Planning for Additional Elementary School Seats: Advancing Equity and

Excellence in the Rochester City School District (RCSD)

Preliminary Recommendations Draft

Prepared by

RCSD Zone Reconfiguration Task Force

May 11, 2021 - ESA Committee Meeting

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

School Enrollment Changes

Districts frequently use enrollment projections to predict increases or decreases in enrollment

to make projections about change in school zoning. There is extensive research that suggests

that a key factor for effective planning is accurate enrollment projections.

Using five year enrollment projections along with other elements of planning are best practice

when planning for zones. When determining recommendations, the Task Force reviewed a

minimal view of five-year historical trends for enrollment to better understand our district’s

demographic cycles, and did not rely on long-term (i.e., twenty-year projections) for future

enrollment predictions, as these projections could be limited by too many unknown economic

and demographic factors. The Task Force also considered our Rochester Schools Modernization

Program (RSMP), impact of COVID pandemic actions, the RCSD Strategic plans, the State

Monitor’s Academic and Financial Plans, as well as other initiatives that may affect

demographics. A 2011 article on enrollment projections recommends a “rolling five-year

strategy to bring together programs, demographics, and facilities.”1

1 Carey, K.D. “Why Enrollment Projections Go Wrong.” School Superintendents Association, April 2011. http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=18586 [2] Carey, K.D. “Planning for Integration.” American School Board Journal, 194:10, October 2007. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=508004396&site=ehost-live [2] Enrollment and Student Assignment Planning Practices, Op. Cit.

The State Monitor’s Academic and Financial plan requests the Superintendent to conduct a

Feasibility Study to complement the work of the Managed Choice elements of the Task Force.

This study is critical to provide necessary information for recommendations and decision-

making. This study will include computer mapping of school zones and student demographics,

integrated with proven five-year enrollment projections by grade and school. These data will be

combined with data related to building renovation needs and capacities, as highlighted in the

Rochester Schools Modernization Program and budget. Additional data that may inform the

recommendations from the task force to the Board of Education include birth rates and cohort

survival projections, charter, private, and parochial enrollment trends, local transportation and

land use plans, and zoning policies. In the Rochester City School District, the policy that

oversees the decisions relating many of the related zoning decisions is Parent

Preference/Managed Choice Policy 5153.

The Scope and Purpose of this policy includes:

• Student Enrollment

• School Improvement

• Student Mobility

• “Home” Schools

• Transportation

This policy addresses:

• School Zones

• Efficient and effective use of facilities

• School choice

• Sibling Preference

• Proximity to School

• Socio-economic diversity

• Student Mobility – “grandfathered” into a school

• Placement Lottery

• Voluntary Transfer

• Citywide schools

• Specialized Programs – Special Education and ELL

• School Accountability Status

Rochester City School District

Background Information on the Rochester City School District

The city of Rochester is located in upstate New York. The city is situated on the southern shore

of Lake Ontario. The Genesee River bisects the city. Rochester is the third most populous city

after New York City and Buffalo. Rochester is located in Monroe County. The city is part of a

region known for science, technology, research, and development. The University of Rochester

and the Rochester Institute for Technology along with notable smaller colleges like St. John

Fisher College also support the economy of the city and region.

The Rochester City School District (RCSD) services 31,334 students, including a growing

population of charter school students. The population of the school district is composed almost

entirely of students of color, with Black students making up 53.1%, Hispanic / Latino students

making up 32.7% of the student population, White students comprising 9.6%, and Asian

students representing 2.9% of the RCSD student population. Rochester has seen the growth of

communities of Bhutanese, Nepalese, and Sudanese, among other immigrant groups moving to

Rochester as part of refugee resettlement programs. RCSD students speak 65 different

languages. There are 3,716 teachers and administrators supporting students and their families

in 55 Pre-K sites, 46 schools, and 10 alternative programs.

THE RCSD STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS

The RCSD Strategic Plan has purposefully aligned the tenets of the State Monitor’s

Academic and Financial Plan to the District’s Goals. This alignment provides a focus for our

work for our scholars, families, and the District community. Superintendent Myers-Small

launched the initial planning process in Summer 2020 with engagement activities designed to

expand and strengthen relationships among teachers, administrators, students, parents,

stakeholders, board members, alumni and the businesses and other organizations in the region.

