CHOICE ENROLLMENT PROPOSAL September 19,

2016 Joe Gramelspacher

3

overview

guiding principles4

3.1.1 Create a comprehensive, family-friendly and transparent enrollment and choice application process that promotes excellent customer service to families.

IPS recognizes the educational and social value of human differences and their various forms. We are committed to equity in all of our work. We seek to allocate resources to eliminate discrimination and disparities.

Diversity Statement

1.4 Providing many school choice options helps families find the school best matched to their child’s talents, needs, interests & unique learning styles.

3.4 Schools are diverse, vibrant and welcoming communities.

directives5

draft narrow & uniform proximity priority zones

define strategies to increase equitable access (improve socio-economic diversity & reduce racial disproportionality1)

analyze SY 2016-17 application data to inform recommendations2

proposed actions6

1

2

3

Note: Students currently attending choice programs will not have their enrollment affected by any proposed changes.

7

lottery logic (no change)

sibling

proximity

loyal applicant

IPS employee

geographic filter determines lottery entry for programs with multiple locations3, then the logic below is executed for each school

8

9Reduced boundaries increase KG seats available by 200+2

[proposed]

multiple round application process (proposed)

10

Round 1• 70% of seats • Nov 19 – Jan 6• Jan 9 lottery week

Round 2• 20% of seats• Jan 16 – March 3• March 3 Round 1

response deadline• March 6 lottery week

Round 3• 10% of seats • March 13 – April 21• April 21 Round 2

response deadline• April 17 lottery week• Waitlists begin

Key Points single offer per applicant repeat application permitted without risk gradual release of seats5 (grades Kg, 7th & 9th only) waitlist begins after round 3

multiple round rationale & benefits

intentional dates comparable length windows

(6 & 7 weeks) 1-week between closure &

round opening (execute lotteries and notify families)

critical dates occur while school is in session

response deadline will accelerate filling seats

11

No, 1947, 49%

Yes, 2033, 51%

timely applicationsl

1 = Highest Income Quartile4 = Lowest Income Quartile

53%

22%

25%

22%

10%

21%

13%

34%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Timely Late

application status by income

strategic marketing (proposed)12

next steps13

appendices14

1: USDOE/DOJ guidance

USDOE/DOJ Guidance

KEY STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY OR AVOID RACIAL ISOLATION

Identifying the Reason for Your Plan Determine how these compelling interests relate to your school district’s mission and unique

circumstances.

Evaluate how you will know when your compelling interest has been achieved.

Implementing your plan Consider whether there are race-neutral approaches that you can use, such as looking at

socioeconomic status or the educational level attained by parents. In selecting among race neutral approaches, you may take into account the racial impact of various choices. If you determine that race-neutral measures would be unworkable, consider whether using an approach that relies on the generalized use of racial criteria, such as the racial demographics of feeder schools or neighborhoods, would help to achieve your goals.

If race-neutral and generalized race-based approaches would be unworkable to achieve your compelling interest(s), you may then consider approaches that take into account the race of individual students. When doing so, evaluate each student as an individual and do not make the student’s race his or her defining characteristic. Periodically review your program to determine if you continue to need to consider the race of individual students to achieve your compelling interest. It is important to ensure that race is used to the least extent needed to workably serve your compelling interest.

16

USDOE/DOJ Guidance (continued)

General Considerations Continue to consider factors that you ordinarily weigh in student assignment and other

decisions, such as current and projected student enrollment, travel times, and sibling attendance issues. As you review these factors in light of changes, such as increased or decreased demand at school sites, you should also examine your practices to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation and modify them if needed.

Your district’s process for students or parents to raise concerns about school assignments or other school decisions should be open to students or parents who wish to raise concerns about decisions made pursuant to efforts to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation.

It would be helpful to maintain documents that describe your compelling interest, and the process your institution has followed in arriving at your decisions, including alternatives you considered and rejected and the ways in which your chosen approach helps to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation. These documents will help you answer questions that may arise about the basis for your decisions.

