What happens if the bond passes?

This is the second post in a several-part series on the proposed G.O. Bond for the ICCSD. Last post, I presented the bond text itself and some of the history behind the present bond. In this post, I will discuss what we can reasonable expect to happen if the bond indeed passes on September 12. In the next post, I’ll discuss what we can reasonable expect to happen if the bond fails to pass.

Although there is some room for disagreement, I will describe a few different categories of what we can reasonably expect.

First, we have that which is extremely likely to happen (maybe not guaranteed, but I would be shocked if it didn’t happen). That is to say, it would be unreasonable if someone denied that the following events will occur.

• Several months after the bond passes, the administration will make a proposal to the board to sell the first of four two-year bond, authorized by the September 12 vote, that will cover the first several projects mentioned in the G.O. Bond language and in the Facilities Master Plan (FMP). The board will approve that proposal, and it will lock in these projects. It is projected to be for approximately $46 million (see here for the information source), but by the time the projects that begin under this first phase are completed, the projects will cost a around $127 million of the $191 million dollars being requested.
• The projects included within that proposal are all but guaranteed and they include:
• The construction of a new elementary school in North Liberty (near 980 N Front Street, North Liberty) with an estimated cost of $19 million.
• Lincoln and Mann renovations, which include full air conditioning, ADA compliance, dedicated music and arts rooms, important cost-saving upgrades to the building, and a new gym/multipurpose room. The estimated cost is $4.8 million for Lincoln and $11.7 million for Mann
• Liberty High Athletic Fields: creating outdoor athletic fields for Liberty High School with an estimated cost of $12.5 million
• City High Phase 2, which will include a classroom and wrestling room addition, expansions of the cafeteria, kitchen, and gym, full ADA compliance and improvements, full AC and a geothermal heat pump system, and roof replacement. The estimated cost for the project is $30.3 million.
• North Central Junior High, which includes an addition with ten classrooms and a second gymnasiums, expansions of the library, cafeteria, kitchen, and the geothermal heating and AC system. The estimated cost for the project is $11.1 million
• South East Junior High, which includes a classroom addition, full ADA compliance, giving the school full AC, locker and roof replacement, and a new kitchen and larger cafeteria. The estimated cost for the project is $15.6 million.
• West High Phase 2, which includes full AC, some renovations and upgrades to the building, and new windows. The estimated cost for the project is $22.5 million.
• Homeowners can expect their tax bill to increase by approximately $4.25 per month per $100K taxable value.

Second, we have that which is likely to happen, but there is a reasonable chance that these plans can be modified. Such modifications are likely to be comparable to the sorts of changes made previously (see my prior post for a discussion of what those changes were)--and as such, they will likely be based on significant demographic changes and must be approved by the school board to take effect. These projects will be around $46 million combined, and they include:

• Wood ($7.4 million)
• Wickham ($2.3 million)
• Shimek ($4.9 million)
• Northwest Junior High ($15.7 million)
• Garner ($1.2 million)
• Liberty High Phase 3 (500-student addition for $6.2 million)
• Kirkwood ($7.3 million)
• Horn ($1.2 million)

Third, we have those projects that are slated to occur toward the end of the 10-year plan. These projects are almost completely funded under the fourth of the four bonds the board will approve, and collectively, they account for about $15 million of the overall $191 million. Among all the projects mentioned, I think we can reasonably expect some work at each of these schools, but the scope and whether the additional classrooms (beyond the dedicated science, art, and music rooms) will be added is more flexible, depending on need. Once again, any changes here are likely to be similar to those undertaken previously (see my prior post for a discussion of what those changes were). These projects include:

• Tate ($3.5 million)
• Lemme addition ($8.0 million)
• Borlaug addition ($1.5 million)
• Alexander addition ($1.5 million)

Fourth, I think the bond has some more general outcomes that are likely but hard to quantify. It will likely give the district greater flexibility with redistricting. Greater space at target schools allows us to more effectively balance redistricting goals, including proximity to schools, improving demographic balance, and keeping our clean feeder system. Second, it will reduce the risk of future budget cuts, which is particularly important as we enter into a squeeze on state support for public education. Third, it will reduce our reliance on modulars.

Background for the 2017 ICCSD G.O. Bond

This is the first in a several-part series on the reasons for and against the ICCSD G.O. Bond.

On September 12, the Iowa City Community School District residents will be voting on a bond referendum. The language on the ballot will be as follows:

Shall the Board of Directors of the Iowa City Community School District in the County of Johnson, State of Iowa, be authorized to contract indebtedness and issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed $191,525,000 to provide funds to address health, safety, and accessibility issues in all school buildings, including air conditioning all school buildings, reducing the use of temporary classroom structures in the District, addressing classroom, lunchroom, and gymnasium overcrowding, and dedicating rooms to art, music, prekindergarten, and science by constructing, furnishing and equipping a new building, constructing additions to and/or remodeling, repairing, and improving the school buildings remaining in the District’s Facilities Master Plan, as follows: Mann and Lincoln renovations, Liberty High athletic facilities construction and site improvements, new elementary school construction in North Liberty and site improvements, West High renovation, South East and North Central Junior High additions, Shimek renovation, City High addition and upgrades, Wood addition, Wickham upgrades, Garner and Northwest additions, Liberty High addition, Horn renovation, Kirkwood addition, Borlaug, Alexander, and Lemme additions, and Tate High addition and upgrades?

For the bond to pass, it requires 60% of the vote. Here is a bit of background on the matter.

On February 2, 2013, voters approved a new revenue purpose statement (RPS), with 56% voting in favor and 44% voting against. This vote allowed the district to borrow up to $100 million against future sales tax revenue, and it was one of the primary funding mechanisms for the initial Facilities Master Plan (FMP).

