8/14/2013 1 Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment August 14, 2013 1 Presentation Outline • Revising areas of the city with the lowest average test scores (CTIP1) • Demographic Trends and Enrollment Forecasts • Middle School Feeders for Bryant and Webster • Enrollment Update • Future Meetings 2
44
Embed
Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment Presentation Outline
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/14/2013
1
Ad Hoc Committee on Student
Assignment
August 14, 2013
1
Presentation Outline
• Revising areas of the city with the lowest
average test scores (CTIP1)
• Demographic Trends and Enrollment Forecasts
• Middle School Feeders for Bryant and Webster
• Enrollment Update
• Future Meetings
2
8/14/2013
2
REVISING CTIP1
Areas of the City With the Lowest Average Test Scores
3
The Census Tract Integration Preference (CTIP)
operates as a preference/tie-breaking factor in the
choice student assignment system.
– Designed to meet the Board’s goals to reverse the trend of racial isolation and the concentration of underserved students in the same school, and provide equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students
– Based on average test scores
– Children living in areas of the city with the lowest average test scores get the CTIP1 tiebreaker
What is CTIP1?
4
8/14/2013
3
Racial/ethnic breakdown of K/6/9 students in
2012-13 who received the CTIP1 tie-breaker
Analysis of impact included in two annual reports
– 2012-13 SY – pages 23-36
– 2011-12 SY – pages 35-44
What is CTIP1?
5
African
American
24%
Chinese
9%
Latino
44%
Other
Asian
6%
Other
12%
White
5%
Always recognized that CTIP classifications would have to be reviewed as additional test score data became available.
We have concluded that the CTIP1 areas in use 2010-13 should be modified a bit (but not much):
– To take advantage of the more granular Census 2010 tract geography, and
– To account for the fact that students in one CTIP1 area have improved test scores substantially more than in other areas.
Updating CTIP1 Areas
6
8/14/2013
4
The number of Census tracts in San Francisco increased from 176 in 2000 to 197 in 2010.
Most of the “new” tracts are subdivisions of 2000 tracts that had large populations
– The new tracts tend to be more homogeneous, permitting us to group students with similar characteristics (such as average test scores).
– There were only minor changes in outer tract boundaries.
For CTIP analyses, we combined some 2010 tracts to increase student numbers and to reduce random variation in average test scores from year to year.
Census 2010 Tract Geography
7
Tract 230.03
Citywide, test scores have improved. One CTIP1
area’s test scores improved a lot, moving the
tract out of the CTIP1 category
We should continue to monitor these trends.
Average CST-ELA Score
CTIP area 2006-10 2011-12 Improvement
CTIP1 319 332 14
CTIP2 340 351 11
CTIP3 350 361 10
CTIP4 369 381 12
CTIP5 384 395 12
All areas 353 365 12
Tract 230.03 333 352 18
8
8/14/2013
5
Changes in numbers of residents of all CTIP
areas
Changes in number of K-12 residents of each 2013 CTIP area, fall 2006 - fall 2012
Before CTIP used CTIP used Average students/year
CTIP Area 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 pre-CTIP under CTIP Change
Changes in ethnic mix of residents of all CTIP1 areas
10
8/14/2013
6
11
12
8/14/2013
7
Detail
13
Detail (northern areas that are changing)
14
8/14/2013
8
Detail (southern area that is changing)
15
Tract 230.03
Questions explored about the Southern Area
that is moving from CTIP1 to CTIP2
Have enrollment patterns changed?
Has the number of students living in this area increased or decreased?
Are there changes in the racial/ethnic mix of students living in this area?