Planned for “impact,” the process had several other objectives:

• Broad community and institutional alignment and commitment to the Rochester City

School District’s future direction

• Focus on and delivery of key goals critical to student, institutional, and regional

economic success

• Maximizing RCSD’s value to students, stakeholders, and the region

RCSD MISSION STATEMENT

Foster students' individual talents and abilities in a nurturing environment of equity.

RCSD VISION STATEMENT

Ensure all students equitable access to a high-quality education and graduate each

student as a productive member of society.

RCSD CORE BELIEFS:

• Students are our first priority and will drive each decision.

• Each student has recognizable and untapped potential that we strive to discover and fulfill.

• We embrace diversity and commit to the eradication of racism and all forms of

discrimination and oppression.

• We provide students, families and staff with equitable access to resources for learning.

• We respect and honor the dignity of all individuals.

• Educating the whole child requires high-quality learning that is safe, loving and rigorous.

• Our work is centered in respect, trust, integrity and accountability.

• Education is a partnership of families, school, and the community.

• We make each fiscal and resource allocation decision equitably, transparently and in the

best interest of our students.

Rochester City School District: 2020-23 Priorities

Engage: Provide high-quality learning experiences

• Implement student-centered learning to improve academic success for all and to close the

achievement gap of our students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students,

and Black, Latino and English language learners.

• Establish a uniform, clear and transparent procedure for curriculum development and

implementation.

• Use data purposefully and collaboratively to drive decisions and to improve student

outcomes.

Lift Up: Ensure an inclusive, caring and safe learning environment

• Use restorative practices to promote inclusiveness, relationship-building and problem-

solving.

• Deliver trauma-informed practices through a culturally responsive lens to provide a safe,

positive learning environment.

• Establish training norms for cultural responsiveness, antiracism, diversity and inclusion.

Collaborate: Build strong community

• Create non-traditional, innovative opportunities for family engagement.

• Partner with businesses, higher education and other community organizations.

Lead: Foster dynamic leadership

• Manage school and district resources effectively.

• Develop leaders at the school and district levels to achieve each school's targeted

outcomes.

• Highlight and communicate the great accomplishments in our schools and district.

• Build high-performing teams to drive implementation of our strategic priorities.

Directional Excerpts from the State Monitor’s Academic and Financial Plan

By December 30, 2020, Deputy of Teaching and Learning shall establish a task force to study 1)

District

geographic zone configurations and 2) District school zone configurations.

2. By April 15, 2021, the Task Force shall share recommendations for new Zone configurations.

3. By May 2023, funding for Phase I of a Board approved implementation plan to change the

geographic configuration and the staffing of RCSD Zones shall be included in the district budget.

4. Restructure Central Office by reducing staff and reassigning key staff positions to schools and

zone offices. This will provide greater resources in better alignment with school needs. This will

also improve the timeliness of responses to school needs. This will help to alleviate reported

frustration from school level teachers and administrators regarding the support received from

the Central Office. Zone offices shall include content specialists trained using a research or

evidence based coaching model.

1. By December 30, 2020, Deputy of Teaching and Learning and the Deputy of Student Support

shall establish a task force to study 1) District geographic zone configurations and 2) District

school zone configurations. 2. By May 15, 2021, the Task force shall share recommendations for

new Zone configurations. 3. Phase I of a Board approved implementation plan to change the

geographic configuration and the staffing of RCSD Zones will be budgeted in the 2023-24 RCSD

budget.

2. Based on the feasibility study for district reconfigurations establish school models (i.e. pk-5,

6-8, 9-12) to increase opportunities for vertical and horizontal articulation, academic

acceleration, facilities consolidation, and fiscal efficiency

Deputy of Teaching and Learning and the Deputy for Student Support Services shall establish a

task force to study: a. District geographic zone configurations and b. District school zone

configurations by December 30, 2020. 2. Taskforce shall share recommendations for new Zone

configurations by April 15, 2021. Should the Board approve recommendations for new Zone

configurations, Phase I of the implementation plan to change the geographic configuration and

the staffing of RCSD Zones will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

Pending feasibility results, establish neighborhood community model elementary and middle

schools

Deputy of Teaching and Learning and the Deputy of Student Support shall establish a task force

to study 1) District geographic zone configurations and 2) District school zone configurations by

December 30, 2020. 2. Taskforce shall share recommendations for new Zone configurations by

May 15, 2021. 3. Pending Board approval using a phased approach, recommendations for a

new Zone configuration, will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget

Revamp or eliminate the Managed Choice Policy

Deputy of Teaching and Learning and the Deputy of Student Support shall establish a task force

to study 1) District geographic zone configurations and 2) District school zone configurations

and the Managed Choice Policy by August 30, 2021.

