reynoldsburg reach final report

Reynoldsburg Reach Public Input Summary Report

July 1, 2008

Prepared for: The Administration of Reynoldsburg City Schools

Prepared by:ACP Visioning+Planning

ACP Visioning+Planning, Ltd.444 South Front StreetColumbus, Ohio, 43215t. (614) 586-1500 f. (614) 586-1515 www.acp-planning.com

July 1, 2008

Mr. Steve DackinSuperintendent Reynoldsburg City Schools7244 E. Main StreetReynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

Dear Superintendent Dackin:

Thank you for the opportunity to assist with Reynoldsburg Reach. We are proud to have been associated with an effort that had such a genuine commitment to inclusive public participation.

As you know, in March 2008, we began to collaborate with you and your staff team on a community outreach initiative that offered staff, students and diverse community members an unprecedented opportunity to have input on the future of education in their community.

Reynoldsburg Reach invited the community to share their ideas and preferences on proposed scenarios for a new high school and a new elementary school facility. Reynoldsburg Reach consisted of 30 meetings in 69 days and attracted over 750 participants who contributed thousands of ideas.

To document the process, we have prepared the following report that summarizes the Reynoldsburg Reach process, provides a detailed analysis of the results, and identifies key findings. We trust the results presented in this report will assist you in preparing recommendations on the most appropriate scenarios for the new schools and renovations to six existing school buildings.

On behalf of the ACP Team, I wish you, the Board of Education, and the Reynoldsburg Schools community the best with your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Jamie A. Greene, aia aicpPrincipal

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

i

acknowledgements

Reynoldsburg Reach would not have been possible without the efforts of Reynoldsburg City School staff and community members who graciously volunteered their time and substantial energies. Volunteers conducted research that helped determine and define the school design scenarios, attended training and led small-group activities during meetings, and assisted with the data-entry.

Moody Nolan Architects provided graphic design and paid for the printing of visual aides used during the assemblies. The firm also has agreed to reimburse Reynoldsburg City Schools the consulting costs associated with Reynoldsburg Reach and this report.

Community VolunteersSharon BoboCathy BregarRyan BrzezinskiCarah CaslerMark ClarkBarth CotnerKathy DoughertyDavid EarlyJudy EckConnie FatseusClint FettyDoug GillumSandy GuintoDurby HarrellJulie HartmanJackie HudackJeanette KuderDee McGlothlinRochelle McKeanKaren ManrossCorrine MarionJanelle MorrisonMike Murray

Toni NijssenGregg OberlanderPam ParisDave ReidelWendy RettkeFrancis RogersDean SabettaMary Kay SatoMichele SlonakerAnn SperryDebra StricklingPam SwopeBeth ThompsonThomie TimmonsEvelyn TolliverDavid VenturiniMatthew WagnerLinda WintersBritney WoolfordPaul Yarger

Project LeaderDan Hoffman

Project CoordinatorTricia Moore

StaffSharon BoboCathy BregarKathy DoughertyJudy EckConnie FatseasDebby FlemingDoug GillumMichelle KlinglerDee McGlothlinJanelle MorrisonToni NijssenPam ParisFrancis RogersMichele SlonakerDebbie SmithDebra StricklingPam Swope

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLSii


iii

contents

Introduction 5 Overview 5Key Findings 8Public Involvement 11Meeting Design 12

Who Attended the Meetings 13 Key Questions Answered 17

SWOT Analysis 23High School Scenarios 24Elementary School Scenarios 32

Scenario Preferences 37

Appendix SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 1A. 43SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 2B. 87SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 3C. 129SWOT Responses: Elementary School Scenario 1D. 173SWOT Responses: Elementary School Scenario 2E. 189Exit Questionnaire Open Ended Responses 215F. Publicity Material 231G. Frequently Asked Questions 241H.


REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLSiv


Introduction

5

oveRview

Near the end of 2007 a campaign began for a bond issue to fund the third and final phase of Reynoldsburg Scho0ls’ 2001 Master Facilities Plan. The bond, presented to voters in March 2008, would bring $56 million and be matched by $56 million in state funds to pay for a second high school, a new elementary school and renovate six existing buildings, which would relieve capacity issues and accommodate future growth.

As the bond campaign got underway, the Board of Education heard strong objections to building a second high school. Ideas emerged for reconfiguring the schools to avoid splitting the dis-trict. Considering those objections, the district leadership questioned whether the existing facilities plan would be relevant by the time the new schools opened. The administration also wondered if this might be an opportunity to consider recent in-novations in school design.

The board decided to reexamine the district’s building plans, but was unwilling to give up the significant state matching

1. Introduction

funds offered through the bond. So they asked the Reynoldsburg community to take a leap of faith: “approve the bond issue and we will come back and ask for input on how to use it.” Voters demonstrated their confidence in the board by approving the bond, and responsively, the administration devised Reynoldsburg Reach to uphold the board’s promise.

The Reynoldsburg Reach initiative of-fered citizens a rare opportunity to guide the planning of future school facilities. The effort engaged students, staff and diverse community members in a process designed to reveal the extent and nature of objec-tions to a second high school and identify a preferred concept for the additional high school and elementary school facilities. The outcome of the process will be a clear recommendation for the programming of both schools that will inform a decision by the Board of Education.

The Board of Education’s decision will influence the architectural design of the planned high school and elementary school buildings, as well as the renovations of

Members of the Board of Education supported the

Reynoldsburg Reach effort to seek the community’s input

on how best to use the bond money for school facility

improvements.


REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS6

six other schools. The new buildings are scheduled to open in 2010, and the renova-tions are to be completed the following year.

This report describes the Reynoldsburg Reach process and presents an analysis of public input. It describes the public meet-ing format, summarizes participants’ values and concerns regarding the future of edu-cation in Reynoldsburg, and identifies pref-erences among the scenarios. This report serves as a guide to inform Superintendent Steve Dackin in his recommendation to the Board of Education, anticipated to be presented in July 2008.

key QuestionsAt the heart of Reynoldsburg Reach are two key decisions that will guide all plans for Reynoldsburg’s new school facilities. To inform these decisions, participants were asked two key questions: “Should Reynoldsburg be a one high school town, or a two high school town?” and, “Should Reynoldsburg offer schools of choice at the elementary or high school levels?”

One High School or TwoBecoming a two high school town could change Reynoldsburg’s character. The im-plications vary depending on the relation-ship between the existing Reynoldsburg High School and the new facility. This issue largely involves names and index reference numbers (IRNs), the number assigned to high schools for sanctioned athletic and music competition.

If the Board of Education assigns one IRN to both high school campuses, Reynoldsburg High School would operate on two campuses. It would maintain one set of varsity sports teams, one marching band, one competitive vocal music pro-gram, one competitive orchestra, etc. Other students organizations and clubs, such as

foreign language clubs, could be duplicated as desired. If the board of education assigns two IRNs, there would be two separate schools and extra-curricular programs. Each high school would have its own name, mascot and football team.

Schools of ChoiceBesides simply accommodating growth, Reynoldsburg City Schools considered the possibility that the new facilities could offer educational choices that don’t currently exist in the district. Participants were asked to consider whether students and parents should have the opportunity to select a specialized program of study or school to attend. The decisions will have implications for curriculum and attendance boundaries.

At the elementary school level, the deci-sion to create a school of choice —or mag-net school—would mean that the school district would be divided geographically among five neighborhood schools with every child in the district eligible to attend a school of choice with a specialized cur-riculum. Most school districts with magnet schools use a lottery system if too many students want to attend the magnet school.

At the high school level, attendance for the two campuses could be determined by geography or by student/parent choice of academic programs. All central Ohio school districts with more than one high school have drawn attendance boundaries to determine which school students attend. Equity and balance in student demograph-ics would be important factors in deter-mining where the attendance lines would be drawn. The alternative would allow students/parents to choose which school to attend based on distinct academic pro-grams offered at each school.


Introduction

7

design scenariosBeyond answering the two key questions, Reynoldsburg Reach participants evalu-ated several school design concepts and registered their preferences among them. Reynoldsburg City Schools presented three options for the new high school and two for the new elementary school facility. School officials anticipated and were prepared to consider additional or hybrid scenarios that emerged from the process. For additional information on the scenarios described below, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions in the Appendix.

High School ScenariosThe first high school scenario is based on assumptions made in the 2001 Master Facilities Plan, while the other two were put forward by the community and the district administration as alternatives to the traditional two-high-school model.

Scenario 1: Two Comprehensive High Schools Two comprehensive high schools implies two names, two mascots and two identities. Academic and extra-curricular offerings would be duplicated. Attendance would be determined by geographic boundaries, which would be drawn with an emphasis on equity between student bodies. Examples of this model can be found throughout central Ohio, in Pickerington, Westerville, Worthington, Dublin and Hilliard.

Scenario 2: 9-10/11-12Scenario 2 is a proposal put forward by members of the community during the bond issue campaign and has been em-braced by some educators within the district. The Reynoldsburg High School identity would be preserved by dividing the high school between two campuses, with 9th

and 10th graders housed in one campus and 11th and 12th graders housed in the other.