16
8/14/2013
9
Southern Area: Enrollment Patterns
Number enrolled in schools:
School Year
Number of
K+6+9 Students
Bayview
Zone
Mission
Zone Intensive Strategic Benchmark Challenge Other
2009-10 127 27 5 19 20 26 17 13
2010-11 129 21 5 19 26 25 21 12
2011-12 120 9 1 17 14 43 26 10
2012-13 135 7 4 24 21 42 24 13
Percentages enrolled in schools:
2009-10 21% 4% 15% 16% 20% 13% 10%
2010-11 16% 4% 15% 20% 19% 16% 9%
2011-12 8% 1% 14% 12% 36% 22% 8%
2012-13 5% 3% 18% 16% 31% 18% 10%
Tract 230.03
The share of this area’s K/6/9 residents enrolled in Bayview and Mission Zone schools dropped dramatically beginning in Fall 2011, while the shares in some other categories (especially Benchmark) have grown. 17
Stochastic Forecast of Total Enrollment 2013-2021Assuming constant births at 2011 level
8/14/2013
12
Bottom Line
• Enrollment increases expected due to substantial housing growth, including 16,000 additional affordable housing units.
– HOPE SF mixed income communities
– Treasure Island
– Central Corridor; Market and Octavia; Park Merced, etc.
• Large kindergarten cohorts since 2009 will eventually cause enrollments to increase in the upper grades
– Middle school enrollments should start increasing very soon
– High school enrollments should decline for a few more years before turning around
• High schools have had more students continue (we are investigating the reasons)
23
Today’s Presentation
� Housing growth and its implications for enrollment growth
� Kindergarten enrollment
� Forecasts
� High school grade progressions
� Comparison with earlier forecasts
� Questions/Comments/Additional slides
24
8/14/2013
13
Housing Growth
• Housing growth slowed in recent years, due to the recession
• Planners anticipate large numbers of new units in the next few years as developers “catch up”
• In the long run, a large amount of housing is anticipated
– More than 70,000 units have been suggested, many large projects already approved
– When built, the City’s housing inventory will grow by about 25 percent
25
26
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
20
13
20
14
20
15
20
16
20
17
20
18
20
19
20
20
20
21
20
22
20
23
20
24
20
25
20
26
20
27
20
28
20
29
20
30
20
31
20
32
20
33
20
34
20
35
20
36
20
37
20
38
20
39
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Pro
ject
ed
Year
Projected Enrollments from Major New Housing
Develoments
8/14/2013
14
How we forecast the number of
students from new housing
• Enrollments from new housing equal the number of housing units multiplied by the “student yield,” or the average number of expected students per housing unit.
• Student yields vary by the characteristics of the housing, especially whether the housing is below-market-rate (BMR), also called “affordable.”
Stochastic Forecast of High-School Enrollment 2013-2025
8/14/2013
20
High School Grade Progressions May
Indicate Higher Continuation Rates
• As part of the forecasting process, we
measure how many students continue to the
next grade. A new pattern has developed
recently in the high schools, which could
indicate higher graduation rates.
39
-1,400
-1,200
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
1981>82
1982>83
1983>84
1984>85
1985>86
1986>87
1987>88
1988>89
1989>90
1990>91
1991>92
1992>93
1993>94
1994>95
1995>96
1996>97
1997>98
1998>99
1999>00
2000>01
2001>02
2002>03
2003>04
2004>05
2005>06
2006>07
2007>08
2008>09
2009>10
2010>11
2011>12
High School Grade Progression DifferencesGrades 8-11 into 9-12
Year
Num
ber
of S
tudents
Gain
ed o
r Lost
40
8/14/2013
21
Repeaters 2008>09 2009>10 2010>11 2011>2012
9>9 7% 6% 4% 4%
10>10 7% 6% 4% 5%
11>11 3% 4% 3% 4%
12>12 5% 4% 4% 5%
Denominator is same grade, prior year
continuing from
previous grade 2008>09 2009>10 2010>11 2011>2012
8>9 88% 89% 88% 89%
9>10 77% 83% 85% 87%
10>11 75% 80% 81% 84%
11>12 80% 82% 84% 86%
Left 2008>09 2009>10 2010>11 2011>2012
8>9 12% 11% 12% 11%
9>10 16% 11% 10% 10%
10>11 18% 14% 15% 11%
11>12 17% 14% 13% 10%
New (excludes
repeaters) 2008>09 2009>10 2010>11 2011>12
8>9 23% 26% 26% 21%
9>10 7% 11% 10% 10%
10>11 12% 9% 7% 7%
11>12 11% 8% 7% 8%
Denominator is prior grade, prior year41
Fewer
students
repeating
grades
Fewer
students
leaving the
District
Comparison with earlier forecast:
Actual Fall 2012 enrollments were very
similar to 2009 forecasts
42
Actuals 2009 Forecast
Difference:
Forecast - Actuals Percent Difference
K to 5 27,318 27,416 98 0.4%