 

On December 10, 2013, the ICCSD Board of Education approved the first iteration of the FMP--the overall structure was decided several months earlier on July 23, 2013 (see here). The process for determining the projects within that iteration of the FMP was lengthy, lasting around one year, and it involved community-wide discussions and ultimately a recommendation from a steering committee composed of numerous district stakeholders. After that decision, the primary opposition to the FMP came as a result of the board’s decision to close Hoover Elementary as part of FMP (my summary of the matter is here), and along with this criticism, some thought that the RPS vote was misleading, since the decision to close an elementary school (and consider closing a couple of others) was only made after the community vote for the RPS. Still, it must be acknowledged by critics and supporters alike that the board has addressed many of the transitional concerns that were raised by these critics (e.g., guaranteeing transfers for Hoover’s teachers and not using Hoover as a transitional schoolhouse), even as Hoover’s closure remains as part of the FMP.

On April 14, 2015, the board approved an update to the FMP (see V1 here). The update was made in response to changes in projected school enrollments, and it involved shifting several additions from buildings (e.g., Lincoln, Longfellow, and Mann) where enrollment projections declined to buildings where enrollment projections increased (e.g., Garner, and Weber). There were some switches that did not seem to align well with changes in projected enrollment (e.g., building an addition at Borlaug and Lemme), and it was unclear to me what the rationale for those changes was. If I had to speculate, I would suggest that it would be to increase flexibility in redistricting as the need arises in coming years. In addition to the Hoover-related objection, the other primary complaint against the FMP was that it signaled a shift from valuing the inner-core of the community to valuing building and growth on the periphery of town. For those engaged with the process and the reasons behind the decision, it is clear that this criticism did not take seriously how projected enrollments had shifted, nor did seem to recognize that the FMP was still slated to spend tens of millions of dollars renovating and upgrading the elementary schools closest to downtown Iowa City.  

On January 24, 2017, the board approved its latest update to its FMP (see here with a summary of the changes here). The board did not make as extensive of changes during this FMP update as it had two years prior. One can speculate about the reasons for that, including wanting less change given an upcoming bond vote, or the history of unwarranted and uninformed criticisms of the previous update (the periphery of town criticism above), but whatever the reason, the update was not as responsive to changes in the projected enrollment as the prior update was. Still, it did make some adjustments to address some of the changes in projected enrollment (e.g., accelerating  North Central Junior High’s addition and renovations), and it shifted the location of the new elementary school in North Liberty. There was also a slight shift in emphasis from adding general education classrooms to adding dedicated art and music rooms. This slight shift results in added capacity to the buildings involved, since the rooms used for art and music can then be used for general education rooms. In addition to the Hoover-related objection, the primary criticism of this particular update was that critics were concerned that it did not adequately account for changes in projected enrollment. For the most part, I heard very little of the the periphery of town criticism regarding this update.

It is clear that the bond language was inspired by the updated version of the FMP. The next post in the series will draw from this background to look at what voters can expect to happen should be bond pass.

I'm voting for Paul Roesler on Tuesday

On Tuesday, the ICCSD is holding a special election for a single seat on the school board. I'll be voting for Paul Roesler. Here's why:

1. Although the boundaries established in the Spring of 2015 were not perfect, and I spent a good deal of time criticizing them, I believe the changes made this past May by Directors Liebig, Hemingway, Roetlin, and Yates were harmful to justice concerns in our district, and those changes will continue to harm our district unless we reverse course. Mr. Roesler has the most knowledge of the issues at play here, and he has a more reasonable view than other candidates.

The issue: The majority believed that a majority of parents in the Alexander and Kirkwood attendance areas would prefer to attend City High rather than West High and West High rather than Liberty High, respectively.

Their rationale: Ultimately their reasoning is simply that it is the stated preference of the Kirkwood and Alexander parents to whom they spoke (a relatively small cross-section of the Kirkwood and Alexander communities). The stated reasons in board meetings weren't cogent--for example, they would assert that lack of public transportation from the Kirkwood area to North Liberty would impose far too great of burdens on Kirkwood students to assign Kirkwood students to West High. What they apparently failed to realize is that Kirkwood is largely bused to West High presently, and there is no reasonable way of taking public transportation to get to West High from the Kirkwood area. While the burdens may be problematic, those are problems with being assigned to West High just as much as to Liberty High. That is, to use public transportation to get from Kirkwood to West High, one would have to come toward downtown on Coralville/Cambuses, and then take an Iowa City bus to West High. Although I won't categorically say it never happens, it is so rare as to be irrelevant for policy purposes. Furthermore, there is a very small but relatively significant number of students at Kirkwood and Alexander respectively that do not receive busing to West or City respectively because they are just under 3 miles. Assigning those areas to Liberty and West would provide busing for all, which would likely improve attendance (a necessary condition for participating in extracurricular activities).

Mr. Roesler, however, has a principled and reasonable position that isn't grounded on such poor arguments. He holds something akin to John Rawls' principle of justice that we should strive for equality, but that in special cases where differences will specifically benefit the most vulnerable, it is best to have those differences. That sort of principle informs his understanding of secondary boundaries. He wants three roughly equal comprehensive high schools, and deviations from that need to be justified by how well the differences benefit the least well off. Those reasons haven't been sufficient to justify the May 10th changes to secondary boundaries, and Mr. Roesler rightly recognizes that. In my opinion, the four member majority violated this principle and subverted justice. They demanded justification for maintaining equality rather than giving sufficient justification that the differences they are promoting would benefit the most vulnerable members of our community.  Such a view is deeply problematic philosophically and pragmatically.

2. Of the three candidates, Mr. Roesler has the most reasonable position on the Hoover question, and I say this as someone who strongly supports revisiting whether Hoover should be closed.

My rationale: Last August, I wrote a primer on the Hoover closure for the purposes of informing the community about the reasons for closing Hoover and the counterarguments (see here). After discussing the equity and operational costs arguments for Hoover's closure, I argued that there were two reasonable positions that one could take:

"1. Maintain the FMP as is unless there are significant enrollment, budgetary, or other such changes that would address the reasons for its closure.

2. Commit to reexamining the FMP as it pertains to Hoover. If keeping Hoover open can be done without sacrificing the overall goals of having relatively well-balanced high schools and without forcing future increases in class sizes and/or programming cuts, then keeping Hoover open will be explored."