2. Task force shall share recommendations for the policy by September 30, 2021.

3. Phase I of a Board approved implementation plan to change to transition to neighborhood

community model elementary schools will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

Research and Best Practices in Zoning for Districts and Schools

Accurate enrollment projections are vital for effective long-term planning and enrollment

management. Districts can ensure accurate projections by using five-year projections

integrated with data from multiple sources, such as local housing plans, land use, and

transportation plans.

Literature Review

As we conducted our research to present recommendations to the Board of Education, the Task

Force considered existing research and best practices present in the literature. Much of the

existing research on grade reconfigurations relates to either middle schools or rural

communities with a K-12 school. The State Monitor requested that the Task Force review

“feasibility study data for district reconfigurations in school models (i.e. PK-5, 6-8, 9-12) to

increase opportunities for vertical and horizontal articulation, academic acceleration, facilities

consolidation, and fiscal efficiency.” There is some relevant research related to early childhood

and elementary school organizations, as well as examples of how other districts have

considered elementary school grade reconfigurations.

This section provides secondary information to enhance the recommendations of the Task

Force, and focuses on three themes:

• Past research related to grade configurations,

• Examples of how other districts approach grade reconfiguration, and

• Considerations for implementing a new grade configuration.

Past Research Related to Grade Configurations

Rochester Research – Neighborhood Zone Demographic Analysis

This 2020 by the RCSD Accountability department analysis looked at the spread of Rochester’s

student demographic subgroups across its schools and its neighborhoods. The demographics

selected included SED ethnic and race subgroups, ENL and Immigrant. Additionally, included in

the analysis are students receiving ENL Services, ENL students enrolled in Bilingual

programming, and students receiving special education services. The percentage of Rochester

students in these demographic areas were calculated and displayed in the analysis.

Private/Parochial, Charter Schools, Urban/Suburban and Homeschooled students were not

considered in the analysis since these students’ subgroups cannot be verified.

Neighborhoods were defined by an outdated map. It is outdated due to the following:

• School 43 is a neighborhood zone;

• School 22’s neighborhood zone is around its original location on Zimbrich Street;

• School 25 does not have a zone even after its move to Freddie Thomas Learning

Center.

• In completion of the analysis, the School 43 neighborhood was assigned to

School 54, School 22 neighborhood stayed as its original location rather than the

area around, and School 25 was omitted from the analysis.

Below are some bulleted points that emerged from the analysis:

• The School 22 neighborhood, around its original location, has the highest percentage of

RCSD students living there, as well as the most ELLs, most ENL only and most bilingual

students.

• Two schools with bilingual programming, Schools 28 and 35, have the lowest

percentages of ENL students residing in its neighborhood.

• The subgroup with the least consistent range of percentages across neighborhoods is

the Immigrant subgroup, which spikes at 17.6% of all immigrants reside in the School 46

neighborhood. This spike explains the high percentages of ENL and ENL Only students in

the neighborhood.

• The most consistent spread of percentages across all neighborhoods was with special

education students.

• The schools that provide services which best match its neighborhoods are Schools 52, 42

and 19. It should be noted that all of these schools have a low percentage of ENL

students.

• The schools that have the most discrepancy between the services that are provided and

the demographic of their associated neighborhoods are Schools 22, 45 and 34. It should

be noted that all of these schools have a high percentage of our students, and a high

percentage of our ENL students in the neighborhood.