One caveat is that the site of the new high school is approximately five miles from the existing Reynoldsburg High School. Example schools have internal structures that separate younger students from older students, but none operate with two separate campuses. The few example schools with physical separation of fresh-men and sophomores from juniors and se-niors employ an “upper middle school” and “early college” model. The upper middle school is geared toward core coursework and state graduation test preparation, while juniors and seniors earn college credit for their coursework. To pay tuition to a partnering college or university for their students, the schools operating under this model depend on grants that have been available only to urban school districts.

Scenario 3: Small Schools Under One RoofThe Small Schools Under One Roof model has been put forward for consideration by the Reynoldsburg City Schools administra-tion. This model, which is being sponsored across the country by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others, allows stu-dents and their parents to choose programs based on academic focus or instructional style. All programs include comprehen-sive, standards-based content to prepare students for standardized tests and life after high school

The two campuses would house three small, autonomous schools for a total of six. Each small school would have about 400 students, a staff of teachers and a leader or principal. Each would have its own distinct identity or instructional theme. Examples of curricular themes include science-centered, humanities, language immersion, arts, business and leadership. Other small

These diagrams illustrate the three high school scenarios.

From top to bottom: Two Comprehensive High Schools, 9-10/11-12, and Small Schools

Under One Roof.



schools are organized around instructional methods, such as project-based schools in which students demonstrate mastery of skills through interdisciplinary projects.

This model could operate under the umbrella of Reynoldsburg High School with one IRN number, sharing varsity sports and competitive music programs, or the two campuses could each have their own IRN numbers, with distinct identities and extra-curricular programs.

Elementary School ScenariosFor the new elementary school facility, Reynoldsburg City Schools offered citizens with a choice between two scenarios. Scenario 1: Sixth ElementaryA neighborhood school would offer programs and instruction similar to the district’s current elementary schools. Attendance would be determined by geographic boundaries, which would be redrawn district-wide in order to disperse K-4 students equitably among the six elementary schools. Scenario 2: Choice Elementary An elementary school of choice, or magnet school, would be designed around a central theme or instructional style. Attendance would be determined by student/par-ent choice, and students would come from throughout the district. Attendance boundaries at the remaining elementary schools would be drawn geographically, giving students/parents a choice between their “neighborhood school” and a magnet school. This possibility could include a sec-ond school of choice at one of the existing elementary schools, leaving four neighbor-hood schools in the district.

key Findings

1. Participants express strong neighborhood and community values and fear that these school decisions could have a negative effect on the character of Reynoldsburg.One of the most recurring themes through-out the Reynoldsburg Reach process was concern about potential inequalities or the perception of such, and the threat of dividing the community. It is clear that par-ticipants are looking for balance between providing opportunities and challenges for students versus minimizing potential com-munity divisions by ensuring fairness and equality. To some degree, there is already division concerning the relative importance of these values.

2. one high school identity is better than two.Over half of participants prefer one high school identity over two, with a majority of those expressing strong support for one high school. Over half again say that two high school identities is undesirable, with a majority of those expressing a strong opinion. Only about a quarter of partici-pants express a preference for two high school identities and view one high school as undesirable. A significant portion of participants were undecided or do not hold strong opinions. However, the Two 9-12 High Schools scenario received the lowest support with 21 percent overall.

Two high school identities is widely believed to be divisive and lead to inequali-ties. Many people believe that there could be unhealthy rivalries, socioeconomic dis-parities, weaker extracurricular programs and fewer academic challenges students need to be competitive. In addition to those community and student-minded concerns, this scenario would likely be more costly overall due to duplication of programs.

This illustration represents the two elementary school scenarios. Participants were asked to consider an additional neighborhood school or a school of choice.


Introduction

9

3. Participants like the idea of schools and academic programs of choice, but are unsure that the benefits outweigh the potential threats.The idea of programs of choice and schools of choice is clearly desirable. However, the scenarios that offer choice are not as highly supported as might be inferred from that desirability. Participants believe that making education more personal-ized would benefit most students, but they believe that a lottery system to determine attendance could be divisive since some students may not be granted their choice. Despite acknowledging the benefits, some participants would rather not have the op-portunity to choose than face being denied attendance. Also there is concern about ri-valries or stigmas between different groups of students if choice programs existed in Reynoldsburg.

4. academic choice may be more supported at the high school level than at the elementary school level. Participants are more likely to agree on the benefits that academic choices can offer to older students. Based on their com-ments, they are more supportive of offering focused programs to high school students. Many believe that elementary students are too young for focused curricula and benefit more from broad exposure to ideas and teaching methods. Other participants feel that even many high school students are not ready for academic choices, particularly those in 9th and 10th grades. There is more support for offering choices for focused learning to upperclassmen.

5. the most preferred high school scenario is unclear, but two 9-12 high schools is least preferred.Participants show the lowest support for two 9-12 high schools, with just over 20 percent. The remaining preferences are divided between Small Schools Under One Roof and the 9-10/11-12 Scenario.

6. a hybrid between High school scenarios 2 and 3 should be considered.Though no hybrid scenario was proposed to participants, many identified an option to blend Scenarios 2 and 3. A notable num-ber of participants (about 4 percent) stated that a hybrid would be better than any of the proposed scenarios that they were asked to choose between. Since support was almost balanced between Scenarios 2 and 3, offering an option that combines the two might be more popular.

The most commonly discussed hybrid is a 9-10 school focused on core curricula in a traditional format, then a 11-12 school that employs the small schools concept to offer choice and specialization.

7. although a clear majority say they would send their child to a magnet school if the option existed, most people do not express a desire to have one in Reynoldsburg.Participants may believe that a magnet school would offer a better education and, if one existed, they would want their chil-dren to take advantage of the opportunity. But they could be turned off by the likeli-hood of creating divisions within the com-munity. Comments suggest that a magnet school might be perceived as elitist or make neighborhood schools seem inferior. Also the lottery system would mean that some students might be denied attendance.



8. Between the two elementary school scenarios, the overall preference is almost balanced, but students and community participants have very different preferences.Over half of participants (55 percent) prefer to add another neighborhood school than to offer an elementary school of choice. However, with 45 percent overall in sup-port of the choice school, it might be a worthwhile investment.

Participants disagree on whether chang-es to attendance boundaries or adding a magnet school has more potential to be divisive. However, many acknowledge that, due to the planned closing of Graham Road Elementary School, redistricting will occur regardless of which scenario is chosen.

Community meeting participants are more strongly supportive of an additional neighborhood school, while a similar percentage of student participants would rather introduce an elementary of choice.

9. the absence of specialized programs, or academic choice at the middle school and junior high levels is a significant concern regarding choice in elementary school.Many participants mention the lack of follow-up programs to specialized el-ementary schools in later grade levels as a weakness. If related choice programs were available in middle school and junior high for students of elementary magnet schools, the elementary school of choice scenario might receive more support.

10. Participants have additional concerns and ideas for the future of Reynoldsburg schools.Several participants express concern over the closing of Graham Road school and want to know how this event relates to Reynoldsburg Reach. They question where students will attend and teachers will prac-tice, and how this will affect redistricting.

Some participants offered other alter-natives to the proposals not mentioned above. A few proposed the idea of a 9th grade campus and a 10-12 grade campus, as existed in the district’s history.

Also, there is significant interest in offer-ing all-day kindergarten or pre-kindergar-ten. Some suggestions offer that as an idea to utilize the Graham Road facility.


Introduction

11

PuBlic involvement

The Reynoldsburg Reach process involved 30 meetings in 69 days. All of these meetings adhered to the same program. Fourteen were held for school staff at each of the district’s schools and at other district facilities. Another five were held for randomly-selected groups of high school, junior high and middle school students in the district. The remaining eleven were community meetings that were held at each school location. The community meetings were open to all Reynoldsburg citizens and other interested parties. The locations and dates of each community meeting are shown in the box on the right side of this page.

PreparationEnticing citizens to attend public meetings is challenging. Competing interests, busy lifestyles and the complexity of issues make attracting citizen participation difficult. People are often unfamiliar with public in-volvement opportunities, frequently associ-ating them with “public hearings” in which there is little or no opportunity for dialog. To inform the public about the importance of Reynoldsburg Reach and the participatory nature of the public meetings, the District Administration developed a comprehensive outreach effort.

The outreach effort was extensive and ensured that participation was a choice for most Reynoldsburg residents. The outreach methods included:

Website: Developed a special section of the school district website for Reynoldsburg Reach that featured stories and announce-ments. The website was updated through-out the process and was viewed more than 400,000 times in May.

community meeting dates and locations

Thursday, April 17Waggoner Road Middle School

Tuesday, April 22Herbert Mills Elementary School

Wednesday, April 23Waggoner Road Junior High

Tuesday, April 29Graham Road Elementary School

Thursday, May 1Hannah J. Ashton Elementary

School

Tuesday, May 6Rose Hill Elementary School

Thursday, May 8Baldwin Road Junior High

Tuesday, May 13Taylor Road Elementary School

Thursday, May 15Slate Ridge Elementary School

Thursday, May 22French Run Elementary School

Thursday, May 29Reynoldsburg High School

All community meetings were held 7 – 9 p.m.