I hold Position 2, and Mr. Roesler holds Position 1. His position is a reasonable one, and I heard from a great number of Save Hoover folks that they appreciated precisely how I framed that discussion last year. Now, I think Mr Roesler is wrong, but his position is still a reasonable one. He, for instance, does not believe that we need City High to become some kind of vo-tech magnet as has been suggested by other candidates. Candidates should not support keeping Hoover open if it compromises the ability of our district to have well-balanced high schools or if it will lead to future increases in class sizes or programming cuts. I'd like to see whether we can keep Hoover open without making those sacrifices, but I would vote to close Hoover if I had to choose between keeping Hoover open and having well-balanced high schools or having smaller class sizes/lost programming. In short, I disagree with Mr. Roesler about Hoover, but I support his position over the vision outlined by other candidates, and therefore, I disagree with Save Hoover's endorsement of Mr. Claussen.

3. Mr. Roesler's knowledge of the district and his ability to listen to other voices, even those who disagree with him (like me regarding Hoover!), is one of the traits I admire greatly about him. He knows the ICCSD inside and out. He knows teachers, staff, and administrators across the district, and he has worked with them and advocated for them. He has attended more board meetings that most school board members over the last two years. He knows how to get needed changes made by offering concrete solutions, yet without making the change about him. He always knows what he believes, why he believes, and he can express those reasons. He will also listen and change his position accordingly when the evidence supports a change. Unfortunately, those traits are all too rare in the ICCSD.  Furthermore, because of his experience, knowledge, and intimate familiarity with the ICCSD, he will not be a candidate who speaks to only one or two pet issues. He will also operate transparently while offering good reasons for his views. You will know where he stands on an issue, even if you disagree with him.

4. Mr. Roesler will operate effectively with the rest of the board and with the administration. Rather than specifying how the administration needs to do its job, he will rightly focus on overarching goals and empower the administration to do its job, while holding the Superintendent accountable for making improvements--specifically in Special Education and as the administration interacts with other teachers and staff. 

In short, I believe Paul Roesler is the best candidate for the school board seat next Tuesday. He is informed, considerate, and responsive to evidence. On issues that come up anew--whether they are like the special education issues that recently came up or a budget crisis, he will know the issues at hand, and he will hold reasonable and informed positions. He has been and will continue to be an advocate on the state level for better educational funding. He will look out for the most vulnerable members of our community as a matter of principle. And lastly, he also happens to have reasonable, and in my view, the most correct position, from among the three candidates, regarding two of the critical swing votes in this election: the secondary boundaries issue and the Facilities Master Plan as it pertains to Hoover. That's why I hope you'll join me in voting for Paul on Tuesday. 

The Eternal Return: Educational Justice Policies

Proposed Equity Statement--Policy and Engagement, 4/7/2015

Superintendent Directions--P&E, 4/7/2015

The Policy and Engagement Committee is considering a number of proposals that are related to educational justice: (1) An equity policy, (2) directions to the Superintendent about attendance areas, and (3) weighted resource allocation as a remedy for educational justice concerns.

I think the spirit that animates these policies is good (see here). It proposes, roughly, that we want the district to fix the unjustice already in our system (and not make it worse).  I also appreciate that board members, at least some of them, are thinking of a multipronged approach to solving the issue--e.g., boundary changes and weighted funding.

Last October, I wrote an Guest Opinion for the Press-Citizen. I argued that the board had failed to make good decisions that involves value judgments, and I included examples of a couple of policies dealing with educational justice matters. I said that the board needed to have a frank discussion about educational values and its commitment to certain ones over others in order to properly guide the administration. It still hasn't really had this discussion, and I fear that the board will simply repeat some prior mistakes.

Some past mistakes that I fear may be repeated in these policies:

Problem: Relying too much on the slippery notion of equity

Our community has a slippery notion of equity (as I've discussed here) I know that certain board members have a more concrete idea of the concept that is similar to what I mean by "educational justice." But backdooring this conversation won't do. The idea needs to be spelled out. I think the concrete idea being employed by some board members is something akin to John Rawls' difference principle that inequality is only justified if it benefits our most vulnerable students ("least-advantaged" in Rawls' language). And our most vulnerable students (in no particular order) are those who face significant barriers in education including, at least, low-income students, English-language learners, racial minorities, students who qualify for special education, and high-need general education students.

That's a much more concrete notion, and I think it is one that our community would largely support.

Solution: Tell us what you mean instead of using code words like equity. Tell us that you think equality is best, unless it can be demonstratively shown that inequality benefits our most vulnerable students. Lower class sizes for schools with a higher proportion of our most vulnerable students is one way that inequality could benefit our most vulnerable students.

Problem: Not addressing conflicting values

A weighted resource allocation model is primarily intended to lower class sizes and place other academic support in place to help vulnerable students. But the board hasn't amended its aspirational class sizes, which undermine this strategy.

Here's what I've written about that policy:

"In late 2013, the board approved what it called "aspirational class sizes." It gave the administration the directive to keep class sizes below a certain threshold for each grade level. This school year the administration used those figures to determine class sizes. This use of the aspirational class sizes was not accompanied by a clear articulation of how this single value relates to our other educational values.
Should we have the same class-size standard for a third grade class with 18 students in poverty and one with no students in poverty? Thus, the administration decided that it would implement the aspirational class size policy without regard for school demographics. As such, this policy could very well become a mechanism to harm those who are least well off in our district, resulting in further injustice and inequality, and possibly doing more harm than good."

I make the same general point about conflicting values in my more recent piece on discretionary busing.

None of these policies discuss how the implicit values should be ordered and ranked. None of them address how conflicts between them should be decided. Ultimately, the board can decide these matters on an ad hoc basis, but that will do little in the way of actually freeing up the administration to be a creative partner in proposing ideas to achieve the intended goal.

Solution: Deliberate about the values implicit in these discussions. Rank-order them with an aim toward guiding the administration's policy implementations.

