Student Assignment Plan Board of Education Workshop · Workshop Purpose District Strategic Plan Alignment Principle: Equitable and Efficient Systems and Resources Objective 4.4: Redesign

Student Assignment

Plan

Board of Education

Workshop

Monday, July 21st, 2014

1

Workshop Purpose

District Strategic Plan Alignment

Principle: Equitable and Efficient Systems and Resources

Objective 4.4: Redesign school choice policies and processes to ensure clarity, efficiency, and quality

Strategy 4.4.1: Convene the school choice committee that works with the community and government to develop and implement a revised and board approved Student Assignment and Transportation Plan

2

A Collaborative Effort

The work on the Student Assignment Plan presented today represents the joint efforts of the following departments, divisions, and groups:

◦ Accounting and Finance

◦ Bilingual Liaison & ESL Offices

◦ BOE SAP Ad Hoc Committee

◦ Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment

◦ District Communications

◦ Information Management Services

◦ Operational Services

◦ Research

◦ Strategic Planning Work Group – Strategy 4.1.1

◦ Student Placement

◦ Student Transportation

3

What is a Student Assignment Plan?

The OPS Student Assignment Plan is the framework that describes how students may access schools throughout the district.

The OPS Student Assignment Plan is first, and foremost, "home based."

The Plan allows students to choose other OPS schools and sets the rules for who is eligible for transportation to a school.

4

Student Assignment Plan Key Terms

Home Attendance Area (HAA) or Neighborhood School

The geographic boundary of a school used to assign all students to

their home school as a function of their home address. A student

who is attending their HAA or neighborhood school is described as

a “HAA student.”

Integrative

The current criterion to determine integration is a student’s free or

reduced priced lunch status compared to the school’s HAA lunch

percentage.

School Choice

The process of a student selecting and enrolling in schools outside

their Home Attendance Area (HAA) through the Student Assignment

Plan. Students making these choices are described as “option” or

“transfer” students.

5

Student Assignment Plan Key Terms

Option/Transfer Student

A student who is attending a school that is not his/her Home Attendance Area (HAA) school. A student can be an “option” or “transfer” student for a number of reasons that include going through the school choice process, remaining at a school after moving out of the attendance area or through assignment for special education programs.

Walk Zone

Every school with a home attendance area has a mileage guideline that provides transportation to students who live over the guideline and attend their HAA school. At the elementary level, students living over 1.5 miles receive transportation to their HAA school while those living 1.5 miles or less live inside of the “walk zone.”

Specialty/Magnet/Focus School

A school providing a special program or focus with seats set aside for students from outside of the home attendance area.

6

Current Student Assignment Plan: 2010 to

Present

7

Low Poverty

Schools

<65% F/R

Lunch

High

Poverty

Schools

>65% F/R

Lunch

Priority Student Placement:

1. Home Attendance Area Student

2. Sibling

3. Integrative

4. Remaining Capacity

Benefits

OPS Intra-District Plan is aligned to Learning Community Diversity Plan and the "rule sets" for student choice are similar.

Diversity is a priority focus of the current plan; students who integrate a school (based upon Free/Reduced Lunch eligibility or economic need) receive placement priority.

Students transferring to a school outside their home attendance area receive transportation based on integration of school and individual economic need (over 1.0 miles from transfer school).

Families may apply to any school in the district or Learning Community.

8

Challenges

Although the OPS and Learning Community plans are aligned, the plans are complex and difficult for families to understand.

Families are often overwhelmed by all the school choices and may not understand that they may always attend their home attendance area school.

Because of the variety in school choice, bus transportation is not always efficient (not all buses are full) and transportation has become more costly to the district.

With a growing Free/Reduced Lunch student population, providing integrated school choice options is becoming more and more difficult.

Due to a mobile population, students sometimes are unable to stay at a transfer school because transportation is not available from the new residence to the current school.

Magnet schools are becoming less of an option; perhaps too many magnet schools currently exist and themes are becoming outdated.

9

Current Plan Choice Patterns

31% of Elementary Students attend a school other than their home attendance area school

• About 46% of these student choices resulted in socioeconomic integration at the enrollment school

32% of Middle School Students attend a school other than their home attendance area school


50% of High School Students attend a school other than their home attendance area school


The option out percentages in the district vary from as low as 3% to as high as 70%.

