dc cross-sector collaboration task meeting 5 … · · 2016-07-11agenda 3 improve the experience...

6.28.16

Meeting 5

DC CROSS-SECTOR

COLLABORATION TASK

FORCE

1

Further understand student mobility and student

churn in DC

Explore policy options for addressing mobility

challenges

GOALS FOR TODAY’S MEETING

2

Welcome (6-6:05)

Mid-year Mobility (6:05-7:55)

Review data slides in trios (6:05-6:15)

Large group discussion (6:15-6:30)

Break out groups (6:30-7:20)

Report out (7:25-7:50)

Big Picture Timeline Update (7:50-7:55)

Next Steps (7:55-8)

AGENDA

3

Improve the experience of parents and families

understanding and navigating their public school options .

Develop methods for information sharing with the public

and across public school sectors.

Develop a framework for coordinating processes on school

openings, closings, and facilities planning.

Promote enrollment stability.

Identify educational challenges that need to be addressed

through cross-sector collaboration.

TASK FORCE GOALS

4

We want members to:

Act as public ambassadors for the process

Advocate for what is best for all students and families and not

just what is best for one particular school community or sector

Put individual agendas aside in the interest of improving public

education for the city

Be open-minded

Genuinely consider alternatives to their own opinions

Respect each others’ opinion

Generate and consider creative solutions

GROUP NORMS AND EXPECTATIONS

5

Twenty years ago public charter school choice was established in

DC. With 56% of public school students attending DCPS and 44%

attending public charter schools, the next chapter of improving

education in DC is for both sectors to strategically work together.

We come together now to:

Objectively consider data to better understand our educational

landscape across the City

Brainstorm ideas and generate solutions through cross -sector

collaboration and problem-solving

Consider our current challenges for what they are – citywide

challenges - and not side with or assign blame to a single sector

Develop clear and fair recommendations on how to reach our

CSCTF goals (our charge)

PURPOSE OF OUR WORK

6

“THE SECRET OF CHANGE

IS TO FOCUS ALL OF YOUR

ENERGY, NOT ON FIGHTING

THE OLD, BUT ON

BUILDING THE NEW.” - SOCRATES

7

MID-YEAR MOBILITY

8

In/Out of State

Within LEA

Across LEA

MID-YEAR MOBILITY DEFINED

9

Citywide

•Random lottery admission only

•No preference based on residence

•3 DCPS schools (not including SPED, adult, or alternative)

•107 PCS schools (not including SPED, adult, or alternative)

•TOTAL = 110 schools

School-of-Right

•Guaranteed year-round admission in grades K-12 to students who live in a designated boundary

•97 DCPS schools

•No PCS schools provide guaranteed admission based on residence


Selective

•Admission requirements are established by the school (e.g. grades, essay, reference letters)

•6 DCPS high schools

•No PCS schools


ENTERING PUBLIC SCHOOL DEFINED

10

The data in this deck is dense and is presented from a number of

vantage points. The slides are grouped by:

Broad findings about mobility in DC

Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools

Disproportionate impact on wards

Disproportionate impact on high schools

TYPES OF KEY FINDINGS

11

67,022 (91%) 70,220 (93%) 72,039 (92%)

6,877 (9%) 5,577 (7%) 6,118 (8%)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Mid-Year Student Movement

Moved school mid year

Same school

ONLY 8% OF STUDENTS ARE

MOBILE MID-YEAR

• The majority of public PK3-12th grade students stay enrolled at the

same school during the school year (between October and June).

• Even though DC’s overall mobility rate is modest (Education Counsel

memo), DC experiences negative impacts of disproportional mobility.

Source: OSSE’s Mid-Year Student Movement in DC report Note: Analysis excludes students enrolled at adult & alternative schools. 12

2,037 (30%) 1,766 (32%) 2,108 (34%)

3,174 (46%)

2,341 (42%) 2,494 (41%)

638 (9%)

572 (10%) 669 (11%)

826 (12%)

784 (14%) 743 (12%)

202 (3%)

114 (2%) 104 (2%)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Nu

mb

er

of

mo

bile

stu

de

nts

Entered public school system Exited public school system

Switched schools, changed sector Switched schools, same sector

Entered from/exited to other

OF ALL MID-YEAR MOBILE STUDENTS, 75%

ARE MOVING IN/OUT OF STATE

Of the 6,118 of students who were mobile mid -year in SY2013-14,

approximately 75% either lef t the public school system or entered the

public school system rather than switched between public schools.