Problem: Not having a clear measure for evaluating success

The proposed equity policy indicates that its goal is to reduce the achievement gap. Yet it gives no measure of how that will be evaluated. If we can't determine whether the policy is successful, it will be a bad policy. I think the administration will implicitly take the policy to be about increasing test scores, and I think that would be a mistake. I've discussed this previously:

"One of my fears is that we will simply measure academic achievement in terms of whatever standardized test scores we are using. I think that's a recipe for making it look like we are educating our children, when we may not be. So I would propose instead that we use many evaluations -- including both quantitative data such as surveys of relevant teachers and affected parents, number of learning objectives in which a students have shown progress and/or mastered over the course of the year (as evaluated by the teacher), and also standardized test scores AND qualitative data drawn from focus groups of teachers, staff, and parents, interviews, and so forth. The qualitative data will be important for asking the right sorts of questions in any surveys. Measure our achievement of our goals in this way will help us avoid the trap of assuming that because a student who came in barely speaking English and who didn't do well on the standardized test score in English didn't improve. It would avoid the trap of merely teaching to the test. In short, we need to think critically about how our measuring techniques might affect the methods we use to achieve success of that goal.
I mention these measures not as a finished list, but as something that I think would be more valuable than merely using test scores."

Solution:  First, make it explicit that you are going to evaluate the policies in terms of academic achievement, particularly for our vulnerable students. That's only suggested by the proposed wording in the equity policy.  Second, set up a standard to hold us accountable for actually making improvements in reducing the achievement gap.

Dictating too much about how to accomplish the goal

Although a weighted resource allocation policy and an equity policy illustrate a preference for a multipronged approach, I worry that it repeats the mistake of the past by overspecifying the means. Our goal should be to free up the administration to be a creative partner for reducing the achievement gap. With these policies, will the administration experience that freedom? Perhaps, but I'm concerned that it won't.

Solution: Focus on the end desired, and the measure for evaluation. Let the administration find the best means to accomplish the goal. (I suspect it will involve weighted resource allocation, boundary changes, and a host of other strategies, but we shouldn't be heavy-handed about the means at this point.)



In short, I hope we won't make the same mistakes this time. Let's talk about these weighty matters, and let's empower the administration to tackle them.

FAQ from ICCSD Residents

(This post will be updated as I add more questions to it. Feel free to make suggestions. I intend each question to be informational with few expression of my opinions, and I try to indicate when I'm expressing my opinion. I encourage you to call me out if I overstep. I do not take any of this to be original to me, and I give a tip of the hat to too many administrators and residents to mention explicitly.)

How does educational funding work for Iowa schools?

The State of Iowa limits the amount of money per student—called spending authority—that school districts can use to fund annual operations and programming. The purpose of the limit on spending authority is noble: It ensures a wealthier area does not have more educational opportunities than a poorer area simply because of its flush tax base. Spending authority is the pot of funds used for annual programming and operations. If a school district does not spend the full amount of its spending authority in a given year, the district is allowed to carry over the remainder to be used in subsequent years as a one-time (rainy-day) fund. In addition to spending authority, in most years, the state will give a supplemental state allocation (SSA), previously called allowable growth, as a percentage increase on the amount allocated the prior year. There are also special categorical funds, such as special education and at-risk funds, that are allocated based on the number of students with needs and the severity of needs. Spending authority, categorical funds, and supplemental state allocation all operate independently of how much a given school district is able to raise via property taxes. Fewer funds raised by property taxes would mean that the state would backfill more of a district’s spending authority. Greater funds raised by property taxes would mean that the state would backfill less. However, the state does not limit one-time funds used for new buildings, athletic fields or building maintenance. A municipality's use of tax-incremental financing (TIF) does not directly affect spending authority, nor does it directly affect SSA. Some people argue that the use of TIFs indirectly affects the state government's decision to limit SSA.

When will Grant and (new) Hoover open?

Longfellow will swing into the (new) Hoover building in 2017-2018 as Longfellow is renovated. In 2018-2019, Mann and Lincoln will simultaneously swing through (new) Hoover as they are both renovated. (new) Hoover and Grant are both scheduled to open in 2019. But (new) Hoover as a building will be completed for 2017 opening as a swing school. Grant will open as a stand-alone attendance area in 2019, which is the same year that (new) Hoover is slated to open as a stand-alone attendance area.

Why does Liberty High School have so much parking in its design?

According to a high-level administrator, the current plan for Liberty High currently has approximately 1,000 parking spots, since “We have to provide 1 spot for each 3.5 seats in the largest assembly space (which is the stadium) plus 1 spot for each faculty member." This is because of a building code requirement, which applies to new construction. Sometimes significant renovations of older buildings may require adherence to current building codes. In any case, the district is aware of the potential issues that these differences may give rise to between our high schools.

Will Liberty High School be inequitable when it opens compared to West and City High?

When Liberty opens in 2017, it will have classrooms for 1,000 students, cafeteria, common spaces, a complete fine arts wing, indoor athletic facilities, and green spaces that will be available for outdoor field-based practices. They will not have classrooms for an extra 500 students, tennis courts, a stadium, or baseball and softball fields until the general obligation bond passes. In the interim, the district and North Liberty are cooperating to temporarily relocate those sports to other facilities in North Liberty. Traveling from school for some extracurricular activities is common at City and West for certain sports (e.g., swimming and baseball among others). My opinion is that the problem will be more acute at Liberty for a couple of years since it will apply to more sports, it will likely be disadvantageous to participation for some as it is at our other schools, and it is certainly not ideal. But it is good that the harm is mostly temporary.

How is the capacity of ICCSD schools calculated?

Capacity calculations are based in part on the square feet in a room and the use of the room. For example, a smaller first grade classroom (in terms of square feet) would have less capacity than a larger first grade classroom. Also, preschool classrooms (based on their use) are not counted as K-12 capacity. But if the use of the preschool classroom were changed to a general education K-12 classroom, then the capacity of the school would increase.

Can we save $500K per year by delaying opening Liberty?