17

2: SY 2016-17 data analyses

2016-17 CFI program applicants19

Black or African

American, 155, 30%

Hispanic, 49, 10%

Multiracial, 36, 7%

White, 275, 53%

Black or African

American, 293, 46%

Hispanic, 73, 11%

Multiracial, 64, 10%

White, 208, 33%

Offers Waitlist

2016-17 Montessori program applicants20

Black or African

American, 131, 44%

Hispanic, 31, 10%

Multiracial, 24, 8%

White, 112, 38%

Black or African

American, 126, 58%

Hispanic, 29, 13%

Multiracial, 20, 9%

White, 43, 20%

Offers Waitlist

2016-17 William Bell program applicants21

Black or African

American, 47, 30%

Hispanic, 15, 10%

Multiracial, 9, 6%

White, 85, 54%

Black or African

American, 51, 44%

Hispanic, 15, 13%

Multiracial, 10, 8%

White, 41, 35%

Offers Waitlist

2016-17 K-6/K-8 single site applicants22

Black or African

American, 544, 46%

Hispanic, 220, 19%

Multiracial, 99, 8%

White, 312, 27%

Black or African

American, 293, 46%

Hispanic, 73, 11%

Multiracial, 64, 10%

White, 208, 33%

Offers Waitlist

proximity change data23

KG 1 2 3 4 5 6 TotalApplications 1013 297 315 324 272 238 303 2762Seats Offered 655 122 129 75 91 79 51 1202Sibling 170 21 13 6 8 12 5 235Applications in Old Prox 374 84 65 59 47 52 34 715Applications in Proposed Prox 170 43 32 36 16 23 17 337Offered + Accepted  546 151 146 97 94 70 96 1200Waitlist 314 86 120 136 136 122 105 1019SY 2015‐16 ADM 556 617 553 532 532 455 329 3574SY 2016‐17 ADM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Applications 442 142 141 116 111 105 124 1181Seats Offered 299 61 66 25 37 19 41 548Sibling 74 9 5 4 6 2 2 102Applications in Old Prox 120 30 19 17 17 20 16 239Applications in Proposed Prox 70 24 14 14 7 9 10 148Offered + Accepted  259 86 76 55 47 43 77 643Waitlist 89 21 28 43 47 46 26 300SY 2015‐16 ADM 264 311 280 271 269 228 124 1747SY 2016‐17 ADM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

K‐6 Total

K‐6 Single Site

proximity change data24

KG 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TotalApplications 396 104 126 118 122 93 83 125 19 1186Seats Offered 176 46 43 50 54 60 10 6 445Sibling 72 6 4 2 0 7 3 2 96Applications in Old Prox 186 27 29 32 19 24 12 20 1 350Applications in Proposed Prox 81 14 15 20 6 10 5 6 0 157Offered + Accepted  172 41 40 39 37 22 13 23 1 388Waitlist 182 45 74 60 63 58 60 94 18 654SY 2015‐16 ADM 125 136 135 131 139 132 105 109 81 1093SY 2016‐17 ADM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Applications 175 51 48 90 39 40 96 56 32 627Seats Offered 180 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 215Sibling 24 8 4 1 2 4 0 2 0 45Applications in Old Prox 68 23 18 2 7 6 6 8 3 141Applications in Proposed Prox 19 10 12 20 15 12 9 13 8 118Offered + Accepted  115 86 89 52 71 47 50 49 31 590Waitlist 43 11 7 14 14 9 12 11 6 127SY 2015‐16 ADM 167 97 70 81 63 53 56 44 20 651SY 2016‐17 ADM