Criteria For Determining School Boundaries and Assignments

Research shows that district priorities play a large role in creating school boundaries and

student assignment plans. Districts typically consider factors such as costs of busing students to

school; desire to maintain neighborhood cohesion; need to ensure that siblings attend the

same schools; and desire to maintain racial and socioeconomic balance across schools.2 While

priorities have helped to shape the conversation for setting school and district boundaries,

there is not a consensus in the educational field regarding best practices as they relate to

district and school rezoning. Our Task Force therefore relied on the initial charge, which was to

study District geographic zone configurations and District school zone configurations.3

A 2003 study of school boundary and school assignment methods in 15 urban school districts

found that districts considered the criteria listed below, as well as a variety of other criteria to

create boundaries for school assignments.4

• School capacity and enrollment;

• Natural boundaries or physical barriers such as railroads or highways;

• Neighborhood population and size of residential buildings;

• Anticipated growth;

• Students’ proximity to schools and bus/travel time;

• Sibling enrollment at schools;

• Census tract and geo-code data;

• Existing student feeder patterns;

• Districts’ capital plan for school-related facilities and capital expenditures; and

• Race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other demographic data.

2 Pathak, P.A. “The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment.” Annual Review of Economics, 3, 2011. http://economics.mit.edu/files/9414 3 2020. State Monitor’s Academic and Financial Plans. www.rcsdk12.org 4 Brown and Knight, Op. cit.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GUIDANCE FOR RACE-BASED SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT POLICIES

The Task Force noted that a 2007 Supreme Court Case Parents Involved in Community Schools

Inc. v. Seattle School District limited the use of race as a deciding factor for school assignment.

The decision invalidated programs in Seattle and Louisville that considered race as a primary

factor in assigning students to schools, saying that the school districts had not demonstrated

that they had seriously considered race-neutral alternatives to their policies.5

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice released guidance to

assist K-12 schools in interpreting the Court’s decision.

EXAMPLES OF SCHOOL CHOICE IN OTHER URBAN DISTRICTS:

• Home-Based Student Assignment Policy/ Boston Public Schools, MA: Boston Public

Schools’ Home-Based student assignment policy is used for K-8th grade students; all high

schools are citywide options for students. The Home-Based policy offers a list of school

choices for every family based on their home address, as well as several citywide

options. Every family has a choice of at least six schools, including: schools within one-

mile of their home, nearby high quality schools, and option schools with selective

enrollment. English Language Learners and Students with Disabilities are offered a

community cluster of school options based on their address.

• District Feeder Pattern/ Syracuse City School District, NY: Syracuse City School District’s

Feeder Pattern determines the movement of students between schools as they advance

in grades. Syracuse is split into four quadrants; each quadrant has its own feeder

pattern. There are a variety of grade configurations, feeder, and non-feeder selective

enrollment schools.

5 “Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and Secondary Schools.” U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice, 2011. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf

Section: Managed Choice

The current managed choice policy was adopted by the Board of Education in 2002. The last

amendment to the policy was in 2008. The full Board Policy 5153 Parent Preference/Managed

Choice can be found on the district’s website via this link:

https://www.rcsdk12.org/cms/lib/NY01001156/Centricity/ModuleInstance/69473/5153_Paren

t_Preference_Managed_Choice.pdf

Excerpts from the Managed Choice Policy

5153 Parent Preference/Managed Choice Policy

The Rochester City School District is legally and morally obligated to educate all the students

who are legally enrolled in the school district, to educate students in a way that is fair for all

students, and to allow students in under-performing schools to transfer to the extent feasible –

to a more successful school within the Rochester City School District.

The District is also obligated to improve the lowest achieving and least chosen schools and

target them for immediate technical assistance and special school improvement initiatives. This

student assignment and school improvement policy was developed to ensure that all of the

students of this District are provided equal access to high quality educational opportunities. It is

also designed to empower all District parents and their children to choose a public school of

enrollment, while taking into consideration magnet school or special focus schools that have

entrance requirements based on academic or other skills. This policy also promotes

socioeconomic diversity in all student bodies and provides for monitoring which will lead to

continuous school improvement.

I. Historical Context

In 1996, the Rochester City School Board appointed a Schools of Choice Committee, made up of

District staff, parents and community members to study Controlled Choice. The report

representing this committee’s work was received by the Board of Education in August 1997. In

February 2000, the Board of Education took up direct exploration of Controlled Choice by

convening a committee of four (4) Board members. This Parent Preference Team formed a set

of tentative agreements around which parents could make their desires for elementary student

placement known prior to student assignment. In January 2001, the Board of Education voted

unanimously to embrace the concept that “parents should choose the public school that is best

suited for the education of their child” and to endorse the five fundamentals of Managed

Choice:

• All schools should be available to all students via preference selection;

• Commitment to continuous improvement of all public schools and programs;

• Commitment to provide sufficient and timely information and advice to parents;

• A fair and impartial school selection and assignment process; and

• Continuous monitoring, evaluation, and improvement of the preference plan.