A committee has recommended that Liberty High School open as a comprehensive high school serving all four high-school grades, and the Board of Education has approved that recommendation. The administration has estimated that opening Liberty High School as a comprehensive high school in 2017-2018 rather than as an annex of West High School would add an additional cost of $500K for two years (the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years). The costs would mostly be comprised of coaches and directors of extracurricular programs. Those costs are already accounted in our long-term planning beginning in 2019-2020, so the costs would be a cost of $500K for exactly two years. For one-time expenses like these, it is feasible for the district to use excess spending authority, which is the spending authority that our district chose not to spend in past years and that can be used one time to cover expenses as determined by the district. In my opinion, the district would not be practicing wise stewardship of its resources if it used these resources to pay for on-going expenses, but it is reasonable to the district to use them in cases where the expenses have a clear end date.

How much does it cost to operate a new elementary school? 

The administration estimates that it will take $500,000 to operate our new elementary schools beyond the instructional costs. This figure is based on the projected salary of a principal, librarian, guidance counselor, building secretary, media secretary, custodian care, and utilities cost. The cost to operate a new elementary school beyond the instructional costs is related to but not identical with the savings incurred by closing an elementary school and absorbing those students at other elementary schools.

Secondary Boundaries: Implicit Value Judgments

I've been reflecting on the secondary boundaries offered from the administration in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of deliberation. I have heard a number of criticisms that the maps are driven primarily by an attempt to bring about socioeconomic integration.

I think that is a misunderstanding. Here are some of the value judgments present in secondary maps (alphabetical order):

• capacity (have balanced use of capacity at junior highs and high schools; e.g., the percentage of capacity used at City High should be relatively close to West High and Liberty High)
• demographics (have balanced demographic characteristics, e.g., race, socioeconomic status, English-language learners, and special education students)
• geographic proximity (assign each student to schools are that are closer in walking/driving distance, rather than further away, from that student's residence; this is at the root of the controversy about "islands")
• pyramid feeders (have a pyramid feeder system from one distinct set of elementary schools to Southeast Junior High, another distinct set of elementary schools to Northwest Junior High, and a third to North Central Junior High)
• school size (have approximately the same number of students at each of the junior highs and at each of the high schools)
• straight feeders (have a straight feeder system from North Central Junior High to Liberty High, from Northwest Junior High to West High, and from Southeast Junior High to City High)

Each value judgment mentioned is playing a role in the secondary maps the administration and board is pursuing. I think most of these values are well-founded and based on strong evidence. There is strong evidence that capacity, demographics, geographic proximity, and the size of a school affects academics. We can debate about the relative importance of these values, and we should. BUT, we are missing something that is puzzling to me if that's all we see here.

My question: why are we so committed to straight feeders and pyramid feeders? Many of the most puzzling features of the maps could, at the very least, be minimized if we drew junior high boundaries based on capacity, demographics, geographic proximity, and school size without regard for straight feeding our high schools, and having a pyramid of elementary schools feeding into it. Geographically, we have our current junior highs in strange locations. Two are in the northwest part of the district, and one is in the southeast part, despite the fact that approximately 40% of the district is east of the river, and at least 60 or so percent of the district is in Iowa City. That makes it challenging on its own to balance the four central values with our junior highs. How much harder are we making it with our feeder requirements?

Likewise, I think the puzzling features would be minimized even further if we drew high school boundaries based on the four primary values without regard for a straight feeder from a specific junior high. It's a lot easier to see Twain going to West than to see it go to Northwest. Likewise, it may make sense for Kirkwood to go to Liberty High, but it is rather strange that it wouldn't go to the junior high right next door to it (Northwest Junior High).

One of the reasons this is so puzzling to me is that the pyramid feeder system plus the straight feeder system has no known or purported academic benefit. Yet those two values are the only ones that the board hasn't considered abandoning. The closest they came was when Director Kirschling requested the administration to give maps akin to what I've suggested. The administration never proposed any map that broke the straight feeder system from junior high to high school. The closest they came was the "as the crow flies" map and the "municipality" map proposed in the second round.

The "as the crow flies" map was simply absurd on its face. It looked at geographical proximity in terms of sheer distance without regard for capacity, demographics, or school size, and the geography was considered without regard for geographical boundaries of any type. It violated every single value above except the straight feeder value. 

Likewise, the "municipality" map wasn't really considering the four values of capacity, demographics, geography, and school size versus the feeder models.

I hope the board will request that the administration make separate junior high and high school maps. As it stands, the administration and the board appear to place a higher priority on the feeder system than they do on any of the more important values that pertain to academic matters. Those are the central value judgments being expressed in all of the maps presently considered. I think that's a mistake and the board should reconsider it. At the very least, they should have information that shows how such a proposal would pose few, if any, benefits regarding capacity, demographics, geographical proximity, or school size.

UPDATE (3/20/2015): The board commissioned research about feeder patterns last year (see here). First, I don't see a definitive reason in it to prefer our current feeder model if the alternative is superior in terms of the four-other values. Second, the report applies research that is primarily about student mobility (repeatedly changing schools during high school and the like) and "transitions" (i.e., 8th graders going from junior high to high school, versus 8th graders staying in the same school when the 9th grade is at the same location) to feeder models. On a quick glance, I saw very few studies talking about feeder patterns, and one of the studies that did note advantages to a linear model (which is not our model) noted that its small sample size may affect its statistical significance. 

How to Take Socioeconomic Status into Account in Redistricting?

At last night's Policy and Engagement Committee meeting, the ICCSD administration informed the committee and the community that they had received a cease and desist order concerning the Diversity Policy from the State Board of Education based on feedback from the USDA. See the Press-Citizen report (here). In the USDA letter, it becomes clear that it is illegal to use free and reduced lunch status to, for example, create density maps for the purpose of redistricting. A necessary part of redistricting.

As I have argued previously, the particular provisions in the policy are (a) not being implemented currently and (b) would have required substantial revision in order to be workable. So, I'm not sure what losing the Diversity Policy really means at this point. Still, I believe it would be best for the Board of Education to think more about the end goal they want to create (reducing the achievement gap, reducing barriers to education in target populations, improving the academic success of all students particularly those who are least advantaged, or some other such goal) and to let the administration work out the details of how to realize that goal. I argued for that previously (here). Not only do I think that would work better, but it also exemplified how the board and administration should interact. See this Press-Citizen opinion piece about that (here) and this blog post on the topic (here).

