51
Redistricting Review Committee Recommendation School Board Presentation January 10, 2017
Redistricting Review Committee Recommendation
School Board Presentation
January 10, 2017
Consultant Team
Reingold – Community Engagement
Cropper GIS – GIS Mapping and Options Development
Brailsford & Dunlavey – Planning and Facilities
2
Redistricting Steering Committee
School Board Members
Cindy Anderson (District B)
Hal Cardwell (District A)
Ramee Gentry (District C, Chair of Redistricting Steering Committee)
ACPS Staff Advisors
Dr. Alvin Crawley, Superintendent
Dr. Julie Crawford, Chief Student Services Officer
Dr. Terri Mozingo, Chief Academic Officer
Clarence Stukes, Chief Operating Officer
Helen Lloyd, Director of Communications
Erika Gulick, Facilities Planner/GIS Specialist
3
Redistricting Review Committee
4
The Redistricting Review Committee includes 35
community members and representatives from every
school, including one student representative and two
community member at-large representatives.
Why Are We Redistricting?
ACPS has not had a divisionwide redistricting effort since 1999 – more than
15 years ago.
Enrollment in ACPS has grown an average of 500 students per year since
2011 and is expected to continue growing through 2030.
Redistricting the elementary schools will allow ACPS to provide academic
excellence, programmatic equity, and the best education for the
community now and in the future to make sure every student is provided
with essential resources to succeed.
ACPS has a number of newly planned construction projects, including a
new West End elementary school. Redistricting is necessary to balance
utilization across the school division.
5
Redistricting Decision Making
*School Board and ACPS staff have provided direction as needed throughout the redistricting process. 6
Community Engagement Opportunities
3 Rounds of Public Meetings
October 2015
October 2016
November 2016
2 School Board Public Hearings
December 8, 2016
January 19, 2017 (upcoming)
20 Steering Committee Meetings (open to public)
11 Review Committee Meetings (open to public)
ACPS Redistricting Webpage (featuring online Cropper GIS Map)
ACPS Redistricting E-mail ([email protected])
ACPS Redistricting Telephone Number (703) 619-8408
Ongoing Board Member Outreach
Ongoing Communications Department Outreach
7
Redistricting Criteria
Overarching Goal: Enable students to attend their neighborhood elementary
school with equitable access to instructional programs and services, in a cost-
effective manner, unless there is a demonstrated need or desire to attend a
designated citywide program.
Instructional Capacity: Number of students assigned to a school takes into account the number of classrooms
and resource rooms needed for art, music, labs, English language learners (ELL), Special Education, and Talented
and Gifted programs.
Student Safety: Promote safe walk zones and routes to school.
Transportation: Minimize the need for bus transportation or travel time.
Enrollment Capacity: Student enrollment provides room for future growth.
Class Size: Adhere to and accommodate ACPS policy on class size requirements at different grade levels.
Distribution of Special Programs: Consider balance and access to divisionwide programs (e.g., Special
Education, Pre-K).
Previous Rezoning: Minimize the need for more than one boundary change in the elementary life of a student.
Program Continuity: Minimize school assignment change for students who have spent the majority of their
elementary experience in a given school.
Sensible and Fair Boundary Lines: Consider the proximity to the school, and to the extent possible, look for
natural points to define boundaries.
Diversity: Consider rich diversity of school division.
8
How Did We Get Here?
Oct. 2015
Redistricting Review Committee formed and
charged with developing recommendation(s) for the
School Board
Oct. 2015
Community Engagement Meetings to introduce
redistricting
Nov. 2015 – June 2016
Review Committee provided with divisionwide data and
boundary-drawing process and criteria
July 2016 – Sept. 2016
Review Committee work paused as ACPS worked to
identify a site for the new West End elementary school
Sept. 2016
Review Committee presented with three baseline draft
options
Oct. 2016
The Review Committee was presented with five draft
options. The committee moved three forward and created a new option for community
feedback.
*All Review Committee & Steering Committee meetings have been open to the public.
9
How Did We Get Here?
Dec. 2016
The Review Committee received community input, reviewed map options and
decided to eliminate Option 7. It moved Options 8 and 9
forward and also requested minor adjustments ,which
resulted in Options 8a and 9a.
Jan. 2017
The Review Committee was presented with Options 8, 8a,
9, and 9a. The committee decided to move Option 9a (with a minor adjustment)
forward as its recommendation to the Board.
Today
School Board presentation on redistricting
10
October 19 – 20, 2016
Community Engagement Meetings for Options
3, 4, 5, and 6
Nov. 2016
The Review Committee was presented with two new
options based on Committee member and community
input. The committee moved these two forward and created
a new option for community feedback.
November 14 – 15, 2016
Community Engagement Meetings for Options
7, 8, and 9
*All Review Committee & Steering Committee meetings have been open to the public.
September 2016
ACPS Review Committee was presented with 3
preliminary baseline options (Options 1 – 3).
11
Redistricting Draft Option #1
12
Redistricting Draft Option #2
13
Redistricting Draft Option #3
14
October 2016
ACPS Review Committee was presented with 5 draft
options (Options 1 – 5). Review Committee decided to
move three options forward (Options 3, 4, and 5) and
created a new option for community feedback (Option 6).