Source: OSSE’s Mid-Year

Student Movement

in DC report

75% 76%

74%

Types of Mid-Year Mobility

13

The greatest

amount of DCPS

mobil i ty is due to

students entering

DCPS from outside

the public system.

The greatest

amount of PCS

mobil i ty is due to

students exit ing

the public school

system.

Note that this

shows number of

students rather

than instances of

entry and exit .

DCPS HAS TWICE THE AMOUNT OF

MOBILITY THAN PCS

Source: OSSE’s Mid-Year Student Movement in DC report

Number of Mobile Students Mid-Year by Sector, SY2013-14

1,819 (45%)

289 (14%)

1,486 (36%)

1,008 (49%)

49 (1%)

620 (30%)

673 (16%)

70 (3%)

52 (1%)

52 (3%)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

DCPS PCS

Entered from/exited to

other

Switched schools same

sector

Switched school changed

sectors

Exited public school

system

Entered public school

system

14

• Looking at all PK3-12 schools there is a negative relationship between

% churn and proficiency in math – the higher the churn rate, the lower

the math proficiency rate.

• Churn is NOT the only factor that contributes to performance.

15

AS CHURN INCREASES, PERFORMANCE

DECREASES

Figure 1 .

A l l schools wi th %

Prof ic iency in

Math (DC CAS)

and Churn Rate

y = -0.168ln(x) + 0.1078

R² = 0.3664

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0%

% p

rofi

cie

nt

Ma

th D

C C

AS

SY

20

13

-14

% Churn

Correlation=-.61

y = -0.178ln(x) - 0.0166

R² = 0.2887

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%% P

rofi

cie

nt

in M

ath

DC

CA

S S

Y2

01

3-1

4

% Mid-Year Exit, SY2013-14

y = 0.6214e-5.349x

R² = 0.3369

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0%

% p

rofi

cie

nt

in M

ath

DC

CA

S S

Y2

01

3-1

4

% Mid-Year Entry, SY2013-14

The negative correlation between proficiency in Math DC CAS and %

mid-year entry is larger than the negative correlation between

proficiency in math and mid -year exit.

16

Figure 2 . A l l schools wi th % Prof ic iency in

Math (DC CAS) and Mid -Year Ent r y F igure 3 . A l l schools w i th % Prof ic iency in

Math (DC CAS) and Mid -Year Ex i t Rate

Correlation=-.54 Correlation=-.44

ENTRY HAS GREATER NEGATIVE IMPACT

THAN EXIT

17

HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS HAVE LOWER

MEDIAN STUDENT PERFORMANCE

Source: Tembo analysis

Schools that experience high churn (mid -year entry (>5%) and mid-year

exits (>5%)) have significantly lower median % proficiency in DC CAS

compared to schools with lower entry and withdrawal rates.


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Category 1: low entry,

low withdrawal

(74 schools/29,614

students)

Category 2: low entry,

high withdrawal

(48 schools/15,875

students)

Category 3: high

entry, high

withdrawal

(64 schools/24,449

students)

Category 4: high

entry, low withdrawal

(16 schools/6,050

students)

% p

rofi

cie

nt

in D

C C

AS

% Proficient Math % Proficient Reading

Math Citywide School

Median

Reading Citywide

School Median

18

IN/OUT OF STATE MOBILITY IS SIGNIFICANT

IN ALL FOUR CATEGORIES

All Schools by Category and Types of Mobility

19

CLOSE TO HALF OF MOBILITY IN LOW

ENTRY/HIGH EXIT AND HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS

IS WITHIN/ACROSS LEA’S

All Schools by Category and Types of Mobility

5% 4% 13% 12% 5%

2%

13% 11% 11%

35% 3%

1% 8%

4%

15%

9%

25%

8%

31% 42%

45% 47%

25% 24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4

Exit to out of state

Entry from out of state

Exit to different school, same LEA

Exit to another LEA

Entry from different school, sameLEA

Entry from another LEA45% 44%

19

DO WE KNOW WHY STUDENTS LEAVE?

The quantitative data to answer this question is exit code

analysis. What can we learn from exit and entry codes?