But, like many others, I also strongly believe that socioeconomic status must be taken into account in order to deal with the challenges we face as a district (see here for an argument about that). Other approaches considered independently of socioeconomics (e.g., using English-Language Learner status, race, and/or standardized test scores) have significant problems that I won't go into here. I'm happy to talk about that in comments or later, if need be.

But this made me wonder how to address socioeconomic status without using free-and-reduced-lunch status? Here's my tentative answer:

First, take the average household income data that is readily available. Unsurprisingly, there is a strongly positive correlation between household income and FRL status. This is a graphic from the 2013 Dejong-Richter report on demographics in the ICCSD. We may need a slightly more fine-grained analysis of average household income (that is, smaller blocks and also taking into account great wealth, too).

Second, take the student density maps (here). If the average household income was as fine-grained as this density map, then you could easily draw pretty good redistricting lines that would take into account socioeconomic status. 

Third, I don't think it is wise to specify exactly how socioeconomic status should be equalized through redistricting. As I mentioned above, I think we should characterize our goal in terms of an educational outcome, and then give the administration latitude to realize that goal. 

But how might such a method work: first, you take the density map. Let's say that the block with 234 students on the density map is going to Grant Wood. Then we could multiply 234 by $50K. And let's say that the block  with 37 students near Shimek is districted to that school. Then, we multiply 37 by (at least) $100K. Now, we can see what we'd need to do with redistricting in order to bring the average household income closer together at those schools. In fact, this method could very well be a significant improvement over using FRL status, since it would take into account the uber-wealthy and some low-income persons who choose not to apply for FRL.

Of course, I'm assuming that the average income information would basically be true for the population of families with school age children. I think that assumption probably holds well enough presently for us to use something akin to this approach as a tool in the overall approach that the administration would take. I think the assumption may not apply in all circumstances, and that's another good reason for the board to focus on goals and allow the administration to use this tool among others to accomplish those goals.

Now, don't hear what I'm not saying. I don't think this should be the only means for redistricting. Nor do I think that it is a cure all for what ails our district. Rather, socioeconomic considerations need to be in the administration's tool belt for addressing the barriers that low-income persons disproportionately face, which is exacerbated at school with high concentrations of poverty.

What say you? Is this approach sufficient to take socioeconomic status into account? Or do we just have to use FRL status? 

Enrollment Numbers for 2014: What do they mean?

The Press-Citizen is reporting that enrollment numbers for the ICCSD have been released. I've not seen the district's report on those numbers, but I do have last's year's projection (here) and the projection from two years ago (here).

I'm still processing what the numbers mean, but here are some preliminary thoughts:

First, the initial projections from two years ago are closer to what we actually have compared to last year's projection. The totals seem to align relatively well with the moderate projection from two years ago.

Second, the difference between what actually occurred and what was projected was primarily because a number of schools saw a decline in total enrollment from the 2012-2013 school year till now. The projections from two years ago only projected one of our schools (Kirkwood) to have a slightly declining enrollment. Interestingly, it had some of the most explosive growth of the two-year period.

Third, I think it is probably more helpful to compare the projected numbers from two years ago to the present numbers rather than the numbers from last year to the numbers this year. Otherwise, you could have had explosive growth last year (like we had at Kirkwood) that isn't properly accounted for in the decline.

Fourth, it is interesting to see which schools are meeting or exceeding the rather high projected growth compared to those that did not see much growth.

UPDATE: As as a result of some careful inquiries, I discovered that I made a mistake in my spreadsheet calculations. I had originally intended to "curve" the projection based on the overall decline. However, I curved the result the wrong way, and a reader pointed that out to me. I have since decided that it is somewhat misleading to curve the data, and revised the data. The percentage change (positive or negative) is calculated with the following equation: [1 - (the projected enrollment from the Spring 2013 Dejong Richter report / Actual enrollment figures from 2014-2015 school year)]. One of the wonderful benefits of presenting information publicly is that mistakes can be caught. I appreciate that greatly, and please let me know if I make a mistake about in judgment, values, or data!

For my money, I'd say that being within 2.5% of the projection is pretty accurate, and I'd call anything in that range "about right."

A change greater than 2.5% but less than 10% seems significant.

A change greater than 10% seems rather dramatic.

With those percentages in mind, we had 6 elementary schools that were projected about right, and West and Tate Highs were projected about right.

Only 5 elementary schools saw a significant or dramatic increase over their projections: Twain (the only dramatic increase, very dramatic!), and Borlaug, Kirkwood, Van Allen, and Wickham. Borlaug, Van Allen, and Wickham occur on top of pretty large projected growth.

However, lest someone think that the growth in North Liberty and north Coralville is greatly out of step with the projections, you can see that it is not:

The remaining 8 elementary schools, and the 3 junior highs saw a significant or dramatic decrease with Hoover, Lincoln, Lucas, and Mann (all dramatic by my categorization) showing the greatest percentage declines.

My evaluation of the information:

What are the likely reasons why that might be?

Could Hoover be declining because of its pending closure, or is it because of SINA changes (or perhaps both)? Might the prospect of redistricting have had an impact on Lincoln and Coralville Central? Are escalating FRL rates having an effect at Mann and Lucas respectively? Is the soon-to-be-completed Alexander Elementary School driving growth in what is currently in the Twain area? Or are the Twain, Wood, and Kirkwood areas just the only place where housing is available for low-income families?

If these figures are reflective of trends rather than a one-year aberration, should we rethink the locations of certain expansions in the Facilities Master Plan? Do Longfellow and Mann need expansions in addition to their renovations (that is, they should definitely be renovated with building updates and AC, but must we add seats at those schools?)?

It still seems as if the north Coralville and North Liberty areas are growing about as expected. Penn was the only school in that area that wasn't "about right" and considering the entire area collectively, they are about what was projected two years ago.

I will need to hear more about the assumptions made in the budget blueprint last year to evaluate how much these figures, if they are a trend, will have an effect on the budget.

Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? What do we need to think about in relation to this new information?

A Trend for In-School Assessments

One of the interesting and positive results (there are many negative results, though!) of how the ICCSD has responded to No Child Left Behind is a more concentrated focus on student learning for all of our students. Many of our teachers in targeted schools have regular meetings with a group of their fellow teachers and other staff in order to find the best way to reach all their students, to identify specific skills that will be measured among the many that are being taught, and to bounce ideas off of the colleagues. This practice has allowed teachers to quickly see results of their efforts, to determine whether students with barriers to education are, in fact, learning, and to make adjustments on the fly. These all seems to be a very good, and show that good outcomes can come from bad policies.

As I reflected on this fact for these schools, I was struck by the sense that this broad-based individualized approach to assessment at these schools seems to make standardized assessments superfluous at these schools. If the teachers are measuring each student individually on a regular basis, and they are using that information to more effectively teach students; then it seems that standardized assessments that are summative, that take a long time to get results, that have little impact on what actually takes place in the classroom (except for that week of testing) are doing very little that isn't already occurring in a much more useful format in the approach used in targeted schools in the ICCSD.

This good outcome is a testament to the quality of our teachers, and also to administrators who are willing to protect our schools from the excesses of certain state and federal policies so that we can better reach all of our students. They'd brought about a good outcome from a bad policy, and it's important for us to continue supporting those practices that move us closer to the goal of making all of our students life-long learners.

Doing better by the diversity policy

The P-C reported that Superintendent Murley outlined a plan for a comprehensive strategy for resource allocation at last night's listening post. I have been told from attendees that this strategy would be in addition to redistricting efforts, and that he, at one point, said something to the effect that a balanced free-and-reduced lunch rate would be optimal academically.

I'm pleased by this development, and here are few ways that I think we do better.

First, I think we need to articulate our ultimate goal for how we'd like the school district to look. I think this goal should be tied explicitly to academic matters. I know that some will disagree with me on this matter, and I sympathize with some of these criticisms. For instance, I know some (I am one of these people) who think that the social consequences of lacking socioeconomic and racial diversity in a individual school can be just as problematic as any academic consequences, and they would support such diversity even if there were no negative academic consequences to lacking it. I'm in that camp myself, since I think the goal of education is not just vocational, but is also there to help form our students into good participants and citizens in our society.

Still, I think it is important to tie the goal explicitly to academic concerns. Doing so will be helpful for people like me who think education is more than just what we know (but also about what we believe, what we love, and how will live) and people who think it is just about knowledge acquisition. In other words, I think we will have a much stronger case for whatever changes we need to make if it is tied explicitly to academics.

Here is a goal I might suggest: the ICCSD should reduce the achievement gap between schools that have greater barriers to education (high proportions of low-income students, high proportions of ELL students, high proportions of high-need general education students, and so forth) in comparison to those that have fewer barriers by improving the academic performance of those schools that have greater barriers.

I was concerned that the resource allocation model wasn't clearly tied to an academic goal at least as it was discussed in the P-C article.

Second, we need to be clear about how we measure success of this goal. One of my fears is that we will simply measure academic achievement in terms of whatever standardized test scores we are using. I think that's a recipe for making it look like we are educating our children, when we may not be. So I would propose instead that we use many evaluations -- including both quantitative data such as surveys of relevant teachers and affected parents, number of learning objectives in which a students have shown progress and/or mastered over the course of the year (as evaluated by the teacher), and also standardized test scores AND qualitative data drawn from focus groups of teachers, staff, and parents, interviews, and so forth. The qualitative data will be important for asking the right sorts of questions in any surveys. Measure our achievement of our goals in this way will help us avoid the trap of assuming that because a student who came in barely speaking English and who didn't do well on the standardized test score in English didn't improve. It would avoid the trap of merely teaching to the test. In short, we need to think critically about how our measuring techniques might affect the methods we use to achieve success of that goal.

I mention these measures not as a finished list, but as something that I think would be more valuable than merely using test scores. Still, I was concerned that the P-C article made it seem as if standardized test scores would be the only academic marker used in the resource allocation policy.

Third, we should (a) give the administration wide latitude to put together a comprehensive plan that will achieve this goal according to the selected measure, and (b) hold the Superintendent accountable for achieving (or at least making significant progress toward) that goal within a given time frame. The latitude should be wide so as to include the suggested elements in the P-C article linked to above, redistricting, and even possible changes/additions to the Facilities Master Plan (e.g., perhaps an addition at Kirkwood or a 4th Junior High School). I think there are two benefits to this third point. I think it gives a diversity initiative the highest chance of success. Whatever knowledge I have of these issues, it pails in comparison to people who focus their lives and careers on it (teachers, principals, district admin staff), and rather than inadvertently hamstringing their imaginations and/or means of achieving the optimal result, we should free them up to accomplish our good goals. On the flip side, giving the administration wide latitude means that failure to achieve the goal cannot be blamed on the community's failure or the board's poor decision making. The failure would be in the imagination of the administration, or in its execution. You wouldn't have a situation like last Spring where the budget problems the district faced were sometimes blamed on the community's input, the board's poor decision making, and/or the administration's failure.

Ultimately, I think this sort of approach is more in line with the spirit of the Diversity Policy that I've discussed elsewhere, and it is also closer to the intended model of policy governance for our school board, i.e., the Carver model. Specifically, it focuses on ends, delegation of  implementation/means of the policy, and monitoring of success.

As always, I'm open to criticisms and objections. What am I missing? Thoughts? Questions? Concerns?

Should we stay (with more resources), or should we go (on a bus)?

The Iowa City Community School District has been having more meetings about redistricting, the diversity policy, magnet schools, and attendance area. I've been doing some preliminary evaluation of data from the 2012-2013 school year as a way to give community members insight into the relative costs of various proposals that are currently on the table.

I have previously expressed my support for the spirit of the diversity policy (here), and I am strongly committed to that same spirit. I am not committed to the specific percentages, guidelines, time-frame, or any particular strategy for accomplishing the spirit of the diversity policy. I'm open to various possibilities, but I am not open to continuing the status quo, nor do I simply want change for change's sake. I want meaningful change that is intended to address the structural problems harming our educational system for our least-advantaged students. 