10


When separating the district into four geographic areas, students who choose to attend another elementary school are predominantly making choices to stay in the same district area. 37.7% of options from the Middle stay in the Middle

50.3% of options from the North stay in the North

55.1% of options from the South stay in the South

67.3% of options from the West stay in the West

The percentage of students who make choice also varies among the four district areas. Middle - 31.1% K-6 students option to another school

North - 49.6% K-6 students option to another school

South - 29.6% K-6 students option to another school

West - 22.4% K-6 students option to another school

11


The distance students live from their home attendance area school varies by grade level and area of the district. 88% of all students live less than 1.5 miles from their home

elementary school while about 12% of students live outside of the 1.5 mile walk distance for elementary schools.

61% of all students live less than 2.0 miles from their home middle school while about 39% of students live outside of the 2.0 mile walk distance for middle schools.

83% of all students live less than 3.0 miles from their home high school while about 17% of students live outside of the 3.0 mile walk distance that is only established for the magnet schools.

12

Elementary: HAA vs. Enrollment F/R Lunch Change

13

Middle School: HAA vs. Enrollment F/R Lunch Change

14

High School: HAA vs. Enrollment F/R Lunch Change

15

16

Transportation Statistics: 2013-14

Buses 2013-2014 Start School Year Own & Operate: 266 (38 Wheelchair)

Contract Buses: 416

Contracted Vans: 5 ENCAP

Children Transported Beginning 2013-14 18,329 Total Students

General Education: 16,389

Total Special Education: 1,940

Total Early Childhood with Transportation: 425* (*this number is included with the total SPED)

17

Contracted Transportation Costs Bus Pairings

The yearly cost to contract out a bus is $42,453.80, and the cost for those buses to run an additional paired route is $8,254.70.

These costs include wages and fuel.

Currently, the vast majority of buses in the district are paired to reduce transportation costs.

These buses run both an elementary and secondary route.

To maximize cost savings under any new student assignment plan, the number of buses utilized at the elementary and secondary levels must be reduced concurrently.

18

Transportation Budget: 2013-2014

19

$21,106,462

$161,626.00

$16,530,711.00

$4,166,722.00

$625,705

$113,713

$0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000

General Education Contracted Transportation (Interlocal)

General Education (4 Prince of the Road, 2 ENCAP)

Special Education

Early Childhood Special Education

Other Transportation (i.e. parts, repairs, district vehicles, postage, communications, etc.)

Building Expense (i.e. heat, water, electricity etc.)

16,389 Students

1,940 Students

Contracted $21,268,088

16,389 Students

Special Education $20,697,433

1,940 Students

20

Student Assignment Plan Options

Elementary ◦ Home Based Cooperative Zone Model

◦ Home Based Cluster Model

◦ Home Attendance Area Model

Middle School ◦ Home Based Cluster Model


High School ◦ Partner School Model


21

Key Components of a Student Assignment Plan

There are a number of different components or criteria that might be considered when developing student assignment models.

Some of the metrics that were repeatedly identified as important by staff and community members include…

◦ Diversity

◦ Transportation Costs

◦ Simplicity

◦ School Choice

These components played a significant role in the development of proposed student assignment plan models.

Proposed models differ in the extent to which they address each of these components.

22

Student Assignment Plan Options

Proposed SAP Model Similarities and Differences

◦ All proposed SAP Models. . .

Allow students to attend their home attendance area school

Allow students to enroll in any school with capacity (not necessarily with transportation)

Provide choice to a small number of specialty schools with transportation

Transportation is only provided to schools that are greater than a designated distance from a student’s home

◦ All choices, regardless of the plan, are constrained by the availability of seats in buildings.

◦ The primary difference among proposed models is which school choices are supported by district-provided transportation.

23

Student Assignment Plan Options Elementary

Home Based Cooperative Zone Model

24

Median household income

is used to divide the

district into two

socioeconomically distinct

areas (east/west) which

are further divided

(north/south) into areas

to limit school choice and

make transportation more

efficient.


25

Transportation would be provided

to…

Home Attendance Area School

Specialty schools

School choice in cooperative

zone

Transportation would not be

provided to…

Other schools in home area

Home Based Cooperative Zone Model


Home Based Cluster Model

26

This plan allows

students to attend

their home

attendance area

school or choose

from a small number

of other elementary

schools that feed

into their home

attendance area

middle school.