The Board also directed the Superintendent to convene a planning team to help design a Parent

Preference student assignment plan for elementary schools, and to present such a plan to the

Board of Education. The policy was arrived at following the analysis of financial and

administrative data compiled by the planning team, numerous conversations with professional

educators, parents, and community members, and expert experience and observations.

Two significant legal changes have taken place since the dialogue on choice first began. First,

the New York State Charter School legislation was passed, and charter schools began competing

for Rochester students and the State Aid that goes with them. Second, the recent Federal

Elementary & Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind legislation has changed and now

requires districts to offer parents of students in underperforming schools opportunities to the

extent feasible – to a more successful school within the Rochester City School District.

ELL Programming

The Rochester City School District provides instructional programming for approximately 3,800

English Language Learners at every school site. A full range of programming is offered to our

bilingual students and families: One Way Dual Language, Two Way Dual Language, Transitional

Bilingual, and ENL only programs. In addition, our ENL only families can choose from five

locations that focus on ELL families. Our bilingual program offerings and locations can be found

here and ENL only here.

Section: Recommendations for RCSD District and School Zone Reconfiguration

Option 1: Revamp of Current Policy

Parent Preference/Managed Choice Policy

The Rochester City School District is legally and morally obligated to educate all students who

are legitimately enrolled in the school district and to educate students in a way that is fair for all

students within the Rochester City School District.

This policy provides for an orderly and equitable assignment of all students enrolled in the

Rochester City School District. Implementation of the changes reflective in this policy will begin

with the Pre-Kindergarten/Kindergarten 2022-2023 cohort and for all other students who

change their residential address henceforth.

I. Student Enrollment Processes

Introduce Decentralized Student Recruitment and Registration

Schools would assist in facilitating the registration process. The Office of Student Equity and

Placement would then receive the packet from the schools, reach out to the families, and

complete the placement process.

Pre-Kindergarten Placement

a) 1. Students registering for Pre-Kindergarten would have to choose a program

within their zone.

K-6 Elementary Enrollment

b) Kindergarten Lottery Process and Priorities – for all students who register for

Kindergarten and participate in the School of Choice Application Process.

i) Parents/Guardians submit their child (ren)’s application(s).

ii) All students are given a randomly generated number.

iii) Priorities – priorities are contingent on seat availability at each school.

2) Manually Placed Priority

a) If the student lives within the boundary of their identified neighborhood school,

then they are manually placed into the school.

3) Citywide Lottery Priority

a) Sibling, in same household

4) Zone Lottery Priority

a) Sibling, in same household, attending school.

5) PK preference for first choice if student attended PK at school.

a) All Pre-Kindergarten students are encouraged to attend Pre-K programming at a

school within their home zone. If parents/guardians opt to have their Pre-K child

(ren) attend an out of zone school; they must choose a school within their zone

in the Kindergarten School of Choice Application Process.

6) Dual Language – screening determines eligibility for dual language programming.

a) Primary Service – Special Education placement available.

b) Primary Service – ENL programming availability.

7) Sibling, in same household, in same lottery – moves the lower ranked student up to the

highest ranked student to ensure students are placed together in the same school.

a) Waitlists

b) Students who were not able to receive their first choice school will be placed on

a waitlist for the current school year. Should a seat become available,

parents/guardians will be notified by the Office of Student Equity and Placement.

c) Waitlists expire on October 31st of each school year.

8) K-6 Enrollment Process – for students (re)registering in grades 1-6 and Kindergarten

students who register after the School of Choice Application Process.

a) Parents/Guardians complete the School of Choice Application Packet for the

zone in which they reside.

b) Students are placed based on seat availability in desired school(s).