Phone Calls: Used an automated caller to contact every parent in the district on the day before the community meeting scheduled at their neighborhood school. Letters: Sent letters from Superintendent Steve Dackin home with elementary and middle school students the week before the community meeting at their school. The superintendent also wrote letters to stu-dents who were invited to participate in student-focus groups. Email: Sent letters from Assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman to all staff prior to their staff meetings. News Stories: Articles about the process were published in each of the local newspa-pers early in the process. School Newsletters: Published an-nouncements in school newsletters in April and May. Posters: Displayed posters at schools, the administration office, City Hall and local businesses. Displayed additional informa-tion at City Hall and Reynoldsburg Police Department. Community Presentations: Presented information about Reynoldsburg Reach during meetings of Reynoldsburg City Council, the Reynoldsburg Area Chamber of Commerce, and the Reynoldsburg-Pickerington Rotary.

In addition to outreach, a significant amount of preparation was undertaken to recruit and train volunteer facilitators who would run the small group work sessions during the meetings.



meeting design

The meetings involved two main parts: assembly and small group work. The as-sembly prepared participants for the small group activity by providing an overview of the Reynoldsburg Reach background, intent, school design considerations and scenarios. The small group work engaged participants in an interactive activity to ob-tain their input on the scenarios and assess their preferences.

AssemblySuperintendent Steve Dackin opened the meeting by welcoming participants and explaining the background and purpose of Reynoldsburg Reach. A description of the participant materials and small group activity followed. Then assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman explained the three high school and two elementary school scenarios in detail and answered questions for clarification.

Small GroupsAfter the assembly, participants broke into preassigned groups of five to eight. Each group was lead by a trained facilitator. The facilitator began with introductions and then explained the primary exercise, known as a SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis, a widely used strategic plan-

ning tool, asked participants to consider and discuss the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of each design scenario. The facilitator instructed partici-pants to independently make notes on their SWOT worksheet before asking them to share their thoughts with the group. The facilitator recorded each participant’s ideas on flipchart paper until all of the group’s ideas were recorded.

Once all of the group’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for each scenario were recorded, participants had an opportunity to weigh-in and select the scenarios they preferred. The facilitator asked each person to write their most pre-ferred scenario for the new high school on a Post-It® Note and their preference for the new elementary school on a second Post-It®. The facilitator collected the Post-Its® and affixed them on the appropriate sheet of flipchart paper so the group could see the results. Each group’s tally of preferences was recorded.

The final activity was a short exit ques-tionnaire that each participant was asked to complete independently. The intent of the exit questionnaire was to document at-tendance, identify participant demograph-ics, solicit feedback about the process, and obtain additional input on several ques-tions about the scenarios.


Who Attended the Meetings

13

oveRview

This chapter describes who participated in Reynoldsburg Reach and why. It compares characteristics between the three groups of participants—students, staff, and members of the community—and is based on meet-ing attendance sheets and responses from exit questionnaires. The participation data is general as it reflects only those who re-turned exit questionnaires. Also, since not all respondents answered every question, there may be variation in total responses among different topics. The following statistics are presented to illustrate the characteristics of those who participated.

In total, 759 people attended the 30 Reynoldsburg Reach meetings. Table 2.1 summarizes the attendance by group and meeting type. These numbers reflect only the people that registered at the meetings, and do not include facilitators or citizens who didn’t sign the attendance sheets. Table 2.1 also reports the total number of exit questionnaires collected from each group.

2. Who Attended the Meetings

demogRaPHics

Exit questionnaires provide insight into de-mographic characteristics of participants. The following analysis compares the col-lective characteristics of participants who submitted an exit questionnaire to those of the city’s residents according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

gender Overall, there was significantly greater participation by females than males (Table 2.2, page 12). However that bias is largely at-tributed to the proportionally high number of female staff of Reynoldsburg Schools. The female bias at the community meetings was moderate. The student participants, a randomly-selected group, showed an almost balanced proportion of males and females.

Table 2.1 Participation

group Participantsexit Questionnaires Received

exit Questionnaire Response Rate

Community 282 37% 237 38% 84%

Staff 347 46% 266 42% 77%

Students 130 17% 123 20% 95%

TOTAL 759 626



ageAccording to the U.S. Census, 25 percent of Reynoldsburg’s population is under the age of 20. Since much of that cohort is too young to participate, the age analysis looks only at those aged 20 or older. Table 2.3 shows the age of participants at the staff meetings and community meetings.

Among community meeting partici-pants, 82 percent are between the ages of 35 and 54. Over half are between the ages of 35 and 44. That observation is consistent with the fact that this age group is most likely to have children in or approaching high school. Those aged 20-34 are under-represented, as are those aged over 65. The former are among the hardest demo-graphics to attract. They often face higher demands from jobs, young families and post-secondary education, and tend to be less civically active.

Among the staff participants, 82 percent were between the ages of 25 and 54. The staff consists of a higher percentage of younger people within that range with 33 percent between the ages of 25 and 34. Comparatively, that group only makes up 22 percent of Reynoldsburg’s population over the age of 20.

RaceTable 2.4 summarizes the race of partici-pants. Among community meeting partici-pants, the racial makeup is reflective of the city’s population. Staff are much less racially-diverse, while student participants are more racially diverse than the overall population. However the 2007-2008 Reynoldsburg School’s enrollment demographics indicate that the current school-age population is more diverse than the entire city. This data could also indicate that the demographic makeup of the community has changed susbstantially since the 2000 Census.

incomeBased on participants’ reported household income on the exit questionnaires, there is a strong bias toward the middle and upper income brackets (See Table 2.5).

Among community participants, 81 percent reported an income greater than $60,000, while the Census states that only 40 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens are within that group. Additionally, 31 per-cent report earning more than $100,000, while only 11 percent of the city’s residents could make that claim according to Census data. Among lower and moderate in-come groups, 40 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens are believed to have a household income less than $40,000, while only 9 percent of participants report to belong in that group.

Staff participants claim significantly higher income levels than the population.

Table 2.3 Age

age community Participants

staff Participants

combined Participants*

Reynoldsburg Population**

20-24 2% 1% 1% 8%

25-34 9% 31% 20% 22%

35-44 51% 22% 35% 25%

45-54 31% 28% 29% 22%

55-64 4% 16% 10% 7%

65-74 3% 2% 3% 9%

75 or older 0% 0% 0% 6%

Response Count 219 249 469

* These figures do not include student participants since they were all under age 20.

** These figures represent only those aged 20 or older. ‘

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

Table 2.2 Gender

gender community Participants

staff Participants

student Participants

all Participants

Reynoldsburg Population

Male 42% 18% 51% 34% 48%

Female 58% 82% 49% 66% 52%

Response Count 236 249 122 608Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census


Who Attended the Meetings

15

Table 2.4 Race

Race community Participants

staff Participants

student Participants

all Participants


2007-2008 Reynoldsburg enrollment

Black/African-American 14% 3% 41% 14% 10% 28%

Asian 1% 0% 6% 2% 2% 2%

White/Caucasian 82% 95% 50% 80% 81% 60%

Hispanic or Latino 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3%

Other 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 7%

Response Count 233 247 96 597

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census; Ohio Department of Education

Half state a household income greater than $80,000, while 32 percent, the largest group, say their household income was over $100,000.

educational attainmentAccording to the 2000 U.S. Census, 90 percent of Reynoldsburg residents over age

25 have a high school diploma or higher, and 27 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. As Table 2.6 shows, participants of the community meetings had significantly higher levels of educational attainment. Student participants were removed from this analysis since all had less than a high school diploma.

Table 2.5 Income

Household income community Participants

staff Participants



Less than $20,000 2% 1% 1% 18%

$20,000 to $39,999 7% 7% 6% 20%

$40,000 to $59,999 11% 16% 13% 21%

$60,000 to $79,999 25% 20% 22% 15%

$80,000 to $100,000 25% 26% 26% 14%

More than $100,000 31% 29% 32% 11%


* These figures do not include student participants Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

Table 2.6 Educational Attainment

educational attainment community Participants

staff Participants


Reynoldsburg Population over age 25

Less than a HS diploma 4% 0% 2% 10%

High school diploma 13% 7% 10% 32%

Some college 22% 6% 14% 31%

College graduate 33% 18% 26% 19%

Post-graduate study 28% 68% 47% 8%


* These figures do not include student participants Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census



Among community meeting partici-pants, 61 percent have at least a Bachelor’s degree, and 28 percent report having completed some post-graduate study. Comparatively, most staff (over two-thirds) have some post-graduate study, compared to only 8 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens.

otHeR PaRticiPant inFoRmation

Several questions were included on the exit questionnaire to gather information on how participants heard about the meetings and whether they were comfortable with the meeting format. Complete responses to open-ended questions can be found in the Appendix.