27


Transportation would be

provided to…

Home Attendance Area

School

Specialty schools

School choice in the home

cluster


provided to…

Schools outside of the cluster


Home Attendance Area Model

28

This plan would assign

students to their home

attendance area school,

which would be

reasonably close to

their place of residence.


29



provided to…


School

Specialty schools


provided to…

Any other district schools

Model Comparisons Elementary

Models Simplicity

Home Attendance Area Simple

Cluster

Cooperative Zone

Current Model Complex

30

Models Choice

Current Model Many

Cluster

Cooperative Zone

Home Attendance Area Few

Models Cost

Home Attendance Area Low

Cooperative Zone

Cluster

Current Model High

Models Diversity

Current Model More

Cooperative Zone

Cluster

Home Attendance Area Less


Model Comparisons Elementary

Model Diversity Transportation

Cost

Choice Simplicity

Home Attendance

Area

4 1 4 1

Cluster 3 3 2 2

Cooperative Zone 2 2 3 3

Current Model 1 4 1 4

31

Ranking of Elementary Models on Key Components

The table below illustrates the relative rankings of the proposed

and current models on all four of these important Student

Assignment Plan criteria.

A rating of (1) indicates that the plan maximizes that particular

metric, whereas a rating of (4) indicates the lowest rating.

Transportation Eligibility by

Elementary Plan Options*

32

Model

HAA

Students-

1.5 Mile

Walk

Zone

HAA

Students-

1.0 Mile

Walk

Zone

Option

Students

Total

Eligible

with 1.5

Mile Walk

Zone

Total

Eligible

with 1.0

Mile Walk

Zone

Current Plan 1,893 3,859 4,507 6,400 8,366

Cluster 1,893 3,859 2,732 4,625 6,591

Cooperative Zone 1,893 3,859 2,199 4,092 6,058

Home Attendance Area 1,893 3,859 750 2,643 4,645

* All eligibility counts will change depending on changes in how students

make choice under a revised student assignment plan.

33

Student Assignment Plan Options Middle School


34

This SAP would allow students to attend their home attendance area school or choose from a small number of other middle schools located in their home cluster.


35



provided to…


School

Cluster and district-wide

specialty schools

School choice in home cluster


provided to…

Schools outside of cluster



36

This plan would assign

students to attend

their home attendance

area school which

would be reasonably

close to their place of

residence.


37



provided to…


School

Specialty schools


provided to…


Model Comparisons Middle School

38

Middle School

Models

Diversity

Current Model More

Cluster

Home Attendance Area Less

Middle School

Models

Cost


Cluster

Current Model High

Middle School

Models

Choice

Current Model Many

Cluster


Middle School

Models

Simplicity


Cluster



Model Comparisons Middle School

39

Ranking of Middle School Models on Key Components







Cost

Choice Simplicity

Home Attendance

Area

3 1 3 1

Cluster 2 2 2 2


Transportation Eligibility by Middle

School Plan Options*

40

Model

HAA

Students-

2.0 Mile

Walk

Zone

HAA

Students-

1.5 Mile

Walk

Zone

Option

Students

Total

Eligible

with 2.0

Mile Walk

Zone

Total

Eligible

with 1.5

Mile Walk

Zone

Current Model 1,934 2,962 2,085 4,019 5,047

Home Attendance

Area 1,934 2,962 1,474 3,408 4,436

Cluster 1,934 2,962 2,120 4,054 5,082

* All eligibility counts will change depending on changes in how students


41

Student Assignment Plan Options High School

Partner School Model

42

This plan would allow

students to choose a

partner school with

transportation.

In addition, students

may choose from a

small number of

specialty schools or

their home

attendance area

school.


43

Transportation would be provided

to…

Partner school

Specialty schools


provided to…






44

This plan would

assign students to

attend their home

attendance area

school or allow them

to choose a small

number of specialty

schools with

transportation

provided to students

living over a

designated distance

from their school.


45



provided to…


Specialty schools


provided to…


Model Comparisons High School

46

High School Models Choice

Current Model Many



High School Models Simplicity




High School Models Cost



Current Model High

High School Models Diversity

Current Model High




Model Comparisons High School

47

Ranking of High School Models on Key Components







Cost

Choice Simplicity

Home Attendance

Area

3 1 3 1

Partner School

Model

2 2 2 2


Transportation Eligibility by High

School Plan Options*

48

Model

HAA-

Current

Guidelines

HAA

Students-

3.0 Mile

Walk

Zone

Option

Students

Total

Eligible

with

limited

HAA

Trans.

