IIPSC Innovation in Public School Choice Universal Enrollment - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

IIPSC

Innovation in Public School Choice

Universal Enrollment Systems: Practical Considerations for Charter Schools and Networks.

Presented by Neil Dorosin of IIPSC April 24, 2014

• 1. IIPSC and Universal Enrollment
• 2. The case for charter leadership
• 3. Particularly challenging issues

Agenda

2

What IIPSC does

We design and build healthy enrollment and school choice systems.

• 1. Assessment
• 2. Community engagement
• 3. Market Design
• 4. Technology
• 5. Academic research

3

The IIPSC approach

Our work is shaped by a strong belief system:

• 1. Equity, efficiency, and transparency.
• 2. Political neutrality.
• 3. Families, and also schools and systems of schools.
• 4. Rigorous research.
• 5. Nonprofit.

4

Our expert team has created better enrollment and school choice systems for over 10 years

5 Neil Dorosin, Executive Director, has led IIPSC since 2007. He was previously the Director of High School Admissions Operations at the New York City Department

• f Education from 2004 – 2007, where
• verhauled and managed NYC DOE’s high

school choice process Al Roth, Chairman of the Board of Directors, is a Professor of Economics at Stanford and a Professor Emeritus of Economics and Business Administration at

• Harvard. He shared the 2012 Nobel

memorial prize in Economics for his work

• n market design.

Parag Pathak, Board Director, is an Associate Professor of Economics at MIT and a Research Associate in the NBER’s programs

• n Education, Public Economics and

Industrial Organization. His research has directly affected the lives of more than one million public school students. Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Board Director, is a Professor of Economics at Duke

• University. His research focuses on

efficient and effective design of student admissions systems, as well as, on program evaluation in education.

We have worked with cities and funders across the country

6

Cities:

• Chicago
• Cleveland
• Detroit
• Denver
• New York
• New Orleans
• Newark
• Rochester
• Philadelphia
• Washington, D.C.

Funders

• The Donnell-Kay Foundation
• The Foundation for Newark's Future
• The George Gund Foundation
• The Michael & Susan Dell Foundation
• The Walton Family Foundation

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ = IIPSC school district ♦ ♦

Market design

Enrollment as an allocation problem:

• Popular seats are scare goods.
• Public school seats must be allocated fairly, efficiently,

and transparently.

• Cannot use price to make allocations – need policy.
• Two-sided matching market.
• High stakes and multi-faceted competition.
• Public interest à healthy market.

7

School choice market failure

• Participation is cumbersome à low, and skewed participation.
• Multiple offers / no offers.
• Extensive use of waitlists.
• Late summer “shuffle.”
• Match is unstable – improvements are possible but not found.
• Congested – takes too long for transactions to come to close.
• “Justified envy.”
• Lack of accountability.
• Schools have to make too big of an investment in enrollment.
• Marketing budget has outsized impact.
• Schools bend enrollment and choice rules.
• Unequal distribution of hard-to-educate kids.
• Lots of “gray market” enrollment.
• City has no real understanding of demand.
• Excess seats, and perhaps excess schools.
• Hard to plan the city’s portfolio of schools.
• Hostile relationship between sectors.

8

Universal Enrollment

Features:

1) One application used for all public schools. 2) High quality information available to all families. 3) Central clearinghouse and state-of-the-art assignment

algorithm used to create a match.

4) Safe for families to reveal true preferences. 5) Single best offer system. 6) Efficiency / stability trade-off. 7) Results can be easily explained and are audited. 8) Enrollment as annual cycle, not just one lottery. 9) Demand and enrollment data informs system-wide planning.

9

• 1. IIPSC and Universal Enrollment
• 2. The case for charter leadership
• 3. Particularly challenging issues

Agenda

10

Charter schools should drive this work

It’s good for your school:

• Real demand data.
• Match quality.
• Your rights are protected.
• Register stability.
• Immunity from false accusations.
• Reduced administrative burden.
• Frees up resources.

11

Charter schools should drive this work

It advances education reform:

• Maximizes access and choice for families.
• Enrollment policies are actually implemented.
• Facilitates competition.
• Collaboration across sectors.
• Robust and accurate data.
• Clarifies “education production” results.
• Allows for wisdom in portfolio planning.

12

• 1. IIPSC and Universal Enrollment
• 2. The case for charter leadership
• 3. Particularly challenging issues

Agenda

13

Governance

Who administrates a Universal Enrollment system, and who is accountable?

School district as administrative body:

• Denver, New Orleans, Newark, New York City

Another entity as administrative body:

• Washington DC

14

Admissions priority policy

Charters are separate from district schools:

• Neighborhood and geography.
• Socio-economic status and other “set-asides.”
• Prioritizing families who understand school theme.
• Selective criteria.

15

Capacity and utilization

How many seats are available? How will available seats be used?

• Caps on enrollment.
• Internal structure of grades and classes.
• Students who arrive mid-year.
• Weighted student funding.

16

Promotion, suspension, expulsion

Individual versus standard criteria.

17

Contact Information

Neil Dorosin Founder and Executive Director (New York)

www.iipsc.org Mobile: (917) 579-8691 Desk: (347) 529-5970 Email: neild@iipsc.org

18