options