Total

Eligible

with 3.0

Mile Walk

Zone

Current Model 291 2,090 5,018 5,309 7,108

Home Attendance

Area 569** 2,090 2,297 2,866 4,387

Partner School Model 569** 2,090 3,324 3,893 5,414

*All eligibility counts will change depending on changes in how students


** Includes transportation to students in the HAA of the three specialty

schools over 2.0 miles.

49

Student Assignment Plan

Parent and Community Survey Results

50

Survey Administered:

Online - June 23rd through July 6th 2014

Paper & Pencil - June 23rd through June 27th 2014

Community Outreach & Communication Parent/Guardian Outreach

◦ School Messenger – All households 91.5% contact rate – Voicemails & Answers

◦ Paper-and-pencil surveys in every school

◦ Parents of 4th graders in summer school

Social Media Outreach

◦ Facebook posting & reminders

◦ Twitter posting & reminders

◦ Link on Main Page & Banner

◦ Parent email addresses (~20,000)

Refugee Outreach

◦ Yates Community Forum

◦ Refugee Task Force

District Staff Outreach

◦ Communications to Principals

◦ Paper-and-pencil distribution

51

Community Outreach

◦ Communication to community leaders & groups list

Willie Barney – Empowerment Network

Carolina Quezada - Latino Center of the Midlands

Pastor Mike Williams - Risen Son Baptist Church

Pastor Selwyn Q. Bachus - Salem Baptist Church

Chief Tom Warren - Urban League

Jamalia Parker - Lutheran Family Services

Candace Gregory - Open Door Mission

Ivan Gilreath - Boys & Girls Club

Pastor Cedric Perkins - Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance

Omaha Public Library - South Omaha Branch

Survey Collaboration and Joint Efforts

District Communications Distributing communications

Follow up communications

Collaborating with community groups

Information Management Services Creating & scanning paper-and-pencil surveys

Distributing the link on the website

Bilingual Liaison & ESL Offices Spanish translation & marketing

Refugee community forums & outreach

Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment Reviewed / Revised drafts and topics of the survey

OPS Building Support Paper-and-pencil survey distribution & collection

52

SAP Survey Respondents

There were… ◦ 3,069 Completed Surveys – Electronic / Online Version

2,483 English – 80.9% of online sample

586 Spanish – 19.1% of online sample

◦ 480 Completed Paper & Pencil surveys 309 English – 64.4% of paper-and-pencil sample

171 Spanish – 35.6% of paper-and-pencil sample

3,549 Total Surveys Taken & Analyzed ◦ Spanish speaking percentage of the total sample (21.3%) versus the district (25.8%)

◦ 3, 183 Identified as a current OPS Parent – 89.7% of total surveys taken

◦ 199 Identified as a current OPS Student – 5.6% of total surveys taken

◦ 75 Completed Surveys – Refugee Community Version Not included in full data because of difficulty with concept comprehension

Difficulty with response rate calculation for community samples

53

Refugee Community Forums at Yates Two classrooms

◦ New English learners

◦ More experienced English learners

Language lesson & input ◦ 4 translators & Susan Mayberger

◦ Filled out simplified versions of parent survey

◦ Approx. 75 refugee participants

◦ 2 to 2.5 hours per class

Multiple languages ◦ Karen

◦ Nepali

◦ Spanish

◦ Arabic

◦ French

◦ Russian

◦ Korean

◦ Nuer

54

Two primary themes / needs of the

refugee community:

◦ 1.) They want to attend a school

near where they live

◦ 2.) They want transportation to that

school – even 6 blocks is a difficult

distance for them to walk

SAP Survey Respondents

55

Northwest:

1,523 Surveys

45.9%

Southwest:

285 Surveys

8.6%

Northeast:

795 Surveys

24.0%

Southeast:

714 Surveys

21.5%

Parent Respondents: Grades

Grade of Child(ren) Number Percentage of Sample

Pre-Kindergarten 170 3.0%

Kindergarten 350 6.2%

1st Grade 482 8.6%

2nd Grade 412 7.4%

3rd Grade 482 8.6%

4th Grade 484 8.6%

5th Grade 671 12.0%

6th Grade 440 7.9%

7th Grade 414 7.4%

8th Grade 422 7.5%

9th Grade 329 5.9%

10th Grade 371 6.6%

11th Grade 299 5.3%

12th Grade 275 4.9%

Total Number 5,601 100% 56

n = 3,051

54.47%

n = 1,276

22.78%

n = 1,274

22.74%

Parent Respondents: Elementary Schools

57

School # % of E

Adams 21 0.91%

Ashland Park 29 1.26%

Bancroft 29 1.26%

Beals 39 1.69%

Belle Ryan 20 0.87%

Belvedere 11 0.48%

Benson West 36 1.56%

Boyd 54 2.34%

Castelar 17 0.74%

Catlin 39 1.69%

Central Park 12 0.52%

Chandler View 48 2.08%

Columbian 63 2.74%

Conestoga 3 0.13%

Crestridge 67 2.91%

Dodge 34 1.48%

Druid Hill 8 0.35%

Dundee 169 7.34%

Edison 40 1.74%

Field Club 29 1.26%

Florence 22 0.96%

School # % of E

Fontenelle 18 0.78%

Franklin 9 0.39%

Fullerton 112 4.86%

Gateway 31 1.35%

Gilder 25 1.09%

Gomez 40 1.74%

Harrison 68 2.95%

Hartman 30 1.30%

Highland 13 0.56%

Indian Hill 11 0.48%

Jackson 8 0.35%

Jefferson 16 0.69%

Joslyn 47 2.04%

Kellom 17 0.74%

Kennedy 1 0.04%

King 21 0.91%

Liberty 22 0.96%

Lothrop 16 0.69%

Masters 37 1.61%

Miller Park 6 0.26%

Minne Lusa 16 0.69%

School # % of E

Mount View 12 0.66%

Oak Valley 20 1.10%

Pawnee 23 1.26%

Picotte 77 4.23%

Pinewood 17 0.93%

Ponca 26 1.43%

Prairie Wind 76 4.18%

Rose Hill 12 0.66%

Saddlebrook 125 6.87%

Saratoga 1 0.05%

Sherman 2 0.11%

Skinner 14 0.77%

Spring Lake 18 0.99%

Springville 51 2.80%

Standing Bear 120 6.60%

Sunny Slope 43 2.36%

Wakonda 5 0.27%

Walnut Hill 7 0.38%

Washington 51 2.80%

Western Hills 27 1.48%

Wilson 37 2.03%

Parent Respondents: Middle Schools

Middle School Number % of Middle Sample

Beveridge Magnet 101 9.88%

Bryan Middle 34 3.33%

Buffett Magnet 281 27.50%

Davis Middle 140 13.70%

Nathan Hale Magnet 27 2.64%

King Science Magnet 75 7.34%

Lewis & Clark Middle 116 11.35%

Marrs Magnet 71 6.95%

McMillan Magnet 40 3.91%

Monroe Middle 26 2.54%

Morton Magnet 76 7.44%

Norris Middle 35 3.42%

58

Parent Respondents: High Schools

High School Number % of High Sample

Benson High 53 4.76%

Bryan High 62 5.57%

Burke High 304 27.29%

Central High 327 29.35%

North Magnet 182 16.34%

Northwest Magnet 118 10.59%

South Magnet 68 6.10%

59

Specialty School Consideration for Child Most respondents would consider sending their child to a Specialty

School or Program, such as a Magnet, Focus, or Dual Language school

79.5% would consider

sending their child to a

specialty school

20.4% would NOT

consider sending their child

to a specialty school

60

Elementary Academic Areas of Interest Survey respondents were most interested in the basic or

core curriculum areas at the elementary level

2.54

2.55

2.61

2.63

2.65

2.67

2.78

2.87

2.94

3.04

3.11

3.32

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Global Studies

Visual Arts

Health & Wellness (Nutrition & Physical Activity)

Performing Arts

Communication & Electronic Media

World Languages

University Partnerships

Mathematics with Finance & Economics

Information Technology

Mathematics with Engineering

Science

Core Curriculum (Math, Reading, Writing)