How did you hear about this meeting?Reynoldsburg City School’s extensive outreach effort was responsible for bring-ing many participants to the community meetings. The exit questionnaires indicate that community meeting participants heard about the meetings through a variety of sources. Many heard through word-of-mouth communication from friends, rela-tives, and colleagues. Others received in-formation via email or the Internet. Several print sources were also cited, including

newspaper articles, letters from schools and mailings. Additionally, many respondents mentioned that they heard about the meet-ings through two or three sources. These open-ended responses were categorized and ranked according to the number of times the methods were mentioned (see Table 2.7).

input on the meeting formatParticipants indicated that they were extremely comfortable participating in the small group exercise during the meeting. Of those who responded, 99 percent of all participants indicated “yes” when asked, “were you comfortable working with your small group?”

In terms of meeting length, while most respondents found the meetings to be “about right,” some said that the meetings were too long, while a small number indi-cated that they were not long enough.

Was the meeting too long, too short, or about right?Too Long 15%Too Short 4%About Right 81%

Reasons for attendingThe exit questionnaire asked participants, “What interest or concerns caused you to attend the meeting?” Most responses were general and stated interest in their chil-dren’s education, having input and be-ing informed. Other common responses concerned the following themes (strongest themes appear first):

High school facilities•Potential effects on the community•Financial implications of scenarios•Preference for a specific scenario•

Table 2.7. How community participants heard about the meetings.

Sources Mentioned number of mentionsPercent of all sources mentioned

Newspaper 85 28%

Flyer/Letter from School 66 22%

Word of mouth 53 18%

Phone Message 49 16%

Internet/Email 24 8%

Another school meeting 19 6%

CHAMSber of Commerce 3 1%

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools


Key Questions Answered

17

3. Key Questions Answered

oveRview

To obtain additional insight about par-ticipant preferences regarding the two key questions, the exit questionnaire asked six questions that relate specifically to school design considerations. These scenario questions were added to the questionnaire after the third staff meeting. All commu-nity meeting participants were presented these questions, but participants at the first three staff meetings were not. Therefore the responses represent a smaller sample than the other exit questionnaire items.

The first four questions asked partici-pants to rate desirability on a scale of one to five. A rating of one, is least desirable, and a rating of five, most desirable. Those questions were:

How desirable is....The ability to choose among specialized 1. academic programs?Having choice of which school to attend?2. One high school identity with a single 3. set of competitive athletic and music programs?Two high school identities with separate 4.

competitive athletic and music programs (e.g. two high school football teams in-stead of one)?

The other two questions allowed for open-ended responses. They were:

Would you send your child to a magnet 5. school if the focus aligned with your child’s interests?Which of the high school options is least 6. favorable to you?

During the small group activity, participants completed an exit

questionnaire and provided additional input on school

design considerations



one HigH scHool oR two?

Based on the exit questionnaire responses alone, two comprehensive high schools with unique identities appears to be the least favorable option for participants. While it appears that a majority supports one-high school identity over two, signifi-cant support for the latter option also ex-ists. There was also a significant percentage of neutral responses, which indicates that many participants were undecided.

Overall, 54 percent of respondents indicated that one high school is desirable while 36 percent rated it as very desirable. Comparatively, only 24 percent said one high school identity is undesirable, less than half of whom rated it as very undesir-able. Expressing these results another way, while slightly more than half expressed a positive view of a one-high school town, the remaining responses were either neu-tral or negative toward the idea.

Meanwhile, when the question of one high school or two was phrased differ-ently, responses were similar but had fewer neutral ratings. About a quarter of all respondents (26 percent) indicated that two high school identities was desirable with 16 percent rating it as very desirable. Likewise, a majority, 60 percent, of all respondents indicated that two high school identities was undesirable, with 37 percent rating it as very undesirable.

When participants rated which high school scenario is least favorable, results were mixed but lend some support to the one high school option. The single most undesirable scenario is the two comprehen-sive 9-12 high schools, which received half of all responses. The other half of responses were divided between scenarios two and three, with the former (9-10/11-12) rated slightly less favorably.

What the community preferParticipants at the community meetings expressed fewer neutral ratings. This group more strongly favors a one high school iden-tity than do staff and student participants. 58 percent said one high school was desirable, with 46 percent rating it very desirable. Community meeting participants generally do not favor a two high school town. 64 percent of those who responded rated that option as undesirable, with almost half (47 percent) of all respondents saying it is very undesirable. Likewise, 48 percent say two 9-12 high schools is the least favorable sce-nario. However, two high schools is favored by a minority of community participants. About a quarter said that option is desirable.

What staff preferStaff participants also prefer the one high school option, though their preference is not as strong as the community partici-pants. Just over half said one high school is desirable and 62 percent said that two high schools is undesirable. But fewer staff expressed opinions at the extremes of the scale compared to the community. This group also had a significant number of neu-tral responses (about 20 percent). On their scenario preferences, they expressed the least opposition to the small schools idea.

What students preferStudent participants were more divided, but still modestly support one high school over two. 49 percent say that one high school is desirable but only 20 percent say it is undesirable. However, 39 percent rated two high schools as desirable whereas 43 percent said it is undesirable. Between 20 and 30 percent did not express strong pref-erences. Students’ least favorable scenario matches the preferences expressed by com-munity participants, with two 9-12 schools option being least favorable.

Community meeting participants generally do not favor a two high school town.



19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

How desirable is the ability to choosewhich school to attend?

Community Students Staff TotalUndesirable 1 5% 0% 3% 3%

2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

How desirable is a one-high school identitywith a single set of competitive athletic and music programs?


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

How desirable is two high school identitieswith separate competitive athletic and music programs?


2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Which of the high school options is LEAST favorable to you?Community Students Staff Total

One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%

Small Schools 22% 26% 15% 20%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Would you send your child to a magnet school?Community Students Staff Total

No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Tally of Participant PreferencesCommunity Students Staff Total

Two High Schools 23% 25% 18% 21%9-10 / 11-12 42% 46% 31% 38%Small Schools 30% 29% 49% 37%Hybrids 5% 0% 3% 3%Neigh. Elementary 65% 36% 52% 54%Choice Elementary 35% 64% 48% 46%

one HS identity

comm sta� students



two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities


5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



one HS identity




two HS identities

least preferred HS

How desirable is a one-high school identity with a single set of competitive athletic and music programs?

How desirable is two high school identities with separate competitive athletic and music programs?

which of the high school options is least favorable to you?

11%

37%

50%

23%

14%

13%

22%18%

10%

27%

22%

16%

36%

35%

23%

26%26%

25%

10%

16%

46%

20%

12%

6%

16%

9%

11%

17%

14%

47%

27%

8%

30%

22%

19%

17%

29%

9%

33%

54%

14%

16%

26%26%

31%

18%

10%

19%

10%

24%

48%48%

very undesirable

community Responses(199 total)



staff Responses(145 total)



student Responses(107 total)


student Responses

(87 total)

(1) Two 9-12 (2) 9-10/11-12 (3) Small Schools

very undesirable

very desirable

very desirable



scHools oF cHoice

The questions about schools and programs of choice are intended to assess general opinions about academic choice and have implications for either high school or elementary school programming.

The exit questionnaire responses clearly indicate that participants support the abil-ity to choose which schools and specialized academic programs to attend. However, while opposition to such choice appears to be low, almost a third of respondents indi-cated a neutral opinion or are undecided on the issue.

Most respondents (61 percent) said the ability to choose among specialized academic programs is desirable, while only 10 percent said that it is undesirable. Similarly, 58 percent said the ability to choose which school to attend is desirable while only 13 percent said that it is undesir-able. Additionally, there were more votes at the positive extreme of the scale than at the negative end. Over one third of responses indicate these options are very desirable, while just three percent said they are very undesirable.

The overall desirability of attending mag-net schools is also clear. Nearly three out of four respondents said they would send their child to a magnet school if the option existed.

What the community preferAmong the three groups of participants, those at the community meetings showed weaker support for schools and programs of choice.

When asked about the desirability of choosing among specialized programs, the three groups showed similar levels of support. However, community meeting respondents were more likely than others to find the idea undesirable. Among this

group, there are fewer neutral responses. On the question of choosing which

school to attend, again community meet-ing participants show more support than opposition, but are less supportive than the other two groups. Fewer than half say that idea is desirable, while 20 percent say it is undesirable and about a third are unde-cided.

Finally, regarding the option of sending their child to a magnet school, the major-ity of community participants say yes. But they show the lowest supportive response and the highest opposing response among the three groups.

What staff preferStaff show a much stronger preference for academic choice than community partici-pants. Just three percent of respondents say that choosing among specialized programs is undesirable and none say that it is very undesirable. About a third of staff express neutral opinions. All others are supportive.

Over half of staff respondents say that choosing a school to attend is desirable and less than ten percent said it is undesirable.

Staff are also more likely than commu-nity participants to send their children to magnet schools based on their responses.

What students preferStudents are more supportive than commu-nity participants and similar to staff in their support of choosing among specialized academic programs. But, on the issue of choosing a school to attend, students over-whelmingly say it is desirable. In fact over half say it is very desirable, while six per-cent said it is undesirable and none rated it as very undesirable. On the issue of send-ing children to magnet schools, relatively fewer students responded. But of those who did, 85 percent said yes, the highest positive response among the groups.

The exit questionnaire responses clearly indicate that participants support the ability to choose which schools and specialized academic programs to attend.



21

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?

How desirable is the ability to chooseamong specialized programs?