Exit and entry codes indicates when students:

Enroll in other public schools outside of the District

Enroll in private school in or out of the District

Drop out of or are expelled from public school

Exit and entry codes do not explain why students move

or where they move out of state

Because we have limited information about why students

leave us, we propose the CSCTF focus on 1) mitigating entry

from out of state and 2) within/across LEA mid -year mobility

at this time. 20




Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools




21

22

DCPS HAS NEARLY ALL WITHIN LEA

MOBILITY AND AT ALL GRADE LEVELS

Within LEA

Entries Within LEA

Exits

DCPS 732 (96%) 808 (92%)

PCS 28 (4%) 66 (8%)

Total 760 874

22

23

WARD 8 HAS THE HIGHEST SHARE OF

WITHIN DCPS MOBILITY

DCPS schools located in Ward 8 have the highest share of within DCPS mobility (as

compared to the schools’ audited enrollment), followed by DCPS schools in Ward 5

and Ward 7.

1.1% 0.8% 0.3% 1.4%

2.1% 1.4%

2.6% 3.0% 1.1% 1.2%

0.3%

1.5%

2.8%

1.7%

2.2%

3.5%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Ward 5 Ward 6 Ward 7 Ward 8

Shar

e o

f w

ith

in D

CP

S m

id-y

ear

m

ob

ility

/au

dit

ed

en

rollm

en

t

Share of Within DCPS Movement by Ward

Entry to different school, same LEA Exit from different school, same LEA




Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools




24

Of t h e 41 8 en t r a n c es fo r p u b l i c c h a r te r sc h o o ls , 6 9 % a r e f ro m o u t o f s t a te , 24 % f ro m a n o t h er L E A ,

a n d 7 % f ro m a d i f fe r ent sc h o o l i n t h e sa m e L E A .

Of t h e 3 , 2 30 en t r a n c es fo r DC P S sc h o o ls , 5 6 % a r e f ro m o u t o f s t a te , 2 3 % f ro m a d i f fe r ent sc h o o l

i n t h e sa m e L E A , a n d 21 % f ro m a p u b l i c c h a r te r sc h o o l .

Of t h e 1 , 8 34 ex i t s f ro m p u b l i c c h a r te r sc h o o ls , 5 6 % a r e to o u t o f s t a te , 4 0 % to a n o t h er L E A , a n d

4 % to a d i f fe r en t sc h o o l i n t h e sa m e L E A .

Of t h e 2 , 357 ex i t s f ro m DC P S sc h o o ls , 6 3 % a r e to o u t o f s t a te , 3 4 % a r e to a d i f fe r ent sc h o o l i n t h e

sa m e L E A , a n d 3 % to p u b l i c c h a r te r sc h o o ls .

PROPORTION OF TYPES OF MID-YEAR

ENTRIES AND EXITS DIFFERS BY SECTOR

56% 69%

21% 24%

23% 7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DCPS (3,230 entrances) PCS (418 entrances)

Shar

e o

f m

id-y

ear

en

trie

s o

ut

of

all

mid

-ye

ar e

ntr

ance

s

Mid-Year Entrance Instances by Sector

Entry from a different school, same LEA

Entry from another LEA

Entry from out of state

63% 56%

3% 40%

34% 4%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

DCPS (2,357 exits) PCS (1,834 exits)

Shar

e o

f m

id-y

ear

exi

ts o

ut

of

all

mid

-ye

ar e

xit

inst

ance

s

Mid-Year Exit Instances by Sector

Exit to a different school, same LEA

Exit to another LEA

Exit to out of state 25




Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools




26

The churn rate for the 64 Category 3 schools ranged from 10% to 36.8%.

The median churn rate for the Category 3 schools was 16.8%, and 26

Category 3 schools had churn rates between 15% to 19%.