CFI Program

Mon

tessori Program

aggregate disproportionality25

CFI School 2 108% CFI School 2 66% CFI School 2 95% CFI School 2 51%CFI School 27 34% CFI School 27 24% CFI School 27 31% CFI School 27 36%CFI School 84 132% CFI School 70 65% CFI School 70 129% CFI School 70 44%Rousseau McClellan 52% CFI School 84 61% CFI School 84 68% CFI School 84 47%Francis W Parker 45% Rousseau McClellan 47% Rousseau McClellan 74% Rousseau McClellan 28%George W Carver 44% Francis W Parker 33% Francis W Parker 36% Francis W Parker 28%Frederick Douglass (SUPER) 52% George W Carver 27% George W Carver 34% George W Carver 49%Ernie Pyle (Paideia) 34% Frederick Douglass (SUPER) 26% Frederick Douglass (SUPER) 27% Frederick Douglass (SUPER) 24%Theodore Potter (Immersion) 84% Ernie Pyle (Paideia) 17% Ernie Pyle (Paideia) 17% Ernie Pyle (Paideia) 38%Nicholson (VPA) 47% Theodore Potter (Immersion) 41% Theodore Potter (Immersion) 43% Theodore Potter (Immersion) 54%William Bell (Reggio) 83% Edison (VPA) 23% Edison (VPA) 20% Edison (VPA) 43%Key Learning 34% William Bell (Reggio) 58% William Bell (Reggio) 71% William Bell (Reggio) 41%Harshman MS 52% Harshman MS 32% Harshman MS 34% Harshman MS 39%Crispus Attucks MS 35% Crispus Attucks MS 10% Crispus Attucks MS 17% Crispus Attucks MS 16%

CFI IB

Mon

tesso

Single Site

 Mod

els

ADM Applicants Offers Waitlist

aggregate disproportionality is the sum of the absolute value of the difference between a school’s race/ethnicity proportion and the IPS ADM proportion

CFI School 84 Count Rate DispropAfrican American 22 5.54% ‐42.96%Asian 11 2.77% 2.20%White 331 83.38% 62.73%Hispanic 11 2.77% ‐22.72%MultiRacial 22 5.54% 0.95%Native American/Alaskan 0 0.00% ‐0.13%Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.00% ‐0.05%Grand Total 397 100.00% 131.74%

Frederick Douglass (SUPER Count Rate DispropAfrican American 107 23.01% ‐25.49%Asian 0 0.00% ‐0.57%White 136 29.25% 8.61%Hispanic 192 41.29% 15.80%MultiRacial 29 6.24% 1.64%Native American/Alaskan 1 0.22% 0.09%Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.00% ‐0.05%Grand Total 465 100.00% 52.25%

CFI School 27 Count Rate DispropAfrican American 172 44.79% ‐3.71%Asian 2 0.52% ‐0.05%White 143 37.24% 16.60%Hispanic 49 12.76% ‐12.73%MultiRacial 17 4.43% ‐0.16%Native American/Alaskan 0 0.00% ‐0.13%Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 0.26% 0.21%Grand Total 384 100.00% 33.58%

3: program geographies

27

28

29

30

31

5: application timeliness

data – timely applications33

On‐Time ApplicantsAA 740 36.40% ‐12.10%White 664 32.66% 12.02%Hispanic 464 22.82% ‐2.67%Multiracial 136 6.69% 2.10%Other 29 1.43% 0.65%TOTAL 2033 100.00% 29.54%

Late ApplicantsAA 1001 51.41% 2.91%White 371 19.05% ‐1.59%Hispanic 390 20.03% ‐5.46%Multiracial 162 8.32% 3.73%Other 23 1.18% 0.41%TOTAL 1947 100.00% 14.10%

No, 1947, 49%

Yes, 2033, 51%

timely applicationsal

on-time vs. late KG applications by income quartile

34

153%

225%

310%

412%

timely applicants

1 2 3 4

1 = Highest Income Quartile 4 = Lowest Income Quartile

123%

222%

321%

434%

late applicants

1 2 3 4

6: Geotargeting

36

37