6 to 8 11,516 11,520 4 0.0%
Comparison of 2009 Forecast with Actuals
8/14/2013
22
Comparison with 2009 forecast:
High school difficult to evaluate because of
variations in reported Five Keys enrollments
43
Year Enrollment
2004 226
2005 223
2006 1,042
2007 239
2008 549
2009 7
2010 642
2011 698
2012 1,058
Five KeysEvaluation of High School Enrollment Forecasts
2009 Forecast, including Five Keys 18,230
2012 Actual, excluding Five Keys 17,867
Difference: Forecast - Actual 363
2009 Forecast, excluding Five Keys 17,172
2012 Actual, excluding Five Keys 17,867
Difference: Forecast - Actual -695
2009 Forecast and New Forecast
• Both forecasts show future enrollment increases
• 2009 forecast shows higher enrollments in 2020
for elementary and middle school than new
forecast because:
– Housing construction is delayed
– More housing growth expected now, but smaller
percentage of affordable units
– Lower student yields assumed than earlier forecast
• New forecast: higher 2020 high school enrollments
– Higher high school grade progressions cause high school
forecast to be above our 2009 forecast levels
44
8/14/2013
23
Final Considerations
• Much of the City’s housing growth will occur after
2025. There will be enrollment growth beyond the
forecasted period.
• Virtually all of the enrollment gains from new
housing will be from affordable units.
• The forecasts are highly sensitive to the student
yield assumed for the new housing.
• Further research is recommended on the impact of
high school students staying in District schools
longer.
45
Additional Slides for Q & A
(Appendix)
46
8/14/2013
24
BRYANT AND WEBSTER
Middle School Feeders for
47
Outline
• Context for Change
• Superintendent’s Recommendations
• Next Steps
48
8/14/2013
25
Context for Change
• ISA transitioning from 6-12 to 9-12 school
– ISA is the middle school feeder for Bryant and
Webster elementary schools
– Need to identify new middle school feeder for 5th
graders transitioning to 6th grade in fall 2014 (i.e.,
by fall 2013)
49
Superintendent’s Recommendations
• Enrollment forecasts being reviewed for first time tonight
• Need to digest enrollment forecasts and incorporate into an exploration of all factors to be considered as outlined in Board Policy P5101– current enrollment patterns and expected future
enrollment changes
– balancing the size of enrollment at various schools
– the diversity of enrollment in various schools
– the availability of facilities
– the locations of programs and schools
– the coherence of elementary to middle school pathways
50
8/14/2013
26
Superintendent’s Recommendations
1. Immediate Term
– For the 2014-15 school year, give 5th graders
exiting Bryant and Webster a middle school tie-
breaker to attend the school listed as a first
choice on their application form (one year only)
51
Superintendent’s Recommendations
2. Short-Term by spring 2014 to go into effect starting with the 2015-16 SY
– Evaluate the current portfolio of middle schools
– Identify middle school feeder for Bryant and Webster
– Identify elementary feeders for Brown middle school
3. Long-Term
– Define the portfolio of schools needed in the long-term to meet projected growths in enrollment
52
8/14/2013
27
Immediate Next Steps
2014-15 Enrollment Information
• Share information with Bryant and Webster and all stakeholders (e.g., PAC, PPS, Mission Graduates)
• Incorporate information into the enrollment materials for the 2014-15 school year (e.g., Enrollment Guide, letters to exiting 5th graders…)
Demographic Report
• Share full report with community and create opportunities for staff to discuss findings and observations with the community
53
Additional Next Steps
• Convene a staff working group to evaluate the current portfolio of middle schools and develop recommendations for the 2015-16 school year– Middle school feeder for Bryant and Webster
– Elementary feeders for Brown Middle School
• Convene a staff working group to study the implications of the enrollment forecasts and develop a long-term plan to meet the needs of the expected enrollment increases
• Develop a community engagement infrastructure to gather input and keep key stakeholders informed as staff work evolves
54
8/14/2013
28
ENROLLMENT UPDATE
2014-15 School Year
55
Complete 2013-14 Cycle
• Students who do not attend within the first 3
days of school will be withdrawn and openings
will be filled from the waiting pool.
