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? 

The Value of Debate

I am a competitive person, and a first-generation college student. I grew up in a small town in Texas where sports are all encompassing, and I was no exception to this trend. As a young person, I thought the only value in academics was what it could do for me: get me a good job, keep my parents and teachers happy, and so on.

For me, that only changed because of academic debate. I was initially drawn to academic debate because it spoke to my competitiveness. I liked winning debates as much as I liked winning athletic competitions. I enjoyed developing new argumentative strategies as much as liked successfully executing a trick play in football. I relished the thrill of the clever argument as much as hitting a 3-pointer.

In order to win arguments, I had to become a better critical thinker and researcher. I had to respond quickly, accurately, and efficiently to arguments. I had to do in-depth research on a topic to anticipate every possible objection so that I was ready to defend my view against those objections. Because I had to defend perspectives other than my own, I learned to see issues from multiple viewpoints. I became comfortable with people disagreeing strongly with my views and positions. I often had strongly held opinions that were fundamentally reoriented by the unforced force of the better argument. I learned how to debate about facts and figures, but also about differences in values and ethics.

As I repeatedly engaged in these processes in over 300 intercollegiate debate rounds and later coached my college team and a high school debate team, these academic features became second nature to me. They formed me and my approach to academics. Academics were no longer merely a means to a good job, a way to keep my teachers happy, or even for winning a debate. Rather, it was part of what it means to be a life-long learner and a citizen. That's why I think debate is perhaps one of the most valuable activities for people of all ages. Other practices can develop those traits, but debate is what did it for me.

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.

On How the School Board Should Function: Facilities Master Plan, Diversity Policy, Aspirational Class-Sizes, and More

Holly Hines wrote a piece in the P-C recently describing what I see as the fundamental problem our school board has.

"Lucas Elementary parent Michael Tilley, who blogs about education issues in the district, said he thinks the School Board has taken on roles that should be left to district administrators, such as the superintendent, and vice versa, when it comes to setting policy and cutting the budget.  

 He said board members seem too focused on the details of policies they create rather than the goals of the policies themselves.

"I'm not sure that they're functioning well in the sense of getting accomplished what needs to be accomplished for our community," Tilley said."

To expand a bit, you can read what I've written about this topic previously:

In one post written about 10-months ago, I identified the problem as a case of the tale wagging the dog: see here. In that particular case, I illustrate the phenomenon with respect to the Facilities Master Plan. My conclusion in that post:

"I'd much rather see them discuss how we should prioritze our values than debate minor financial or logistical issues in board and committee meetings. Is achieving equity of student achievement our highest goal? Or is it low student-teacher ratios? Or is it minimizing tax payer expenses? Or is it protecting a particular geographical area of town? Is primary or secondary education more important? How should we order these values, once we have determined what they are? Those are the types of questions the board should be discussing publicly at board and committee meetings. They can be spurred by the practical issues at hand, but we can only truly deal with disagreements about these matter if we are clear on where the disagreement lies. Furthermore, if the administration knew clearly what the board thought (as the representative of its stakeholders, the community), then the administration could more effectively achieve its goals by knowing how to implement those goals."

In another post, I explain that the board missed the boat on the diversity policy. They focused on specifying percentages to be achieved, implementation, and time-frames rather than articulating a goal and holding the administration accountable for meeting the goal. As a result, we didn't do much of anything with regard to the Diversity Policy over the last 18 months, and the administration wasn't held accountable. Here is what the goal should have been:

"So, the spirit of the DP -- the DP as it should be understood rather than the particular requirements specified in the document itself -- is to (a) stop reinforcing and making the achievement gap worse (as a wise person has said about our budget, maybe we can get out of the hole if we just stop digging!) and (b) attempt to restack the deck in favor of all of our kids, particularly our at-risk children."

In a third post, I go into greater detail about how the Diversity Policy should have been structured with a clear goal, clear standards of evaluation for the administration that go beyond mere increases in test schools for students with certain barriers to education, and strong accountability to make positive moves toward achieve the goals according to the measures. Here is what I said there:

"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."

These are but two examples I've written about on the blog, but I could give a similar account with respect to how the board has handled the budget, class-size issues, and turning the diversity policy into aspirational goals. Here is what I've written about the "aspirational goal" language in class-sizes and the proposal to use that for the DP (in a comment on another P-C article):

"I'm most concerned about the application of the aspirational goals. I've been disappointed by how the aspirational class size goals have been implemented (in practice, it still seems like the squeaky wheel still gets oiled), and I was disappointed in the administration's proposal based on something akin to aspirational goals for Cluster 2 redistricting. For example, in the board's decision to keep the Breckenridge island (a concentrated FRL group currently assigned to Lemme--a low-FRL school--but that under the administration's proposal to the board was reassigned to the high-FRL school Alexander), the administration's proposal made the FRL goals "aspirational" while following the letter of the island language. Superintendent Murley's argument was that they tried to eliminate islands when they could, but apparently, they didn't try to reduce FRL disparities when they could (i.e., in the Breckenridge situation specifically)? I'm glad the board saw fit to make that change, but what if Paul Roesler didn't suggest it at the last minute? 

My hope is that the board and the committee will think about crafting a sustainable long-term goal for addressing the achievement gap, and let the administration determine the best means to accomplish that goal while holding them accountable for achieving it. It seems to me that we've been too focused on specifying the means for accomplishing our goals (e.g., specific numerical targets, removing islands, etc.), and that the administration focuses too much on using the specified means rather than doing what they think is in the best interest of all the district (i.e., reducing the achievement gap by bringing the bottom up)."

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?