9) K-5 Student Move Lottery Process – for students who move to a new residence outside

of their current zone during the school year.

a) Timeline and Student Move Lottery

b) Parents/Guardians will receive a letter explaining the Student Move Lottery

Process when they make an address change outside of their child(ren)’s current

zone.

c) Parents/Guardians will receive a Student Move Form in May of the current

school year to choose schools for their child (ren) within their new zone

d) Students are given a randomly generated number.

e) Student Move Lottery Priorities

i) Primary Service – Special Education placement available.

ii) Primary Service – ENL programming availability.

f) Sibling in same lottery – moves the lower ranked student up to the highest

ranked student to ensure students are placed together in the same school.

g) Parents/Guardians will be notified by August 1st of their school placement for the

following school year.

h) Students who move of out their zone in the months of June, July and August will

follow the same K-6 Enrollment Process outlined in section 2 above.

C. Secondary Enrollment

10) 7th/9th Grade Lottery Process and Priorities – for students who either register for 7th or

9th grade or participate in the School of Choice Application Process or for current 7th and

9th graders who choose to participate in the School of Choice Application Process.

a) Parents/Guardians submit their child(ren)’s application(s).

b) Students are given a randomly generated number.

c) Priorities – priorities are contingent on seat availability at each school.

d) Manually Placed Priority

i) Only students who chose to remain at their current school because their

next grade is available. These students are placed prior to running the

lottery.

e) Choice Lottery Priority

i) Sibling, in same household, attending school.

ii) School of the Arts audition and acceptance.

iii) Primary Service – Special Education placement available.

iv) Primary Service – ENL programming availability.

11) Sibling, in same household, in same lottery – moves the lower ranked student up to the

highest ranked student to ensure students are placed together in the same school.

a) iii. Waitlists

i) Students who were not able to receive their first choice schools will be

placed on a waitlist for the current school year. Should a seat become

available, parents/guardians will be notified by the Office of Student

Equity and Placement.

ii) Waitlists expire on October 31st of each school year.

12) 7-12 Enrollment Process – for students (re)registering in grades 7 and 9 after the School

of Choice Application Process and for all students (re)registering in grades 8 and 10-12

a) Parents/Guardians complete the School of Choice Application Packet for

secondary schools.

b) Students are placed based on seat availability in desired school(s).

II. Elementary Mobility – Grades PK-6

This policy is designed to support community schools at the elementary grades, PK-6, through

students maintaining school enrollment within the zone that aligns with their home address.

For students who move outside of their zone after the start of the current school year,

September to June, students must select a new school within the zone of their home address

for the upcoming school year. This process will be managed by the Office of Student Equity and

Placement. Families will be notified via a letter that they must choose a new school and a

lottery will take place for these students. Exceptions will be made for students in the 5th grade

only. Students in grade 5 will have the option of remaining at their current school for their 6th

grade year.

III. Transportation

Students will be transported to schools within the zone in which they reside that exceeds a

distance of 1.5 miles from the home residence. Students may be transported to and from

childcare that is both in their zone and is 1.5 miles from the school address.

We suggest exploring the costs associated with reducing bussing from 1.5 miles to .75 miles and

.5 miles to align with parent/guardian preference of having their student(s) transported to and

from school.

Current Zones:

The district is currently a three-zone model. There is the Northwest, the Northeast and the

South zones:

Option 2: Transition to 2 Zones

It may be beneficial to move to two zones in the RCSD. Utilizing the Genessee River as the

division line through the city; the South zone would be divided, thus creating the East and the

West zones.

World of Inquiry School #58, Francis Parker School #23, The Children’s School of Rochester #15,

Pinnacle School #35, and Anna Murray-Douglass Academy School #12 would join the East Zone.

George Mather Forbes School #4, Adlai E. Stevenson School #29, John Walton School #16, Dr.

Walter Cooper Academy School #10, Dr. Charles T. Lunsford School #19, Clara Barton School #2,

and Joseph C. Wilson Foundation Academy would join the West Zone.

Option 3: Blended Neighborhood Model/Neighborhood Clusters

A Neighborhood Cluster is a group of elementary schools in a geographic area that contain all of

the programmatic needs of students such as ELL, Major Achievement (this needs to be

reinvigorated) Specialized Services and other Special Education Programs. Families will have

100% preference for the school designated as their neighborhood school until all of the seats

are filled. At that point they will have preference for and rank their choice of the schools in

their cluster. City Wide draws are still available. Some needs, further details and questions

include:

1. We need to review and redraw catchment areas to identify areas that take into

account racial and economic demographics as well as student programmatic needs. We

would not include City-Wide draws in the clusters. We could cluster schools that are

within .5-.75 of each other. We need to dive deeper into the data to see how many

students live within the catchment areas of each school. We may have to widen

neighborhood schools zones based on ages within the catchment areas. This could

alleviate some of the SES and racial disparities that exist. The same thing will apply to

the Neighborhood cluster zone as well.