• Waiting pool process will end on Friday, Sept.
6th
– Waiting pools will be dissolved, and a “No Transfer
Period” will be implemented.
– Requests for Spring Transfers will be accepted
beginning on September 9
56
8/14/2013
29
2014-15 Key Dates
Saturday, November 2 Public School Enrollment Fair
Tuesday, January 21 Application Deadline for March
Placement Period (Round 1)
Friday, March 14 March Placement notification letters
mailed
Friday, April 11 Application Deadline for May Placement
Period (Round 2)
Registration deadline at schools,
Appeals due
Friday, May 9 Notification for May Placement Period
Friday, May 23 Waiting pool request deadline (Round 3)
Wednesday, June 11 Available School Assignment Period-
ASAP
(formerly known as Open Enrollment)57
FUTURE MEETINGS
Ad Hoc Committee on Student Assignment
58
8/14/2013
30
September 11, 2013
• Follow-up on any open items from tonight’s
discussion
• Share and discuss findings from Stanford’s
research questions investigating how district
policies shape the distribution of students
among K12 schools in SFUSD
• Update on the Pre-K Enrollment Process
59
Appendix
Demographic Trends and
Enrollment Forecasts
Additional Slides for Q & A
60
8/14/2013
31
Housing Growth
61
Recession Effect Started in 2010
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
20
11
20
12
Nu
mb
er
of
Un
its
Bu
ilt
Year
Number of Housing Units Built, 1991 - 2012
62
8/14/2013
32
Existing Student Yields,
Rincon South
Total Units
Affordable
Units
Type of
Housing
Affordability
status 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Avg Yield
Total 4,684 2,772 2,689 2,694 2,724 2,824 2,744 2,726 0.58
San Francisco Housing Authority Family Housing, Students and Student Yields
64
8/14/2013
33
65
SF Housing Authority
• About 2/3 of SFHA served residents live in housing via vouchers, only 1/3 live in public housing
• We do not have address information on voucher holders
66
8/14/2013
34
Monitoring Housing Growth
• Monitor the timing of individual housing developments – sometimes developers are overly optimistic
• Monitor whether the number of housing units changes
• As new housing is built, monitor the student yields to evaluate the validity of the forecast assumptions
• Monitor whether new housing projects are proposed
• Our work can provide the basis for updating information
67
Kindergarten Forecasts
68
8/14/2013
35
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Num
ber
of B
irth
s
Year of Birth
San Francisco County Births: 1973 - 2011
69
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Kindgergartners
Births 5 years before
Births and Subsequent Kindergarten Enrollment 1981-2012
Year of enrollment
Num
ber
of K
inderg
art
ners
Num
ber o
f Birth
s
70
8/14/2013
36
45%
47%
49%
51%
53%
55%
57%
59%
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Year of Kindergarten Enrollment
Ratio of Kindergarten Enrollmentto Birth Five Years Earlier, 1990 - 2012
Kin
derg
art
ners
Over
Bir
ths 5
Years
Earlie
r
71
Kindergarten Enrollment =
# Births (5 years prior) * K/B ratioDoes not include students from future housing
72
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
19
81
19
86
19
91
19
96
20
01
20
06
20
11
20
16
Nu
mb
er
of
Kin
de
rga
rte
n S
tud
en
ts
Year of Enrollment
Kindergarten Enrollments, 1981-2012 and Forecasted
2013-2016
Actual
Current Year K/B
3-Yr Avg K/B
20-Yr Avg K/B
8/14/2013
37
Grade Progressions
73
Grade Progressions
• The forecast advances students to the next grade,
but sometimes the cohort numbers rise or fall as
the students move to the following grade.