27

CHURN RATE RANGES FROM 10% TO 37%

% C h u r n R a te fo r E a c h I n d i v id u a l S c h o o l p e r M id -Yea r C a teg o r y ( C a teg o r y 1 - 4 )

C a teg o r y 3 sc h o o ls by C h u r n R a te

20

26

13

5 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10% to 14% 15% to 19% 20% to 24% 25% to 37%

# o

f C

ate

go

ry 3

Sch

oo

ls

Churn Rate Categories

32% OF ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS STUDENTS

IN DC ATTEND HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS


15,504

1,223

21,712

5,710

14,110

14,652

2,737

340

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Category 1: low entry,low withdrawal

(74 schools)

Category 2: low entry,high withdrawal

(48 schools)

Category 3: high entry,high withdrawal

(64 schools)

Category 4: high entry,low withdrawal

(16 schools)

PCS

DCPS

28

0.2% 0.3%

2.4% 1.4%

0.2% 0.2%

2.4%

1.3%

0.5%

3.0%

0.6%

0.1%

0.4%

0.4%

2.7%

1.0%

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

Category 1(32 DCPS, 40 PCS)




Entry from another LEA Entry from different school, same LEA

Exit to another LEA Exit to different school, same LEA

All Schools by Mid-Year Mobility Category by Between Schools Entry/Exits

29

HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS EXPERIENCE MORE

MID-YEAR ENTRIES THAN EXITS

• Category 3 schools typical ly have higher entry rates than exit rates. Almost al l

Category 3 schools are DCPS.

• Category 3 is

driven by

students

entering DCPS

from both DCPS

and public

charter schools.

• Category 2 is driven by public charter schools exit ing students mid -year to

DCPS schools.

HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS HAVE LARGER

SHARES OF AT RISK STUDENTS

• Schools that experience high churn (category 3) serve a greater average

share of at r isk students than schools with low churn.

• Category 3 DCPS students have the highest average share of at r isk

students.

30




Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools




31

Wards 7 and 8 have the largest number of high churn (category 3)

schools compared to other wards.

HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS ARE MOSTLY

LOCATED IN WARDS 7 AND 8

Al l schools by Categor y and Ward of School

32

All but 3 of the 33 DCPS schools East of the River are category 3 schools.

The exceptions are Beers ES (category 1), Garfield ES (category 4), and

Sousa MS (category 4).

33

NEARLY ALL DCPS SCHOOLS EAST OF

RIVER ARE HIGH CHURN

DCPS schools by Category and Ward of School

21 out of the 33 public charter schools East of the River are low entry

and high exit schools (category 2).

34

TWO THIRDS OF THE PUBLIC CHARTER

SCHOOLS EAST OF RIVER ARE

LOW ENTRY/HIGH EXIT SCHOOLS

Note: There are no public charter schools located in Ward 3.




Within LEA mobility

Sector differences

High churn schools




35

Source: Data from OSSE’s Mid-Year Student Movement in DC report analyzed by DME

• Comprehensive DCPS high schools (across all four mid -year mobility

categories) have a disproportionately larger share of mid -year mobile

students compared to all other types of schools.

• PCS high schools have a disproportionate share of exits to other LEAs.

36

DCPS COMPREHENSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS ARE

DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTED

BY ACROSS LEA MOBILITY


DC has modest mobility; only 8% of students are mobile mid-year

Of all mid-year mobile students, 75% move in/out of state

DCPS has twice the amount of mobility than PCS

As churn increases, performance decreases

Entry has greater negative impact than exit

High churn schools have lower median student performance

In/out of state mobility is significant in all four categories

Within and across LEA mobility accounts for nearly half of all mobility for low

entry/high exit (category 2) and high churn schools (category 3)

Entry and exit codes can tell us little about why students are mobile

Within LEA mobility

DCPS has most of the within LEA mobility and happens across all grades

Ward 8 has the highest share of within DCPS mobility

SUMMARY OF WHAT WE KNOW (1)

37

Sector differences

DCPS enrolls the majority of all entries including across LEA exits from PCS

Nearly all across LEA exits are from PCS

High churn schools

High churn rate ranges from 10% to 37%

32% of all public schools students in DC attend high churn schools

High churn schools experience more mid-year entries than exits

High churn schools have larger shares of at risk students


High churn schools are mostly located in Wards 7 and 8

Nearly all DCPS schools east of the river are high churn

Two thirds of public charter schools east of the river are low entry/high exit


DCPS comprehensive high schools are disproportionately affected by across

LEA mobility and have higher mobility than any other type of school

SUMMARY OF WHAT WE KNOW (2)

38

DATA REVIEW & LARGE

GROUP DISCUSSION

39

What points resonate most with you?

What is important to understand from this data?

As parents

As school and LEA staff members

As community members and residents

What is important for this Task Force to understand

from this data?