A few months ago, I offered a survey (here) mainly as a way to help our community think about the various possibilities related to redistricting. I identified to dominant strategies that could have some effect on reducing burdens that our community has directly and indirectly places on low-income students. 

Strategy One (from the survey): "Allocating additional resources to a school over a long period of time (especially more teachers to have a better student to teacher ratio) is the best way to remove educational barriers to learning that disproportionately affect low-income students, which results in the district having no need, or at the least, very little need for boundary changes."

A number of respondents expressed sympathy for this approach. I wanted to crunch the numbers to get a better indication of the actual costs associated with using this method as the primary vehicle for removing those educational barriers.

Relevant assumptions and limitations:

• You would need class sizes at or below 15 students at the Kindergarten level (17-19 is recommended for the average Kindergarten classroom), 19 students for 1st and 2nd grade, and 23 students from 3rd-6th grade. (It may be that class sizes would need to be lower than this to truly make a difference, but I needed to make an assumption that seemed reasonable.)
• I only considered increased resources at 3 schools: Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood. We have some others elementary schools that are well above 50% for their FRL rate, and they may have to be included if current trends continue.
• Class sizes for those three schools and others for 2012-2013 can be found here (see page 165 in the pdf file).
• Based on the official class sizes for 2012-2013 at those three schools and the suggested class sizes above, you would need 4 more teachers at Kirkwood and Twain, and 3 more teachers at Wood.
• Any changes to increase resources at those three schools would be budget neutral, i.e., there would be tradeoffs with other programs or funds.
• The tradeoffs would come from the 11 elementary schools that have FRL rates lower than 30%.
• The cost of reassigning a teacher (salary and benefits) would average at least $75K. Teacher salaries for 2014-2015 can be found here (page 158 in the pdf file), and the information there suggests that the assumption is a fair one. I am, however, open to other figures if they are more compelling.

Given these assumptions, the strategy one model (i.e., the increased resources model) would need to reassign the 11 teachers (or an equivalent amount of resources to affect a similar outcome) from the 11 elementary schools with FRL rates lower than 30%. Thoughts, questions, or concerns about just using Strategy One?

Strategy Two (from the survey): "Boundary changes that achieve socioeconomic integration for all our schools is the best way to remove educational barriers to learning that disproportionately affect low-income student, and there would be little or no need to allocate additional resources to particular schools since they would be balanced socioeconomically."

A number of respondents expressed sympathy for this approach. So, how does the number crunching work for this model?

Relevant assumptions and limitations:

• There would need to be extensive changes to the attendance areas at Twain, Wood, and Kirkwood in order to use this method. 
• I used the number of buses in 2012-2013, which are here and here. The total number of buses at all levels of 102.
• The per bus cost is difficult to calculate. We are charged a lump sum from a 3rd party for our busing services, divided between the general education fund and other funds. Approximately 2/3 dollars spent on busing is not from the general education fund, leaving only about 1/3 of the cost coming form the general education fund.
• Our primary concern is with general education costs, as it has the most significant impact on the classroom, and it was the reason behind the budget cuts last Spring. See here for my discussion of that.
• The total general education costs for busing in 2012-2013 was a little less than $4 million.
• That figure divided by 102 results in a cost of just a little less than $40K per bus.
• The number of students transported in buses varies considerably, with some carrying as many as 75 students as evidenced here.
• The number of buses at Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood vary (see here). Twain had 4 in 2012-2013, Wood had 1, and Kirkwood had 0. 
• I only considered increased resources at 3 schools: Kirkwood, Twain, and Wood. We have some others elementary schools that are well above 50% for their FRL rate, and they may have to be included if current trends continue.
• Any changes to increase resources at those three schools would be budget neutral, i.e., there would be tradeoffs with other programs or funds.
• The tradeoffs would come from the 11 elementary schools that have FRL rates lower than 30%.

 Given these assumptions and guidelines, I estimated that Strategy Two (redistricting only) we would need between 3-5 new buses. At least 2-3 at Kirkwood, at least 1-2 additional buses at Wood, and probably no additional ones for Twain (given that they already have 4). At a cost of $40K per bus, that would be the cost equivalent of about 0.2 teachers taken from each of the 11 elementary schools with FRL rates under 30%. Thoughts, questions, or concerns about just using Strategy Two?

My Commentary:

I appreciate that people offering both of these strategies are dissatisfied with the present state of affairs. Our system is unjust and disproportionately burdens low-income students. That needs to be addressed, and I think our community has the political will do to so now.

Still, I think there are significant challenges that we have in using either of these methods as the only overall solution. There is no realistic way of getting Wood and Twain under 50% FRL given the constraints that the administration placed on the process and approved by the board (the cluster constraints, mainly). Furthermore, given that so many students, with a high-concentration of poverty, live around Kirkwood, it poses its own challenges for both models. 

Can you fit more teachers there without redistricting? Are other resources able to improve academic achievement as well as lower class sizes? How much are we harming low-income students if we redistrict them to a school that is significantly further away from their closest school?

In light of these challenges and more, I think it would be best to pursue a hybrid approach of these two strategies -- leaning more to the redistricting side of the equation unless there are significant overriding reasons to not do so. To not do so, would have bad results (i.e., increased class sizes) for a majority of our school district's students. Despite what common sense may suggest, it is significantly more costly to pursue Strategy One exclusively rather than Strategy Two exclusively.

Furthermore, the communal context may dictate that you take different strategies with different schools. Twain's already heavy bus load may make it such that redistricting is more attractive there. Kirkwood's capacity limits may mean that we will have to redistrict some of its students to other schools, while increasing its resources? Perhaps Alexander will spur real estate development, which would help reduce the ultimate need for more resources at Wood and Alexander? Perhaps the administration needs more latitude to accomplish the goal of addressing injustice in our system, while we hold them accountable for the results.

Thoughts, questions, or concerns about my commentary?