61 1= Not at all interested to 4 = Extremely interested

Secondary Academic Areas of Interest At the secondary level, respondents were interested in dual

enrollment and STEM emphases

2.05

2.26

2.33

2.47

2.49

2.49

2.61

2.63

2.64

2.66

2.67

2.71

2.84

2.89

2.92

3.12

3.28

3.29

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Hospitality & Tourism

Transportation Systems / Logistics & Distribution

Agriculture, Food, & Natural Resources

Government & Public Administration

Human & Social Services

Criminology / Criminal Justice

Aviation & Aerospace Engineering

Architecture & Construction

Environmental Studies

Arts & A/V Technology

Legal Studies / Law & Justice

International Baccalaureate (IB)

Career & Trade Preparation / Certifications

Business Marketing / Mgmt. / Entrepreneurship

Health Science / Medical Occupations

Information Technology / Computer Science

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math)

Dual Enrollment (HS & College Credit)

62 1= Not at all interested to 4 = Extremely interested

Programs & Schools to Encourage Choice STEM and Career & Tech Ed schools and programs appear the

most popular - followed by Magnet schools – all are supported

3.22

3.33

3.40

3.42

3.56

3.61

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Dual Language Programs/Schools

Focus Programs/Schools

The Arts Programs/Schools

Magnet Programs/Schools

Career & Technical Education

Programs/Schools (HS Level Only)

Science, Technology, Engineering, & Math

Programs/Schools (STEM)

63 1= Definitely Not to 4 = Definitely


27.5%

21.6%

31.4%

58.9%

66.2%

48.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Students who have a sibling in a school

should be guaranteed a spot in that school.

Students who start in a school should be

guaranteed to stay in that school until they

reach the final grade offered at that school

Every child should have an option for choice

at a specialty school

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

64

Respondents generally agreed that all students… …should have an option for a specialty school

…should be guaranteed to finish in a school they start in

…should be guaranteed to go to a school with their sibling


26.6%

17.9%

22.8%

18.1%

11.0%

24.0%

26.5%

21.9%

13.6%

32.4%

17.8%

26.5%

33.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

If my child walked to school, he she would have a

safe and secure walk.

OPS spends too much money transporting students

to school.

The Student Assignment Plan needs to be simplified


65

Respondents generally agreed (65.6%) that the Student Assignment Plan needs simplified

Respondents were split (35% v. 40%) on whether or not OPS spends too much money on transportation

More respondents disagreed (49.4%) than agreed (39.7%) that their child has a safe and secure walk to school, if he/she walked

Elementary Transportation Preferences There appears to be support for both the current model and

the cluster plan – less support for the zone plan

-100

100

300

500

700

900

1100

Current Plan

(Any School)

Cluster Plan Zone Plan Home

Attendance

Only

Southwest

Southeast

Northwest

Northeast

960 (35.0%)

Area of Omaha:

858 (31.3%)

293 (10.7%)

628 (22.9%)

66

Elementary Transportation Preferences These preferences are not the same across the district – the

Northwest respondents prefer the cluster over the current plan

45.7%

27.9%

39.1%

34.5%

26.2%

35.1%

29.8% 28.5%

13.0%

9.1%

11.3% 11.1%

15.1%

27.8%

19.8%

26.0%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%

Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest

Current Plan (Any School) Cluster Plan Zone Plan Home Attendance Only

n = 644 n = 1,269 n = 591 n = 235 67

Middle Level Transportation Preferences Respondents like more choice at the middle school level with

more respondents preferring transportation to any school

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Current Plan

(Any School)


Attendance

Only

Southwest

Southeast

Northwest

Northeast

1,102 (40.0%)

Area of Omaha:

824 (30.0%)

296 (10.7%)

534 (19.3%)

68

Middle Level Transportation Preferences All areas except the Northwest portion of the district prefer the current

plan – respondents in the Northwest were more open to the cluster plan

49.9%

32.9%

45.9%

37.1%

25.8%

32.9%

27.7% 29.7%

12.4% 9.9%

11.4% 9.1%

11.8%

24.3%

15.0%

24.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%



n = 643 n = 1,293 n = 588 n = 232 69

High School Transportation Preferences Community preferences at high school are similar to preferences at

middle school – respondents want more choice at high school

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Current Plan

(Any School)


Attendance

Only

Southwest

Southeast

Northwest

Northeast

1,338 (48.4%)

Area of Omaha:

634 (23.0%)

270 (9.8%)

520 (18.8%)