REFLECTION QUESTIONS

40

POLICY DISCUSSION:

BREAK OUT GROUPS

41

How has our desire to have a core system of high-quality public schools of right in every neighborhood complemented by high-quality public schools of choice contributed to the following issues:

Disproportion of exit and entry

High churn schools

Disproportionate impact on Ward 7 and Ward 8

What current policies most impact the issues l isted above?

Identify what policy options and/or recommendations should be considered in order to address the issues l isted above.

Consider the following questions with each policy option identified:

What analysis is necessary to understand impact of the policy?

What are the trade offs?

GOALS FOR DISCUSSIONS

42

Current Enrol lment Polic ies

School -of -r ight (K -12) – DCPS schools must enrol l any in -boundary student at

any t ime during the year

Selective and citywide schools have the flexibi l i ty to control enrol lment (e.g.

not enrol l ing mid-year)

PCS has lottery preferences (Special education, staf f, sibl ing, founder)

DCPS has lottery preferences (boundary for PK only, sibl ing, proximity)

Age cut-of fs (K -12) – some PC schools establish a minimum age that a

student needs to be to enrol l in a specific grade

Other?

Potential Pol ic ies

School funding is redesigned to reward schools that take students mid -year?

Limit the t imes during a year that student can switch schools?

A placement process for famil ies moving into the city mid -year?

Grade configuration al ignment across sectors?

Cross-LEA feeder patterns?

Lottery preferences?

Other?

POLICY EXAMPLES

Of all mid-year mobile students, 75% move in/out of state

DCPS has twice the mobility of PCS and enrolls nearly all entries

DCPS experiences nearly all of the within LEA mobility

DCPS comprehensive high schools are disproportionately af fected by

across LEA mobility and have higher mobility than any other type of school

Entry and exit codes tell us l ittle about why students are mobile

Could LEAs work together to better distribute entries?

What impact will LEA payment reform have on mid -year mobility?

What policies should be considered for families and schools to

improve the entry/exit process?

How can we mitigate the impact on DCPS comp. high schools?

POLICY DISCUSSION:

DISPROPORTION OF ENTRY AND EXIT

44

High churn schools have significantly lower performance and serve a

greater share of at risk students than schools in other categories

32% of all public school students in DC attend high churn schools

Within and across LEA mobility accounts for nearly half of all

mobility for high churn schools


What can we do to decrease within and across LEA mobility for

high churn schools?

Can we leverage LEA payment reform to decrease mobility in high

churn schools?

What are potential policies we should consider?

POLICY DISCUSSION:

HIGH CHURN SCHOOLS

45

Wards 7 and 8 have the largest number of high churn schools compared

to other wards


Two thirds of public charter schools east of the river are low entry/high

exit schools

43% of all public school students l ive in Wards 7 and 8

Ward 8 has the highest share of within DCPS mobility

What factors in W7 and W8 contribute to high churn?

What does it mean to have nearly all DCPS schools in W7 and W8

experience high churn?

How should the disproportionality of high churn schools in W7 and

W8 shape citywide enrollment policy development and planning?

POLICY DISCUSSION:

WARDS 7 AND 8

46

Share at least one policy option or recommendation that should

be considered in order to address one of the following issues:

Disproportion of exit and entry

High churn schools

Disproportionate impact on Ward 7 and Ward 8

What analysis is necessary to understand the impact of the

policy or recommendation?

REPORT OUT

47

LOOKING AHEAD

48

July

Solidify student mobility policy options (for broader community

input)

Consider preliminary impact analysis

August

No meeting

Members will receive a pre -reading packet in preparation for

facil ities topic

September

Introduce facil ities topic

Discuss community engagement plans

October

Community meetings to gather input on mobility policy options

Reassess policy options based on community input

Preliminary recommendations on mobility policies

SUMMER/FALL SCHEDULE

49

• Explore opportunities for small group work between meetings

• Review the June meeting summary

• Check-ins with DM Niles or Jim Sandman

• Guiding principles outreach

Binder Documents

Focus Group Report

Community Conversation Toolkit – Guiding Principles

July Meeting Preview July 26, 2016 at the Taxicab Commission on Shannon Place, SE

Finalize policy options for consideration

Discuss community engagement timeline

NEXT STEPS

50