Dena Dossett, Director of Planning in the Department of Data - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dena Dossett, Director of Planning in the Department of Data Management, Planning, and Program Evaluation for Jefferson County Public Schools, Louisville, Ky

JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS

28 28th

th la

largest s scho hool d l district i in U n U.S .S. . Over 1 100,0 ,000 s student nts ( (pre-K

• K –

– 1 12th

th g

grade)

49 49% White, 37 37% African-American, 7% 7% Hispanic, and 6% 6% Other 63% 63% Free/Reduced Lunch Students ESL and Homeless are fastest growing populations

155 S Scho hools ls

89 89 Elementary, 23 23 middle, 18 18 High, 16 16 alternative schools, 9 special schools

Trans nsportation n

962 962 buses with over 69,000 students

AGENDA

• Historical Context
• Mechanics of Plan
• Outcomes
• Challenges

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

19 1973

• Desegregation lawsuits were filed against the city and county Board of Education. Court ordered the elimination of all vestiges of state-

imposed segregation.

19 1975

• The city and county school districts were merged into a single county-wide district and the Court ordered the Board to implement a

desegregation plan.

• Assignment of students to schools was based on a student’s address, grade, race and the alphabet letter of the student’s last name,

which resulted in “white flight.” 1978-1

• 1984
• Court and board modified plan to create more stability and change the African American enrollment guidelines based on demographic

trends. 19 1985

• The Board considered district “unitary” and thus could modify the court-ordered plan without the court’s approval.

19 1991

• The 1991 plan was based on the concept of managed choice. The plan provided that students may apply for schools and programs of

their choice, and may be assigned to those schools or programs subject to building or program capacity, the guidelines for black enrollment, and in some cases admission criteria. 19 1996

• Because of concerns expressed by some African-American leaders, the Board reviewed the plan for possible changes and adopted

additional modifications. 1998 – – 2 2000 H Hampton C n Case

• A lawsuit was filed against the Board by black parents who claimed that the 50% limit on black enrollment at Central High School -- which

had been a historically black school before the 1975 desegregation decree -- violated the U.S. Constitution. This case highlighted several political and public relations issues. 200 2001 1

• The Board adopted modifications to the student assignment plan to exclude racial enrollment guidelines at special and magnet schools

which offered programs that were not available at other schools.

4

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

2002 M McFarla land nd C Case/ 2 2003 M Meredith C h Case

• Lawsuit claimed that children had been denied admission to “traditional” magnet elementary and middle

schools for reasons of race and gender. It continued to focus on the issues that had been raised in the Hampton case – the “achievement gap,” the desire of some black parents to send their children to schools closer to home,

• etc. In 2004, the Court rules the 2001 plan was constitutional.

2007 – – P PIC ICS c case

• The court ruled that there is a compelling governmental interest in maintaining diversity in public schools, but

race may not be used in the assignment of an individual student. 2009 – – Bains ns C Case

• The plaintiffs alleged that the new elementary student assignment plan violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s

decision in the Meredith case, because the Board was using socioeconomic factors as a “proxy for race.” Judge denied the plaintiffs’ motion for an injunction in August 2009, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their complaint in October 2009. 2010 A Arno nold ld/Fell C ll Case

• The lawsuit was filed in state court, based on a provision in a state statute. State Supreme Court ruled against

plaintiffs.

DEVELOPING A PLAN

After the PICs ruling, our Board engaged in a process for developing a new plan that included:

• public forums
• public opinion surveys
• reviews of other districts’ student assignment plans
• reviews of the educational research literature
• consultation with national experts

STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS

• Surveys JCPS parents and high school students about their

attitudes and experiences showed a very strong desire for diverse schools and for school choice.

• Students felt well prepared for the community’s diverse future

and strongly supported integration.

• Parents were most concerned about excessive transportation,

and also very strongly supported the goals of integration.

• Surveys also showed the need for improving spread of

information to parents about school options.

CURRENT PLAN MECHANICS

Most recent changes were designed to make our plan more effective and efficient while maintaining a diverse school system. Significant Changes:

• Recognizes existing diversity within smaller geographic areas

using updated census data

• Expands the inclusion of students into schools’ diversity

guidelines

• Redesigns elementary clusters to improve transportation issues
• Provides for operational enhancements

NEW DIVERSITY CATEGORIES

Diver ersity G Guidel eline: A school’s enrollment is comprised of students who reside in block groups from categories 1, 2 and 3. The diversity index for a school shall be between 1.4-2.5.

OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS

• On-line application process
• Automate the assignment process

OUTCOMES

• All but four schools are in compliance with new diversity guideline.
• 83% of students received their first choice and 88% received their first or

second choice.

• Operational enhancements have lead to improved efficiency and more

directed support for families.

• The new automated assignment process increases the percentage of

students assigned to their resides school, assigned to schools with siblings, and receiving their 1st or 2nd choice.

• The new cluster configuration will result in reducing extreme

transportation distances by 40%, eliminating 25 buses and 25‐40 elementary routes, and providing more direct routes.

POLITICAL CONTEXT

CONTINUING CHALLENGES

• Defending the district against the lawsuits
• Confronting “neighborhood schools” legislation
• Balancing diversity and proximity
• Reducing costs associated with school choice while supporting

board’s intended level of diversity

• Developing magnetic magnet programs/schools
• Equalizing information in applications and placements
• Strengthening the academic benefits through staff training
• Educating the public about the value of integrated schools
• Taking on residential housing patterns