2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

choice of programs

comm staff students

comm staff students

comm staff students

choice of schools

magnet school?



2 11% 7% 3% 7%3 25% 29% 34% 29%4 22% 24% 31% 25%

Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% 35%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 15% 6% 6% 10%3 32% 16% 32% 28%4 18% 21% 30% 23%

Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


2 9% 10% 17% 12%3 16% 31% 21% 21%4 14% 14% 28% 19%

Desirable 5 48% 35% 24% 36%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%



2 16% 19% 32% 22%3 10% 18% 16% 14%4 6% 16% 10% 10%

Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 17%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%


One High 53% 48% 51% 51%9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 34% 29%



No 20% 12% 12% 16%Unsure 18% 3% 9% 12%

Yes 62% 85% 79% 72%Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

How desirable is the ability to choose among specialized programs?

How desirable is the ability to choose which school to attend?

would you send your child to a magnet school if the focus aligned with your child’s interest?

3%

3%

16%

14%

10%

28%

7%

29% 26%

23%

70%

35%

35%

39%

58%

85%

33%

28%

76%

35%

30%

60%

22%

18%

18%

25%

32%

11%

15%

7%

5%

22%

31%

30%

12%

34%

32%

3%

6% 3%

12%

24%

21%

3%

29%

7%

16%

1%

6%

12%

very undesirable









student Responses

(68 total)

No Unsure/Maybe Yes

very undesirable

very desirable

very desirable



Participants considered and shared their thoughts about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each school scenario during the small group exercise.


SWOT Analysis

23

4. SWOT Analysis

oveRview

During the small group exercise, par-ticipants identified and discussed the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats for each scenario. Facilitators explained that strengths and weaknesses were traits inherent in the concept, which can be assumed to be true or are very likely results. For example, permanence would be a strength of an ink pen. Opportunities and threats were explained to be external to the concept. They are possibilities, but should not be assumed. For example a threat of an ink pen is that it could dry up or clog. The responses to this exercise show overlap between strengths versus opportunities and weaknesses versus threats. But the category in which each idea was recorded is less im-portant than the idea itself. These thoughts, particularly those that appear repeatedly, can help explain why participants express certain preferences.

The following analysis considers all of the responses from both the small group flip charts and participant worksheets, then identifies recurring themes among them for each scenario. Figures show the most

common SWOT responses for each scenar-io listed in order of frequency. Complete verbatim responses to this exercise are included in the Appendix.

HigH scHool scenaRios

Overall there were significantly more com-ments recorded about the each high school scenario than about the two elementary school scenarios. That is consistent with the significant number of participants who stated on their exit questionnaire that they are most concerned about the future high school facility.

Another observation is that participants tended to begin the exercise by compar-ing the scenarios to existing conditions rather than comparing the scenarios to each other. As a result, many comments, particularly those on High School Scenario 1, mention student-teacher ratios and class size. These factors, however, are dependant primarily on operating funds and square-footage capacity rather than on the chosen scenario.

Volunteer facilitators recorded participant’s ideas on flipchart

paper during the small group portion of the meetings.



Figure 4.1 High School Scenario 1 (Two 9-12 Schools): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Traditional/Familiar/ProvenMore extracurricular opportunitiesEasier transportationLess crowdedSmaller classes (better student-teacher ratio)More opportunities (general)Easier to implementLocalized/neighborhood schoolsHealthy competition/rivalryMore ParticipationDevelop student/teacher/parent relationshipsMore potential to take advanced classesMore individual student attentionImproved safetyUpperclassmen can mentorLower costEqual opportunitiesLess discipline problemsAll high school grade levels are togetherStaying in building longer creates a sense of home/prideStronger identity/more school spiritMore staffAccommodate both gifted and special needs/remedial studentsMore flexibleFewer staffing issuesContinuity

strengths

Higher cost (duplication of effort)DivisiveSocioeconomic inequality (real or perceived)Unhealthy competition/rivalryDilute talent poolNothing new/too traditionalSeparation from friendsBoundary issues (general)Mixing age groups is negativeOld/new school stigmaWeaker event participation/supportInequality (real or perceived)Separate identitiesLimits curriculum variationHarder to fill special classesEquity is hard to achieveRequires splitting teachersMore teachers neededLess choiceTransportation costs for extracurricularsInequality in teacher qualityDivide resourcesLess specializationUnequal participationLower quality of extracurriculars

weaknesses

Community divisionUnhealthy rivalryInequalities (real or perceived)Affect property valuesSocioeconomic divisionViolence/gangsTransportation challengesStacking athleticsLower strength of extracurricularsLost opportunity to innovateOld/new perceptionsCould have unbalanced attendance in futureDisparity in teacher experienceRacial/social tensions may riseGreater operational costsSeparation from friends may hurt student performanceOld school being underfunded/funding not matching needMixing age groups is risky/peer pressureLower availability of advanced coursesLess outside support for extracurricularsComparisons between schoolsMay limit athletic scholarship opportunitiesDifficulty finding enough quality teachers

threats

More extracurricular opportunitiesMore participationHealthy competitionBetter parent/teacher/student relationshipsMore opportunities to take courses of interestDraw equitable attendance linesMore opportunities to recognize student achievementImprove school spirit/prideMore student participationMore jobs createdMore student leadershipChoices for those moving into districtCould diversify curriculum or offer more choices

opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 1250 Approximate Total Responses: 1150

Approximate Total Responses: 750Approximate Total Responses: 650

FReQuency: High moderate low


SWOT Analysis

25

scenario 1 (two 9-12 schools)Figure 4.1 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for High School Scenario 1.

StrengthsThe most frequently mentioned strength of having two comprehensive 9-12 high schools is that it is familiar and traditional. The concept is understood by parents, teachers, and colleges. It is also more straight-forward to implement.

Another very commonly mentioned strength is greater opportunities for stu-dents. Two 9-12 schools would mean there would be two sets of State-sanctioned com-petitive extracurricular activities, which would offer more students the possibility of participating in competitive athletics and music or other school activities.

Transportation was also mentioned repeatedly as a strength. With this scenario, attendance would be based on defined boundaries. Since students would gener-ally attend the school closest to home and there would be little travel between the two schools, it is reasonable to assume that fewer bus-miles would be required and student-driven miles would be minimized, reducing overall transportation costs.

Finally, many participants stated that important strengths are smaller classes and less overcrowding. But as noted previously, these benefits are not unique to Scenario 1.

WeaknessesBy far, the most frequently mentioned weaknesses relate to the higher cost of this scenario and how it would affect the social structure and the character of Reynoldsburg.

Participants recognize that this scenario would likely be more costly overall, since everything would need to be duplicated,

including staff, extracurricular programs and facilities.

Another primary concern many partici-pants share is that two 9-12 high schools would be divisive. Boundaries would deter-mine attendance, which would mean that students in some areas of Reynoldsburg would attend the older facility while stu-dents in other areas would attend the new one. This change would likely cause separa-tion between friends. Many comments also indicate anticipation that socioeconomic inequality is inevitable.

There is also a significant apprehen-sion that two comprehensive high schools would lead to unhealthy competition and rivalries between the two schools. This weakness likely fuels the fear that Scenario 1 would divide the community.

Where many say that being traditional is a strength, many others say the fact that Scenario 1 offers “nothing new” is a weakness. Also to counter the strength that this option offers greater extracurricular opportunities, many participants fear that it would lead to less competitive programs because the talent pool would be diluted.

OpportunitiesAside from these weaknesses, participants also imagined a few potential opportunities within a two high school town. Many men-tion again the additional extracurricular opportunities, which could result in greater participation and create more well-rounded students. Some also suggest that a two high school town could lead to healthy competi-tion which would benefit both schools.

ThreatsTwo of the most commonly mentioned threats—inequalities and unhealthy rival-ries—were also mentioned as weaknesses. These two factors relate to the negative

Two 9-12 schools would mean there would be two sets of extracurricular activities, which would offer more students the possibility of participating in competitive athletics and music or other school activities.



theme of divisiveness. Some participants foresee such divisiveness as a potential threat to property values in Reynoldsburg.

Other Observations and ConclusionsBased on the number and nature of re-sponses about high school Scenario 1, a few conjectures can be made.

Those who support this option like the simplicity and familiarity of a traditional model. They may be attracted to the idea based on the likelihood of a new facility with attendance boundaries in their area. Of course, many are also attracted to the idea of additional extracurricular oppor-tunities. Finally, supporters are less likely to be sensitive to the notion of divisiveness and socioeconomic inequality, or they are optimistic that equitable attendance boundaries could be drawn.

Those who oppose this scenario are more sensitive to the potential divisive-ness that could result and its effect on the character of the larger community. This divisiveness could be created by attendance boundaries, it could be socioeconomic inequality or the perception of such, or it could be rivalries and unhealthy com-petition. They associate many potential threats from that divisiveness such as more violence and greater racial or social ten-sions. They also fear disparities in funding, teacher experience and external support, or simply missing an opportunity to be innovative.

scenario 2 (9-10/11-12)Figure 4.2 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for High School Scenario 2.

StrengthsThere are two overarching themes among the most recognized strengths for High School Scenario 2. The first relates to the benefits of separating age groups and the second pertains to school and community identity.