70

High School Transportation Preferences Respondents prefer the current plan where they have choice to

any high school – this was fairly consistent across the district

55.1%

44.3%

52.8%

42.3%

21.4%

24.7%

20.8% 23.1%

12.1%

8.5% 10.6%

8.5% 11.4%

22.6%

15.9%

26.1%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%



n = 651 n = 1,299 n = 578 n = 234 71

Alternative Busing Options There is some support for METRO bus options, and even stronger

support for a parent pay option

301

10.2%

574

19.3%

179

6.0%

353

11.9%

421

14.3%

324

10.9%

876

29.7%

809

27.18

1,177

39.8%

916

30.8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Parent Pay Option

METRO Bus Option

Strongly Oppose Somewhat Oppose Neutral Somewhat Support Strongly Support

72

Alternative Busing Options by area Respondents in the Northwest were the least supportive of the METRO

bus option, but most supportive of the Parent Pay option

63%

50%

66% 63%

26%

39%

24% 26%

67% 66% 66%

71%

17% 14%

19%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Support METRO Oppose METRO Support Parent Pay Oppose Parent Pay

METRO PARENT METRO PARENT METRO PARENT METRO PARENT

73

Maximum Bus Ride in Minutes 70.9% of respondents would like a maximum bus ride to be between

10 and 30 minutes – the average is 26.34 minutes

74

0 mins.

10 mins.

20 mins.

30 mins.

40 mins.

50 mins. n = 200, 7.5%

n = 977, 36.8%

n = 905, 34.1% n = 350, 13.2%

n = 121, 4.6%

n = 101, 2.8%

Average = 26.34 mins.

75

Student Assignment Plan

Board of Education, Administrator/Supervisor, and

Certificated Staff Survey Results

Survey Administered:

Board of Education – May 20th through May 26th

Administrator/Supervisor – May 30th through June 13th

Certificated Staff – June 5th through June 18th

Board of Education,

Administrator/Supervisor, and

Certificated Staff Survey Results

There were…

◦ 8 Completed Surveys from OPS Board of Education Members

89% Completion Rate

◦ 222 Completed Surveys from OPS Administrators/Supervisors

81% Completion Rate

◦ 2,089 Completed Surveys from OPS Certificated Staff

54% Completion Rate

Note: Survey was completed following teachers final duty day. Thanks to OEA

leadership for assisting with contacting teachers to inform them of the surveys

availability.

Program Themes Meant to Encourage Choice Survey respondents were most interested in Dual Language,

STEM, and Career Academies

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Gifted Schools

Magnet Schools

Focus Schools

The Arts

Career Academies

Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Math (STEM)

Dual Language

Certificated

Admin/Supervisors

BOE

78 1= Of Little Importance 4 = Very Important

Respondents:

Aggregate Rating of the Key Components of

the Student Assignment Plan

1 2 3 4

Bus Transportation to Non-Neighborhood/NonProgram Schools

Bus Transportation to Special Program Schools

Bus Transportation to Neighborhood Schools

Student Enrollment at Capacity for All Buildings

School Choice for Students and Families

Student Body Diversity

Reasonable Ride Time on Bus

Reduction of Transportation Costs

Attend Neighborhood School

Efficient Bus Transportation

Guarantee for Siblings

Simplified Plan

Bus Transportation to Avoid Hazardous Walks to

School

Mean (Elem)

Mean (Middle)

Mean (High)

1= Of Little Importance 4 = Very Important

Middle School Grade Configuration:

Grade Configuration Standardization

Mean Standard Deviation

Board of Education (n = 8) 4.4 1.7

Administrators (n = 197) 4.5 1.5

Teachers (n = 1,874) 4.4 1.5

All Groups Aggregated (N = 2,079) 4.4 1.6

• All three groups strongly supported having a

standardized middle school grade configuration across

the district.

1= Strongly Disagree 5 = Strongly Agree

Middle School Grade Configuration:

Grade Configurations

Preferred Grade Configuration

5 – 8 6 – 8 7 – 8 Other

Board of Education (n = 7) 0% 86% 0% 14%

Administrators (n = 198) 22% 63% 11% 4%

Teachers (n = 1,882) 19% 60% 18% 3%

All Groups Aggregated (N = 2,087) 14% 70% 10% 7%

• Strongest support across all three groups was for the

6-8 grade configuration.