15
Redistricting Draft Option #3
16
Redistricting Draft Option #4
17
Redistricting Draft Option #5
18
Redistricting Draft Option #6
19
October 19 – 20, 2016
Community Forums held to seek input on Options 3, 4, 5,
and 6.
Every comment was captured and presented in a report
that was shared with the Review Committee and posted
online.
20
Community Feedback – Option #3
Total Comments Received
Pros: 8
Cons: 124
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
21
Community Feedback – Option #4
Total Comments Received
Pros: 18
Cons: 68
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
22
Community Feedback – Option #5
Total Comments Received
Pros: 64
Cons: 21
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
23
Community Feedback – Option #6
Total Comments Received
Pros: 110
Cons: 26
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
24
November 2016
ACPS Review Committee was presented with two new
draft options (Options 7 and 8) based on Committee
member and community input.
Review Committee decided to move these two options
forward (Options 7 and 8) and requested the creation of a
new option for community feedback (Option 9).
25
Redistricting Draft Option #7
26
Redistricting Draft Option #8
27
Redistricting Draft Option #9
28
November 14 – 15, 2016
Community Forums held to seek input on
Options 7, 8, and 9.
Every comment was captured, grouped thematically,
and presented in a report that was shared with the
Review Committee and posted online.
29
Community Feedback – Option #7
Total Comments Received
Pros: 20
Cons: 115
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
30
Community Feedback – Option #8
Total Comments Received
Pros: 75
Cons: 59
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
31
Community Feedback – Option #9
Total Comments Received
Pros: 85
Cons: 37
Every comment was shared
with the Steering Committee and Review Committee.
Comments were reviewed and analyzed alongside the
Redistricting Criteria.
32
December 2016
Review Committee received community input, reviewed
map options and decided to eliminate Option 7.
The Committee moved Options 8 and 9 forward and also
requested minor adjustments which resulted in Options 8a
and 9a.
33
January 2017
The Review Committee was presented with Options 8, 8a, 9, and 9a. The
Committee performed a dot democracy exercise to move Option 9a forward as
its recommendation to the School Board.
Option 8: 0 stickers
Option 8a: 6 stickers
Option 9: 0 stickers
Option 9a: 22 stickers*
*Review Committee voted (23 to 5 count) to recommend one preferred option
(Option 9a) to the School Board.
The Review Committee made a minor adjustment to 9a to include students on
both sides of Valley Drive to attend George Mason.
34
Options 8a and 9a
Planning Block 122 has been moved from George Mason to Mount Vernon in
Options 8a and 9a. Other than this small adjustment, no other changes were
made to Options 8 and 9 in the ‘a’ series.
6 students would be
affected (suggested
to avoid splitting an
apartment complex
into two zones).
Moved to Mount Vernon in ‘a’ series options
35
Redistricting Draft Option #8
36
Redistricting Draft Option #8a
37
Redistricting Draft Option #9
38
Redistricting Draft Option #9a
39
Review Committee Adjustment
Communities along Valley Drive have requested to have both sides of
the street attend George Mason.
If the boundary is shifted to the west, 4 students would remain at
George Mason instead of attending Charles Barrett.
Review Committee voted to
incorporate this adjustment into
the final recommendation to be
brought forward to the School
Board for consideration.
40
Review Committee Recommendation
41
42
Review Committee Recommendation
43
Review Committee Recommendation
44
Review Committee Recommendation
ES 2016-17 ZoneRecommendation
Zone
Total K-5
Live-In
Charles Barrett Charles Barrett 357
Cora Kelly Cora Kelly 339
Douglas MacArthur Douglas MacArthur 678
George Mason Charles Barrett 128
George Mason George Mason 431
George Mason Mount Vernon *
James K Polk James K Polk 560
James K Polk William Ramsay 180
Jefferson-Houston Jefferson-Houston 383
John Adams Douglas MacArthur 32
John Adams John Adams 591
John Adams New ES 139
Lyles Crouch Lyles Crouch 401
Matthew Maury Matthew Maury 373
Mount Vernon Mount Vernon 857
Patrick Henry James K Polk *
Patrick Henry Patrick Henry 548
Samuel W Tucker James K Polk 213
Samuel W Tucker Patrick Henry 214
Samuel W Tucker Samuel W Tucker 628
William Ramsay New ES 435
William Ramsay William Ramsay 537
Anything with an asterisk (*) indicates a size that is
too small to report.
Total K-5
Live-In Impacted
1351
Key: Green represents K-5 students who live in the zone and are not impacted by the recommendation. Pink represents the number of K-5 students who live in the zone and are impacted by the recommendation. *Sample size is too small to report.
45
2016-17 Ethnicity Statistics
46
2016-17 Ethnicity Statistics
47
Recommendation Ethnicity Statistics
48
Recommendation Gender Statistics
49
Recommendation ELL Statistics
50
Recommendation FARM and Walk Statistics
Walk zone counts are based on draft walk boundaries that will be assessed as part of the transportation review. *The actual number of walkers, based on 2016-17 K-5 enrollment data, is approximately 3,380. This difference is primarily due to capacity reassignments and other types of transfers where students are provided transportation by ACPS to a school outside of their zoned school boundary.
Next Steps
January 19, 2017, 7:00pm
Public Hearing on Redistricting
School Board Meeting Room
January 26, 2017, 7:00pm
School Board Meeting
Redistricting Recommendation Presented for Action
School Board Meeting Room
51