The most frequently mentioned strength is that age groups are separated under Scenario 2. Participants generally believe that separating younger students from upperclassmen will improve student performance since curricula can be more age-appropriate. They also suggest it will reduce problems with peer pressure, haz-ing and bullying. Separating age groups also encourages a more focused curricu-lum, participants say. The 9-10 school can emphasize core curricula while the 11-12 school could focus on preparation for life after high school. Many also suggest that teachers could loop with classes or focus on a grade level.

Regarding school identity, many partici-pants like that this scenario would make Reynoldsburg a one high school town. There would be no attendance boundar-ies, meaning that students would attend both schools and would all experience the new facility. Several also mention specifi-cally that having one set of extracurricular activities is a strength.

WeaknessesSome of the most commonly mentioned weaknesses challenge related strengths. For example, separating age groups between two campuses makes offering accelerated or remedial courses more challenging.

Though participants came from diverse backgrounds and held differing opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, they also shared many similar ideas and experiences.


SWOT Analysis

27

Figure 4.2 High School Scenario 2 (9-10/11-12): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

strengths weaknesses

opportunities threats

Age groups are separatedOne high school CommunityAll students of a grade level are togetherBrings the community togetherReduces hazing/bullying/peer pressure (improves safety)Smaller class sizesTeachers can loopAll students get to experience new facilityProvides transition into high schoolAge appropriate instructionEliminate inequalitiesCore curriculum in 9-1011-12 can specialize or focus on post high school optionsMore familiarity between students/teachersSolves overcrowdingTeachers can focus on grade levelNo boundaries to drawOne set of extracurricularsLower costDoes not dilute athletic pool

Transportation logistics/costHow to offer accelerated courses to students in 9-10 Limited extracurricular opportunitiesToo many transitions (every two years)Fewer mentoring opportunities/lack of role modelsDistance between campusesHow to manage extracurricular opportunities between campusesSome grade levels may be much larger (larger classes)How to handle remedial courses for 11-12Some kids may have to attend both schoolsMore coordination is requiredHarder for families with multiple childrenNot a traditional high school experienceNot enough research on this conceptSeparation from siblings9-10 would be OGT focusedHarder for teachers to work togetherLimited specializationRestricts upperclass/lowerclass friendshipsTeachers cannot teach all four grade levels

Focus learning (establish OGT vs. college focus)Separation of age groups creates comfortEasier to track student needs by gradeTeam teach/loopingWon’t divide the communityCreate a hybrid (traditional 9-10/choice 11-12)Easier transition for studentsMeet and befriend students from throughout ReynoldsburgAdjust bell times to facilitate transportationBusiness sponsorshipsMore leadership opportunities for younger studentsUse technology to overcome distance issueCould still offer specializations in 11-12Duplicate some extracurriculars to provide more opportunityMore diversity

Transportation effortHarder for younger students to take advanced coursesFrequent school changes may be difficult for studentsExtracurricular logisticsMissing traditional high school experience (less school spirit)Scheduling conflictsDifficult to manage enrollment fluctuationsMore expensive if extra facilities are builtA change in administration could kill school’s successFewer role models/friends of other agesLower attendance at extracurricular eventsLess extracurricular participation






Also, there would be fewer role models or mentors for young students.

Further, a one high school town on two separate campuses would lead to more challenging transportation logistics and higher cost. As the two campuses would be five miles apart and all students would attend both during their high school years, there would need to be many more bus routes. Add to this situation the possibility of travel between schools for extracur-ricular activities or special classes and this scenario would yield very high transporta-tion costs.

Finally many participants do not like that this scenario would limit opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities.

OpportunitiesParticipants mentioned opportunities related to focused learning. Some reiter-ate that the younger campus can focus on core curricula and state requirements while the older campus focus on college prep or special training. Some participants also suggest creating a small schools hybrid where 9-10 is more traditional and focused on core curricula while 11-12 is specialized.

ThreatsThere were fewer threats mentioned. Most concerned greater transportation effort and cost. The distance will make extracurricular logistics more challenging and be harder for students to take courses that are only offered at one campus.

Another recurring theme is concern that frequent school changes can setback student progress. Currently within the dis-trict, students attend two years at a middle school and two years at a junior high before moving on to high school. There is some concern that this two year pattern could be disruptive or weaken school identity and pride.

Other Observations and ConclusionsParticipants who support Scenario 2 like that it would keep Reynoldsburg with one high school identity. They appreci-ate that there are no boundaries to draw and that all students would experience the new facility. Many supporters also believe that separating age groups would benefit students and create a better environment for learning. They are less concerned with extracurricular opportunities, and the lo-gistical challenges of maintaining one high school on two separate campuses.

Those who oppose this scenario prob-ably dislike the one high school model. They would rather see more extracurricular opportunities or believe that the distance between the two campuses would require impractical and unsustainable transporta-tion expenditures.

Participants who support Scenario 2 like that it would keep Reynoldsburg with one high school identity.


SWOT Analysis

29

scenario 3 (small schools)Figure 4.3 (page 29) shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportu-nities and threats for High School Scenario 3. This scenario is the most complex and has many variables so participants noted more opportunities and threats than the other high school scenarios.

StrengthsThe commonly mentioned strengths are varied. Most mentioned is that small learn-ing communities would better prepare students for the future. Many comments applaud the simple fact that this scenario offers students choices. Closely related to choice is personalization, which was also mentioned repeatedly. By personalization, participants explained that students could study the topics they are most interested in or focus on their strengths. Having a focussed curriculum is also seen as a strength. When students are allowed to choose and focus on what they are most interested in, they will be more engaged and learn more.

Participants also believe that small learning communities will better prepare students for the future. They will also encourage stronger student and teacher relationships, which could be expected to improve student achievement.

Many also said that a strength is that there would be no attendance boundaries, which limits the threat of inequalities. Also this scenario could potentially satisfy either the one high school or two high school supporters and could have one or two sets of extracurriculars.

WeaknessesSimilar to strengths, participants identified a laundry list of weaknesses. Most preva-lent among them is the assumed lottery sys-tem to determine attendance. Participants

express serious concern about what would happen if students couldn’t attend the pro-gram they prefer. They speculate that such rejection could reduce a student’s engage-ment and academic success.

Several participants also suggest that students may be too young to make choices about academic programs. They are con-cerned that students may not make the “right” choice, either to support their inter-ests and abilities or their future aspirations. Many also recognize that students could be separated from friends if they choose a program based on their strengths and inter-ests. There is fear that many students would choose to follow their friends instead.

Related to fears about choice is concern about limitations on transferring schools. If a student decides that the program they are in is not appropriate, they may be required to wait until the end of the academic year to change. This situation could reduce a student’s enthusiasm for school, damage their grade point average, or set them be-hind in preparing for life after high school.

High cost was also repeatedly mentioned as a weakness. Participants recognize that, similar to Scenario 2, transportation would be more challenging logistically and more expensive. It will also take much more time and effort to plan and manage, which will mean higher cost to implement and operate. Also, they say it will be more difficult and potentially costly to acquire special resourc-es and teachers for each program.

OpportunitiesLike strengths, the most mentioned op-portunities for the Small Schools scenario pertain to better preparation for the future. Participants say that students may be better prepared for college or their career, and more able to compete in a global world.

Also similar to strengths, participants expect that the ability to focus on what you



Figure 4.3 High School Scenario 3 (Small Schools): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Better preparation for futureStudents will be more interested/engagedMore choiceFocused curriculumPersonalization creates ownershipSmaller class sizeEncourage stronger student and teacher relationshipsMore likely to get classes you are interested inStudents will learn more/improve achievementSmall learning communitiesImproved attendance/disciplineBuild on student strengthsGreater school unityChallenge/rigorEnergize staffMore innovativeSpecializationOne or two identities/sets of extracurricularsOne high school potentialNo boundariesBrings out best in teachers and studentsMore parent involvementNo socioeconomic segregationEqual opportunityTeam approach4 Years at one campus

strengthsTransportation logistics/costLottery system/not getting choiceStudents may not be ready for choiceDifficult to acquire special resources/teachersHigher cost to implement and operateMore complicated to understand and implementLimitations on transferring schoolsStudents may follow friends or be split from themAttendance criteria (lottery) may not be fair or balancedCould limit options after high schoolGetting locked into curriculumMay not meet needs of traditional studentsAnnual variations in program interestTesting a new idea on students is riskyCan already choose courses by themeMore difficult to scheduleToo focusedUnbalanced demand for schoolsStudents may not be well roundedHard to identifying student interest/demandRivalry between schoolsLess flexibility9-10/11-12 hybrid might be better

weaknesses

Difficult to acquire special resources/teachersStudents may be too young to make choiceHigher costStudents less disciplined or engaged if they don’t get their choiceTransportation issuesKnowledge/experience may be underdeveloped in some areasDivisivePreliminary planning may be done poorlyDemand for programs may changeChoices may be made for wrong reasonsCommunity may be tired of trying new thingsHarder to produce well-rounded studentsGet locked into program you don’t wantInter-school rivalriesMay be too much transferring between schoolsCould affect community identityStudents may not discover talents if experiences are not broadConcept failing/changing if leadership changesTesting implicationsStudents may follow friends or be split from themWill there be mobility between programsNot enough research to show concept’s effectiveness

threats

Better preparation for futureMore attractive place to live/work (esp. for teachers)Partnerships with outside organizations/internshipsMore flexibility/focus on what you are most interestedAdvanced study/earn college creditCould have one or two identities/sets of extracurricularsGain recognition for Reynoldsburg schoolsOffer more course opportunitiesMoney from Gates FoundationImproved attendance/disciplineIncreased scholarshipsOpportunity to innovateHelp students get ahead/higher achievementCross-curriculum collaborationGreater engagement/motivationMake students more adaptable or competitive for today’s worldHybrid option (9-10/11-12)Team teachingHigh teacher buy-inCould drive changes at other levels (junior high, middle school)Could maintain one high school identityExtracurriculars can help build relationships outside of programNetworking between like-minded studentsPlacement could be based on criteria/over lottery

opportunities





SWOT Analysis

31

are most interested could lead to greater mo-tivation and engagement from students, and parents. Also many speculate that teachers would show the same benefits if allowed to practice in a more specialized environment.