2. We would have to treat the DL programs as City-Wide schools because we only

have 3 and we would have more than 3 clusters.

3. Some schools may not have enough seats to accommodate all of the

neighborhood school residents or will not have enough students to fill their seats. This

issue can be alleviated by the Neighborhood cluster model. We can follow the home

based placement options (see Boston Public Schools) and give parents the choice of the

4-5 closest schools in their cluster.

4. How do neighborhood school development plans match with neighborhood

development plans at the City level? Where are housing developments planned?

Owner occupancy rates v rental rates?

5. We can “consolidate” families in one school (pending programmatic options) as a

first phase and continue to do this moving forward between school years.

6. If we move to a neighborhood cluster model, we can explore costs associated

with bussing all students within .5/.75/1.0 mile distance and determine if the budget

can withstand implementing this. The busses could be used more efficiently for multiple

runs and more students can be picked up on one bus due to shorter runs.

7. Explore school facilitated enrollment, placement and recruitment within the

neighborhood cluster. It could be too much to put on schools. However, schools could

collect the registration packet and then Student Equity and Placement could reach out

to the family to complete the process. Or keep the process central with an enhanced

online accessibility.

8. We will default enrollment to the neighborhood school or cluster schools with

open seats if the family does not participate in the school choice process.

Appendix

Survey #1

Link for Results: Survey #1 Data

Survey #2

RCSD Reconfiguration Plan: Community Input Survey Results - April–May 2021

Link to results: Survey # 2 Data

Task Force Timelines

RCSD Zone Reconfiguration Task Force Zone Reconfiguration Subgroup

Timeline and Benchmarks

Dates Benchmarks

Meeting - Public Hearing

5-Apr-21 By April 15, 2021, the Task Force shall share recommendations for new Zone configurations.

Meeting - Public Hearing Feedback

14-Apr-21

Meeting - Community Advisory Team

26-Apr-21

Finalize Board recommendation

8-May-21 Taskforce shall share recommendations for new Zone configurations by May 15, 2021.

ESA Board recommendation 11-May-21

Taskforce shall share recommendations for new Zone configurations by April 15, 2021. Should the Board approve recommendations for new Zone configurations, Phase I of the implementation plan to change the geographic configuration and the staffing of RCSD Zones will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

Phase I of a Board approved implementation plan to change the geographic configuration and the staffing of RCSD Zones will be budgeted in the 2023-24 RCSD budget.

Pending Board approval using a phased approach, recommendations for a new Zone configuration, will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

RCSD Zone Reconfiguration Task Force - Managed Choice

Timeline and Benchmarks

Dates Benchmarks

Parent Survey 12-Mar-21

Survey parents to determine what they would need for their children to attend their neighborhood school and their involvement with managed choice, by March 15, 2021.

Virtual Focus Groups Complete by June 30, 2021

Conduct virtual focus groups of parents to determine what they would need for their children to attend their neighborhood school and their involvement with managed choice by June 30, 2021.

Multiple strategy development

Complete by September 30, 2021 Find multiple strategies for meeting the needs of families identified through the survey by September 30, 2021.

Policy Recommendations

Task force shall share recommendations for the policy by September 30, 2021.

Feasibility Study Beginning 1/31/2021

By January 31, 2021, the Superintendent shall initiate a feasibility study to dismantle or modify the RCSD Managed Choice Policy completed October 1, 2021.

ESA Board recommendation

11-May-21

Create a report to present to the Board during a work session. A decision should be established to determine if the Managed Choice Policy should remain the same, be modified, or eliminated by January 31, 2022 recommendations for new Zone configurations by April 15, 2021. Should the Board approve recommendations for new Zone configurations, Phase I of the implementation plan to change the geographic configuration and the staffing of RCSD Zones will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

Phase I of a Board approved implementation plan to change to transition to neighborhood community model elementary schools will be budgeted in the 2023 RCSD budget.

Superintendent shall complete the transition of elementary schools to the neighborhood community model schools, contingent on recommendations of a feasibility study by September, 2023.