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. 

On the Administration's Proposal to Modify Twain and Hills Boundaries

The ICCSD administration has proposed that the School Board approve revised boundaries for Hills and Twain (starting on page 227). It takes a neighborhood that is presently assigned to Twain, was going to be reassigned to Hills, but under the administration's recommendation would continue to be assigned to Twain. Two primary reasons are offered for this:

First, the administration believes that it will help a relatively low-income area by keeping it at Twain. It is suggested that this will be better insofar as it provided a stable school situation for the community in question. and for properly utilizing buildings at Hills and Twain respectively.

Second, it will keep Hills from being overcrowded, which likely would have resulted in temporary buildings be used at Hills. Furthermore it would keep Twain from having too few students--which would likely have resulted in increased costs and/or hurting peer-to-peer collaboration by reducing the number of teachers at Twain (or both).

I think these reasons are important and should figure heavily in our decision-making procedure. What I don't see, however, is a consideration of whether this change moves us in the right direction toward addressing educational justice concerns arising from socioeconomic imbalances. That is, will it exacerbate Twain's challenges by increasing its population of low-income students? I know the district shouldn't talk directly about FRL rates at this point, but it should at the least be able to answer whether this will make matters worse than the redistricted approved by the board just a few months ago? My guess, based on the demographics of the area in question, is that it will lower the percentage of low-income students at Hills while increasing it at Twain. Perhaps I'm wrong about that?

But if I'm not, then perhaps it would be wise to consider alternatives that would accomplish the administration's goals while also addressing the much more significant worry that this proposal make educational justice worse in our district.

For example, might it be helpful to consider making Twain a sister school with Longfellow. Sister schools would have one of the campuses serve lower grades (K-2/3) while the other campus serves the upper grades (3/4-6). Here are the benefits, as I see them, from making Twain and Longfellow sister-schools:

Distance and Busing: Longfellow and Twain are a walking distance of 0.9 miles and a driving distance of 1.1 miles from each other. Twain and Longfellow already both have a significant number of students who are bused to both schools (Windsor Ridge for Longfellow and a large subsection of Twain's students), so it wouldn't likely be a significant change in that respect especially given the close geographical proximity.  

Educational Justice/Poverty: Based on rough calculations based on last year's FRL rate, the combined FRL rate of the two schools would likely be less than 50%. Next year with Twain's redistricting, it would likely be lower (perhaps not, however, with the Hills/Twain change?).

Class sizes: When you combine the two schools cohorts by grade level, you would be able to reduce the number of classes that exceed or are under the district's aspirational class goals. This year, there were 4 classes at the schools that were over the class size goals, and there were 4 that were well under the class size goals. Under a sister-school system, none of grades would have any classes outside of the aspirational goals. You would have 25 students in first grade classes at Twain, nor would you have 25 students in second grade classrooms at Longfellow. Furthermore, you would haven't 18 students for 5th and 6th grade classrooms as we do this year at Twain.

Here is how the sections might have broken down this past year had Longfellow and Twain been sister schools (the class sizes would be slightly smaller next year given Twain's redistricting):

K: 5 sections of 19
1: 5 sections of 22/23
2: 5 sections of 22/23
3: 4 sections of 25/26
4: 4 sections of 24/25
5: 3 sections of 27
6: 3 sections of 28

Saving Money: Pairing Longfellow and Twain as sister schools this year, would have meant that the district could have had the class sizes outlined above while having two fewer teachers assigned to those schools. Those teachers could have been reassigned to lower class sizes elsewhere, or they could have presented a significant operational cost benefit to the district. And as the budget will be tight again this next year assuming the budget increased as proposed, we need to think of how we can save more money.

Capacity: The district has projected, under their proposal mentioned above, that Twain would probably likely have no more than 240 students. That would put Twain at exactly 62 students under their building capacity next year. Fortuitously, Longfellow was exactly 62 students over its building capacity this year.

Academics: One of the methods that the district's SINA schools and high-FRL schools are using to address educational justice concerns is peer-collaboration. This method has proven to be extremely effective, and having a larger cohort of teachers in each grade level would likely result in improvements here.

So, why not take what the administration has proposed, and be more forward thinking about how to begin addressing, in part, some of the larger problems in our district regarding educational justice and finances.

*I also think that a possible pairing of Shimek and Mann would make a great deal of sense as well. See my Facebook post about that, if you are interested.

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)."