• The change in cohort size as students progress to
the next grade is called the “grade progression.”
• We measure historical grade progressions (for
each set of grades) and use historical levels to
guide assumptions about future grade
progressions.
74
8/14/2013
38
Start with today’s students by grade, then
age the students one grade
K
1
2
3
4
etc.
1
2
3
4
5
etc.
some students
leave, others
enter
75
Following a Cohort Over Time
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2000-K
2001-1
2002-2
2003-3
2004-4
2005-5
2006-6
2007-7
2008-8
2009-9
2010-1
0
2011-1
1
2012-1
2
Num
ber of Stu
dents
Year - Grade
Kindergarten Cohort of 2000 as It Progressed Through the Grades
76
8/14/2013
39
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
K>1
1>2
2>3
3>4
4>5
5>6
6>7
7>8
8>9
9>10
10>11
11>12
Change in N
um
ber
of S
tudents
Grade from > to
Grade Progressions between Fall 2011 and Fall 2012
77
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1981>82
1982>83
1983>84
1984>85
1985>86
1986>87
1987>88
1988>89
1989>90
1990>91
1991>92
1992>93
1993>94
1994>95
1995>96
1996>97
1997>98
1998>99
1999>00
2000>01
2001>02
2002>03
2003>04
2004>05
2005>06
2006>07
2007>08
2008>09
2009>10
2010>11
2011>12
Num
ber
of S
tudents
Gain
ed o
r Lost
Elementary Grade Progression DifferencesGrades K to 4 into 1 to 5
Year
78
8/14/2013
40
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1981>82
1982>83
1983>84
1984>85
1985>86
1986>87
1987>88
1988>89
1989>90
1990>91
1991>92
1992>93
1993>94
1994>95
1995>96
1996>97
1997>98
1998>99
1999>00
2000>01
2001>02
2002>03
2003>04
2004>05
2005>06
2006>07
2007>08
2008>09
2009>10
2010>11
2011>12
Middle School Grade Progression DifferencesGrades 5-7 into 6-8
Year
Num
ber
of S
tudents
Gain
ed o
r Lost
79
-1,400
-1,200
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
1981>82
1982>83
1983>84
1984>85
1985>86
1986>87
1987>88
1988>89
1989>90
1990>91
1991>92
1992>93
1993>94
1994>95
1995>96
1996>97
1997>98
1998>99
1999>00
2000>01
2001>02
2002>03
2003>04
2004>05
2005>06
2006>07
2007>08
2008>09
2009>10
2010>11
2011>12
High School Grade Progression DifferencesGrades 8-11 into 9-12
Year
Num
ber
of S
tudents
Gain
ed o
r Lost
80
8/14/2013
41
Grade Progression Assumptions
• Elementary and middle school grade progressions have been relatively stable; forecast is not particularly sensitive to choice of any assumption based on historical experience.
• High school grade progressions have changed a lot. Using this year’s grade progression or even the average of the last three years makes a big difference in the forecast (compared with using a longer historical average).
• If high school continuation patterns are expected to continue, we should use the more recent grade progressions.
81
Private School Enrollment
• The number of students attending private
schools located in San Francisco has remained
fairly stable
• Poor reporting to the state in recent years
resulted in the incorrect conclusion that SF’s
private school enrollments declined. This is not
true.
82
8/14/2013
42
Private School Rates
• The U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community
Survey (ACS) provides estimates of private
school enrollment rates in San Francisco.
• Private school rates between 2007-2011:
– Grades 1-4: 27.5%, +-2.5% error margin
– Grades 5-8: 26.5%, +-2.5% error margin
– Grades 9-12: 20% +-2.0% error margin
• These rates are lower than in 2000 (U.S. Census)