Another widely recognized opportunity is that a more progressive form of high school could bring positive recognition to Reynoldsburg Schools and potentially make the city a more attractive place to live. This extra attention could attract more talented teachers, further improving the district. Such a trend could also raise property values.

Several participants also suggest that a hybrid option should be considered. The most commonly discussed hybrid would be a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3. There would be a 9-10 school focused on core curricula in a traditional format, then a 11-12 school that employs the small schools concept to offer choice and specialization.

ThreatsThe most commonly identified threats speak either to the challenges with imple-menting and managing this scenario or that it might not be beneficial to all students.

One common concern is that special-ized programs may produce students that are less well-rounded. Critics say that student knowledge or experience could be underdeveloped in some areas. That could limit future opportunities. Another con-cern is that students could get locked into a program they do not want to be in —either because they did not get their choice, or because they made a poor choice.

The other major concern is the relative difficulty of planning, implementing, and managing the Small Schools scenario. For example, the district could face challenges finding the right teachers or other resourc-

es. Also, this scenario might struggle if the district leadership were to change.

Some participants also see this scenario as potentially divisive. Certain schools could be perceived as better or worse, which could lead to negative stigmas among different groups of students.

Other Observations and ConclusionsParticipants generally like the ability to choose schools and curricula that match a student’s personal interests. They also like that this concept could maintain one high school identity, or offer two with more extracurricular opportunities. They also see benefits for teachers and the larger com-munity.

On the other hand, they share many concerns. The biggest concern shared by both critics and supporters is the lottery system of attendance. They fear what would happen to students who do not get their choice. They also acknowledge that some students may not be ready for specializa-tion and may choose for wrong reasons or regret their choice.

Several participants also suggest that a hybrid option should be considered.

Assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman explains the

possibilities of Small Schools Under One Roof and answers

participants’ questions during the assembly portion of the

meetings.



elementaRy scHool scenaRios

Overall there were fewer comments about elementary school scenarios than there were for each of the high school scenarios.

scenario 1 (neighborhood school)Figure 4.4 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for Elementary Scenario 1.

StrengthsAn obvious strength of neighborhood schools is that transportation costs would be lower. There would be fewer bus miles and more opportunities for students to walk or bike to school.

Similar to Scenario 1 for the high school, participants frequently say that being fa-miliar and traditional is a primary strength. The other most frequent theme deals with community aspects of neighborhood schools.

In addition to being simply familiar and traditional, participants see this as a proven model that is easier to obtain buy-in and implement. They also expect that neigh-borhood schools offer all students similar opportunities.

The bulk of other comments talk about the benefits of having localized, neighbor-hood-based schools. Specifically, they say it helps to build a stronger sense of com-munity. For instance, children can attend school with others from their neighbor-hood. Also there would be more familiarity between students, teachers and parents.

WeaknessesThe most common weaknesses surround similar issues as the strengths. They talk about neighborhood and community char-acter implications as well as the traditional nature of the concept.

Many participants express concern

about the redistricting for attendance boundaries that will occur. Although this change will happen regardless of which scenario is selected, a new neighborhood school would mean that attendance would come primarily from students who live nearest to that new facility. In other words, redistricting will affect all students, but with a neighborhood school, only those in a limited area of the city would benefit, participants explain. They also fear there will be socioeconomic inequality between the schools.

Another weakness some say is that neighborhood schools are too traditional and not progressive. Reynoldsburg has no elementary schools of choice. Adding another neighborhood school would be a missed opportunity to offer the community something new.

Some also say that it is difficult to align curricula among neighborhood schools. Although they are intended to be com-parable, these schools are perceived to have different levels of academic rigor and student achievement. They also recognize that, relative to the proposed alternative, this scenario limits choice.

OpportunitiesThe opportunities participants mention in-volve the themes already mentioned. They see the potential for localized attendance to strengthen neighborhood communities. They also believe that this proximity will encourage parental involvement and make teachers more aware of individual students needs. Smaller classes is also mentioned repeatedly as an expected benefit.

ThreatsThe commonly mentioned threats sur-round redistricting and attendance bound-aries. Many acknowledge that redistrict-

Participants say that neighborhood schools to build a stronger sense of community.


SWOT Analysis

33

Figure 4.4 Elementary Scenario 1 (Neighborhood School): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats



TransportationFamiliar/traditionalLocalized/neighborhood experienceSame opportunity for all studentsSmaller classesGoing to school with neighborhood kidsLive close to SchoolMore parent involvement Builds communityEasy to implement/manageProven modelMore familiarity between students/staff/parentsConsistencySet boundariesWalk or bike to schoolDecrease student-teacher ratioMaintains status quoEasier to staffSaves moneyEasier transition to Middle SchoolGood for property valuesProvides a broad foundation

Smaller ClassesStrengthened neighborhood communityRide bike or walk to schoolProximity encourages parental involvementMore individual attention/more awareness of student needsMore athletic opportunityPut special classes within a traditional schoolHigh school mentorship at new elementary schoolMore community involvementConsistency with other schoolsEasier to implementEncourages well-rounded educationEasier to balance enrollmentMake all elementaries choice schoolsCould keep the Grant Road staff togetherMake preschool or special needs school out of Grant RoadSchools could develop a focus based on community input

Socioeconomic segregation/inequalityBoundaries/Redistricting causing turmoilLimiting choiceHigh demand/competition for new school (with open enrollment)Trouble balancing teachers/staff turnoverNew elementary location too close to new high school (safety)Lack of diversityInequalityHarder to meet future educational needsDivisiveNot all benefit from new schoolSchools too competitiveHarder to meet individual needsInconsistencyUnfair boundariesNeighborhood issues affect schoolsLost opportunity to be innovative

Boundaries (How will boundaries be drawn fairly?)Socioeconomic inequality between districtsLimits choiceRedistricting (May cause turmoil/divide neighborhoods)Traditional/not progressiveFewer special opportunitiesMay not meet needs of all studentsNew elementary school located very close to new high schoolLack of diversityHard to align curricula between schoolsOnly benefits someNeighbors may not get alongCompetition/rivalries between schoolsInequity in school quality/student achievementDivide communityWhere will Grant Road staff/students go?Doesn’t provide enough individual attentionOld/new perceptions






ing will cause turmoil that will affect all students. They also reiterate the concern that socioeconomic segregation or inequal-ity could become more significant.

Other Observations and ConclusionsParticipants strongly value the community-enhancing qualities of neighborhood schools and they equally dislike changes to attendance boundaries because of the negative effects on the community. They generally view neighborhood schools as fair since they offer similar opportuni-ties to all students and so are less divisive. However, some participants recognize that elementary school redistricting is inevi-table, which will change what school some students attend and potentially disrupt established neighborhood communities. Facing that circumstance, they may view a new neighborhood school less favorably than a school of choice, because the latter option might benefit students in more than one area of the city.

scenario 2 (school of choice)Figure 4.5 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for Elementary Scenario 2.

StrengthsThe most commonly mentioned strength of the elementary school of choice is simply that it provides parents and students the opportunity to choose what type of school is most appropriate for them. Participants think that a more focused curriculum is a strength and that a magnet type of school could better match learning and teaching styles. Many also expect that this choice would lead to more interested and moti-vated students, particularly those students with special talents and higher aptitudes.

Aside from the benefits to students, several participants expect that having a school of choice will draw positive atten-tion to Reynoldsburg, promote parental involvement and better prepare children for the future.

WeaknessesParticipants express many concerns about elementary schools of choice. First there is the obvious implications on transportation logistics and cost since attendance at the choice school could come from anywhere in the district.

A second weakness is the issue of a lottery. Participants seem uncomfortable with having a lottery determine attendance. They fear the possibility of rejection and how that might affect students or parents.

Also many participants say that el-ementary students are too young for such academic choices. However others express concern about parents making that choice and the possibility that choices might be made for the wrong reasons.

Another significant concern is that

Several participants expect that having a school of choice will draw positive attention to Reynoldsburg, promote parental involvement and better prepare children for the future.