Research on Middle School Grade

Configuration

Grade configuration advantages/disadvantages can typically be explained by other factors, especially, for example: ◦ Student and teacher populations (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007)

◦ Average grade size (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007)

◦ School transition (Byrnes & Ruby, 2007)

Performance decreased more when the transition occurred later in the student’s education (Schwartz, Rubenstein, & Zabel, 2011)

Further, there are many other important factors that influence student outcomes beyond grade configuration, for example: ◦ School attachment (Carolan & Chesky, 2012)

◦ Middle School Concept (Erb, 2006)

Overall, the research is inconclusive and focuses on specific school districts, which may or may not generalize to the Omaha Public Schools. However, student-level outcomes are affected by more than grade configuration alone. Researchers warn that differences due to grade configuration are likely accounted for by other underlying factors.

82

Middle School Grade Level Configuration

• In your opinion, which grade level configuration

do you think best contributes to student success

at the Middle School Level?

83

Middle Level Grade Configuration Consistency 64% of respondents want consistency with grade level

configurations at Middle School

State your level of agreement:

◦ All middle schools within OPS should have the

same grade configuration.

84

304

9.7%

244

7.8%

428

13.7%

864

27.6%

1,139

36.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Middle Level Grade Configuration Preferences There appears to be equal support for both 6-8 and 7-8

configurations, less support for a 5-8 configuration

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

5th - 8th 6th - 8th 7th - 8th Other

Southwest

Southeast

Northwest

Northeast

528 (18.0%)

Area of Omaha:

1,124 (38.4%)

1,145 (39.1%)

131 (4.5%)

85

Middle Level Grade Configuration Preferences

Elementary School Parents Only Respondents with a child currently attending a elementary school

preferred a 7-8 or 6-8 grade level configuration

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800


301 (15.8%)

693 (36.3%)

751 (39.4%)

78 (4.1%)

86

Middle Level Grade Configuration Preferences

Middle School Parents Only Respondents with a child currently attending a middle school

somewhat preferred a 6-8 middle configuration, followed by 7-8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450


179 (19.1%)

384 (41.0%)

322 (34.4%)

28 (3.0%)

87

Middle Level Grade Configuration Preferences The eastern portion of the district clearly prefers 7-8, while the

northwestern portion clearly prefers 6-8

18.4% 19.0%

16.0% 16.9%

31.9%

44.6%

31.6%

40.0%

44.1%

33.3%

45.6%

40.4%

5.7%

3.1%

6.8%

2.7%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

50.0%



88 n = 690 n = 1,347 n = 636 n = 255

Alternative Middle School Configurations The junior high model (grades 7-9) was the most frequently

suggested alternative configuration for middle school

Open ended responses were content coded

64 respondents provided other middle school

configurations not listed in the survey

89

73%

16%

8%

3%

Grades 7 - 9 Grades PK / K - 8 Grades 6 - 9 Other (5-7 | 4-8)

90

Tentative Student Assignment Plan

Implementation Timeline

2014-15 PLANNING YEAR

Communication: Input/Feedback Opportunities for Plan Development

September – November, 2014

◦ Community Input Meetings by BOE District

◦ School Input Meetings with Parents (PTA/PTO)

◦ School Input Meetings with Staff

◦ Board of Education Meeting Updates

Board of Education Final Approval December 2014

91



Communication: Familiarization/Understanding of Approved New Student Assignment Plan January - May, 2015

District and School Implementation Planning January - May, 2015

Student Selection Process

Program Planning with Staff, Parent and Community Engagement --Specialty Schools --Focus Schools/Programs --Early Childhood Expansion --Middle School Program Modifications (if approved to go forward)

Development of Communication Venues --Student Assignment Plan Webpage with FAQ --Digital Communications

92



2015-16 COMMUNICATION and SELECTION YEAR

School Selection for 2016-17

◦ School selection occurs based on “rules” of New Student Assignment Plan for the 2016-17 School Year

Student Assignment Plan Communication Activities…continues

Implementation Planning…continues

2016-17 IMPLEMENTATION YEAR

◦ Grandfathering of “Old” Student Assignment Plan School Transportation Eligibility Rules with Services to be determined.

93

94

Documents

Student Assignment Plan Board of Education Workshop · Workshop Purpose District Strategic Plan Alignment Principle: Equitable and Efficient Systems and Resources Objective 4.4: Redesign