SWOT Analysis

35

Figure 4.5 Elementary Scenario 2 (School of Choice): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats



Provides choiceMore options for parentsMeets needs of students (especially gifted/talented)Greater academic opportunitiesGreater parental involvementCan match learning and teaching stylesMany possibilities for programsBuilds on student talents and aptitudesMore opportunitiesMore interested/motivated studentsSmaller schoolsMore experiences/special opportunitesNew/unique for ReynoldsburgImprove achievement (for special needs, gifted, or at-risk)Attract more positive attention to ReynFocused curriculumOpportunity for specializationOpens future opportunitiesPreparation for better high school performancePotential preparation for small schools in high scholProviding choice encourages ownershipSome young students are ready for advanced learningMore individual student attentionBetter to develop student strengths at a young age

Enhance student potentialDevelop students strengthsOffer more than one choice schoolPresents more opportunities for gifted/talented studentsCould choose to attend with friends at neighborhood schoolParents can choose curriculumMatch teaching and learning stylesMay give students more enthusiasm for learningCould require parental transportationMore parent involvementOffers an alternative to traditionBetter preparation for futureCreate a special needs schoolInclude a focus at all schoolsMore engaged students and fewer discipline issuesAttract better teachersMay help struggling studentsHigher overall achievement

Students not as well-rounded/may limit future opportunitiesNo follow-up programs (choice) in middle school or junior highHigh demand may deny many admissionLottery/not getting choice – may lead to angerInsufficient fundingStaffing issuesParent’s choice may not be good for studentTransportation logistics/costElitism/choice school could be seen as “the good school”Choice is made for wrong reasonsClassmates too similar/diverse environments enhance learningHarder to acquire special staff/resourcesOther schools could be perceived as inferiorAdmission may not be balanced for diversityLabeling/stigmatizing studentsToo few choicesCould increase enrollment at other schools if choice isn’t popularMove-in students may not have opportunityHard to change school concepts once establishedRedistricting will occur with two choice schoolsStaff discomfort with change

Transportation logistics/costToo young for such choicesNo follow-up programs (choice) in middle school or junior highHigher costIf demand is high, many will be denied attendanceStudents not as well-rounded/should have broad exposureHow is attendance choice madeLottery/not getting choiceParents choosing for kids/parent’s choice may not be bestInequityHire or train more teachers (cost)Choices/focus areas are limitedNot liking teachersCould separate siblingsParent choosing for kidsToo young for specialized curriculaNeighborhood schools may be seen as inferiorHarder idea to sell/understandCould be separated from neighborhood friendsLess community identityStudents may not prefer choice schoolDifficult to manage/more effort to planHow to identify students’ strengthsHow will school’s concept be chosen?Difficult to ensure balanced socio-economic opportunity






there are no current or proposed follow-up programs in middle school and junior high to complement an elementary school of choice.

Finally participants suggest that a spe-cial choice school would make students less well-rounded and could limit their future opportunities.

OpportunitiesThe opportunities mentioned are similar to many of the stated strengths. Participants see that students would be more engaged and learn more, which would ultimately enhance their potential. They also say that there would be more opportunities for “gifted and talented” students. Some others suggest that there could be more than one choice school, in order to satisfy different needs. Finally, they suggest that the posi-tive attention it would bring to the district would attract higher quality teachers.

ThreatsThe commonly cited threats are very similar to the identified weaknesses. Participants again show concern that students of a school of choice may be less well-rounded than other students. Also they see the lottery system as a divisive threat because not everyone would be guaranteed attendance. Others are very concerned about the absence of follow-up choice programs in upper grade levels such as middle school and junior high.

Many also recognize a risk that a parental

choice may not be right for their child. They could choose based upon an ideal or percep-tion that does not match with the student’s real needs. Some also fear the threat of elit-ism associated with a choice school. A mag-net school could be perceived as “the better school” and parents may choose to send their child there because of that perception.

Other Observations and ConclusionsThe idea of choice at the elementary school level is a controversial one. People who support the option like that it gives students and parents more choices. They believe that it can better match learning and teaching styles and help students with special needs or higher aptitudes.

Opponents argue against the idea based on their belief about the appropriateness for students and potential implications for the community. They say that children are too young for specialization and that they need broad exposure to ensure their future opportunities are not limited. They also fear that a school of choice may be seen as better than neighborhood schools, which could be divisive within the community.

Another concern that supporters and opponents share regards the lottery system to determine attendance. There is consider-able reservation about disappointments or anger if a child is denied attendance who could have benefitted greatly from the special program. Perhaps some participants would rather the opportunity not exist than face the possibility of rejection.

A concern that supporters and opponents of schools of choice share regards the lottery system to determine attendance.


Scenario Preferences

37

5. Scenario Preferences

oveRview

At the conclusion of the SWOT exercise, small group participants recorded their preferred high school scenario and elemen-tary school scenario. These preferences were tallied and compiled with those from all other meetings. The following analysis examines the aggregate results and com-pares the combined preferences of commu-nity, staff and student participants.

Since this exercise was conducted at the end of the meetings and some participants

left early, there was somewhat less response than the meeting attendance would indi-cate. In total, 609 and 556 preferences were recorded for the high school and elemen-tary school scenarios respectively.

During the meetings several participants indicated that they felt unprepared to select a scenario, but others were more confident. The results overall reveal that there is not a consensus or overwhelming preference. Each scenario received significant support.

Before the meetings ended, facilitators asked participants to select their most preferred

high school and elementary school scenario.



Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School

High School Community Students Staff TotalTwo High Schools 23% 26% 18% 22%9-10 / 11-12 41% 43% 31% 38%Small Schools 32% 27% 49% 37%Hybrids 5% 3% 3% 4%

Elementary School

Neigh. Elementary 65% 37% 52% 54%Choice Elementary 35% 63% 48% 46%

Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


4%

36%

39%

21%two 9-12 High schools

9-10/11-12

small schools

Hybrids






39

tHe HigH scHool

The figures on page 42 show participant’s preferences for a high school scenario. Overall Scenario 1 received the least sup-port at 21 percent, while Scenarios 2 and 3 received similar levels of support. The for-mer, 9-10/11-12 option is the most preferred overall. Several participants opted to select a scenario that was not presented as an option. These hybrids account for 4 percent of preferences and are generally a combina-tion or variation of the proposed Scenarios 2 and 3.

Clearly, the preferences indicate that there is significant support for each of the three proposed scenarios, and notable support for hybrids of these proposals. Given that these hybrids offer alternatives to the Small Schools or 9-10/11-12, it can be presumed that the difference in preference between these two scenarios is negligible.

However, different conclusions can be drawn if the preferences of the three groups are considered separately and the relative number of their responses is taken into account.

What the community preferParticipants at the community meetings reported preferences similar to the ag-gregated results. But they had slightly less support for Small Schools, and slightly more support for Two 9-12 High Schools, the 9-10/11-12 scenario and various hy-brids. Their most preferred scenario is the 9-10/11-12 at 41 percent.

What staff preferParticipants at the staff meetings reported the strongest support for Small Schools and less support for Scenarios 1 and 2. Like the other groups, their least preferred is the Two 9-12 schools, with 17 percent. 45 percent of staff favor the Scenario 3.

What students preferStudent participants reported preferences similar to the aggregated results and those of community participants. But they had the least support for Small Schools, at 27 percent, and slightly more support for Two 9-12 High Schools, the 9-10/11-12 sce-nario. Their most preferred scenario is the 9-10/11-12 at 45 percent.

If staff responses are eliminated, or the weight of their responses reduced, the over-all balance of preferences wouldn’t change significantly. There would be slightly more support for the Two 9-12 schools and less support for Small Schools. The most pre-ferred would still be the 9-10/11-12 scenario with greater than 40 percent.

When participants were asked to select their preferred high

school and elementary school scenarios, some showed

passionate opinions while others were less sure which

scenario they liked best.



Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


Elementary

comm staff students

comm staff students

High School


Elementary School


45%55%

neighborhood elementary

school of choice






41

tHe elementaRy scHool

The figures on page 44 show participant’s preferences for an elementary school scenario. Overall the preferences are almost balanced, with slightly more support for an additional neighborhood school over offer-ing a school of choice.

Like the high school scenarios, different conclusions can be drawn if the prefer-ences of the three groups are considered separately and the relative number of their responses is taken into account.

What the community preferParticipants at the community meetings strongly prefer a neighborhood school over offering a school of choice. 65 percent indicated that as their preference.

What staff preferThe preferences of staff participants mirror the aggregate results. 45 percent would pre-fer to offer a school of choice. Interestingly, the same percentage of this group indicated a preference for High School Scenario 3, Small Schools Under One Roof—a school of choice concept.

What students preferThe preferences reported by students are opposite of those among the community participants. Approximately 63 percent of students prefer to offer schools of choice over an additional neighborhood school.

Students’ opinions on their preferred elementary school

scenario differ significantly overall from those preferences

of participants at the community meetings.

reynoldsburg reach final report

Documents

reynoldsburg schools

reynoldsburg reach process

diverse community members

school design scenarios

new high school

new schools

community outreach initiative

new elementary school