Comparing the schools

In the past couple weeks, I have the opportunity to spend over 5 hours at Carrie Busey (volunteering), take a tour of Barkstall and review the Interactive Illinois Report Card for Champaign (IIRC).

So here are some interesting things. If you compare the IIRC link to my earlier post, you may notice some correlations:

• Barkstall had the highest 2009 AYP and was the most overchosen
• Bottenfield had the 2nd highest 2009 AYP and was the 2nd most overchosen
• The correlation significantly decreases after that

The IIRC also provides a trend, and I am trying to determine how it plays into the “big picture”; I am finding it hard to wrap my head around that information.

Here are some further (personal) observations during the past couple of weeks:

• The Barkstall school tour was a real drag; was not impressed with the principal at all
• On the flip side, the building is all squeaky clean, shiny and brand-new looking – another parent and I agree that it seems “sterile”
• The Barkstall students appeared to be very well behaved, even when traveling from room to room
• Other schools that I have been in (Bottenfield, Carrie Busey) all seem cramped, dingy and much older in comparison. My wife tells me the other schools are similar.
• The children at other schools seem a little more rowdy in the hallways

I have further comments for Carrie Busey. Keep in mind that I am very much in favor of Carrie Busey – so much so, that we are making Carrie Busey our first choice come lottery time next week (March). Some of the children at Carrie Busey have an extremely hard time staying focused on the task at hand. I had the pleasure of helping out in a 3rd grade classroom, and it quickly became apparent that several precious children were not giving the teacher, nor their task, adequate attention. I worked one-on-one with one such brilliant child – when I was giving him personal attention, his intellect and comprehension was readily apparent. But without that outside help, he was like a ship lost at sea. Some of his buddies were also having a hard time. While they were somewhat engaged in the task, they were constantly distracted; with each other, with other students, with just about anything. Even when I took the pair of them outside the classroom to reduce distractions, we did not progress much in terms of the classwork. As a parent and concerned citizen, I am left wondering how best to reach these fine young men. What can I do to help these young minds blossom and thrive?

That is a perplexing problem. One last bit of information that is relevant is that this particular classroom was “practicing” for the ISAT; they were going over the same types of questions that they would faced with in a standardized test. What is problematic, from my point of view, is what to do with children who have difficulty staying on track, not only disrupting their own educational opportunities, but of those around them? What is a teacher to do, when he or she has responsibility for an entire classroom of special kids? What if the teacher had absolutely no help?

Note that I am not laying blame. Some children excel in the types of settings that are established in “standardized” classrooms. Other children do not. People are different. I cannot judge the children at all – I do not know them, their backgrounds, their potential. I cannot judge the teacher (for the same reasons). Even if I did know them, who am I to judge?

The experience gave me a much greater appreciation not only for the teachers, but also for mentors and tudors. I have spent time with several of the volunteer and mentor coordinators, and I value their efforts to bring more one-on-one time with the children. I have also spoken with Rev. Harold Davis who heads up the TALKS mentoring program, and am extremely impressed with his approach. I am not saying that these efforts will eradicate these “problems” – surely, we cannot even define what the “problem” actually is (we all have theories, and I have heard quite a few of them). But I do feel strongly that mentoring is an excellent way for the community to have some (if small) positive impact on our community’s children.

In wrapping this up, I have to repeat a very good point that my wife posed; “I want what is best for my child”. Yes, is that not what we all want? But what exactly is best? Going to the school with the highest AYP? Going to to the school with the most diversity? How do you measure “diversity” anyway? What is the “best” education that a child can receive?

I do not know the answers to those questions. But I am quite convinced that by being involved, with my child, my family and my community, I am doing what I can to help us get to that “best”. And I feel that I have so much further to go, for I am far (so very far) from perfect.

Review: Controlled Choice forum

I am a bit overwhelmed with swirling thoughts at the moment, so forgive any unorganized thoughts. I wanted to get this out while it was still fresh.

The biggest problem with this forum is that it raises a lot of questions but answers few of them. Not necessarily because of any ill-intent, but rather due to the time crunch and the fact that all questions are funneled to one person. Also, there is a lack of any pre-answered questions (ala, FAQ); if the District has been doing this for 13 years, I am surprised there is not a more formal method of addressing what must surely be common questions by this point in time. To wit, a number of references were made to a “blue information booklet”. I did not receive such a booklet, nor was I made aware of one when I walked in. And I forgot to grab one on my way out. =) How about putting them in all the chairs or at the end of the pews?

I appreciate Dr. Alves; talking one-on-one or in a small group, I think he shines. However, his prepared presentation was a bit dry and rambled a bit, using vague references that just begged for questions. Plus, there were parents with children in the audience – they are coming to learn about schools. The kids were obviously utterly bored. I do not blame them, and I am glad I did not bring my daughter. *grin* I think it would have been more appriopriate to feature Dr. Alves in a forum specifically dealing with the background and inner workings of Controlled Choice, and have the school information session be totally different.

Ok, so, Dr. Alves. He is a great guy, and I love how he has a heart for “vulnerable” (his word) children, those that are “at risk”. I assumed he meant “at risk” of a poor educational setting; he often referred to the single working mom with 3 or 7 kids. It is these types of situations that Alves seems to want to create equity for. And I am a big proponent of any such plan, especially as Alves wants to be fair but realizes the reality that not everyone is going to like this approach. For example, some people, noteably middle and upper class residents, are going to want “good” neighborhood schools – their focus may not be on diversity. I also really like how Dr. Alves emphasized the fact that overchosen schools are not necessarily the best schools. This is a point I dearly hope to make whenever I present numbers in my own posts. Numbers are just numbers. If I tell you box A has 4 jimberwhimples and box B has 7, which one is better? He was intentionally gave us (a smaller group of us) an anecdotal story of two schools in Cambridge where the underchosen school was exhibiting a vast educational acceleration, as measured by standardized state tests, and the overchosen school was essentially flat. Again, we could argue about standardized tests being merely numbers as well, but that is not my interest nor area of expertise.

Some things I learned. 82% of the total capacity for each school is reserved for Proximity A applicants. This was not exactly clear to me, made less clear by the fact that some schools retain children (which pre-empts choice) in addition to 18% of capacity being reserved for non-sibling Proximity B. Do siblings get thrown into the Proximity A pool by default? Maybe those numbers are rounded or approximate goals. Several factors are combined (aka, calculated) with the Free Meal indicator; family income, number of adults in the household and parental educational attainment. In fact, I got the impression that these other factors were weighted heavily so that the “lottery” could be leveraged to create equity for “vulnerable” children. I also learned that all first choice applicants who do not get their first choice are automatically put on a waiting list; I had assumed something like that in my charts, but never had it confirmed until now. Lastly, Dr. Alves mentioned that he initalizes the lottery process with a random number.

What is that random number? What is the formula? What are the weights associated with that formula? Several of us asked Dr. Alves this on numerous occasions, and I dearly hope he upholds his promise to give those numbers to us. I will be bugging him and keeping him accountable. =)

Oh, one other thing I learned. For the sake of the lottery, Carrie Busey now has an official Prairie Fields address. Ironically, I heard 3 different addresses; 303, 304 and 306 Prairie Rose Lane. Given that my address is odd and I live on the west side of the street, I am banking on an even number for Carrie Busey’s Prairie Fields site. However, the big news is that this means, as of now, anyone who lives within 1.5 miles of 304/306 Prairie Rose Lane will have Proximity A to Carrie Busey. Yes, starting now.

This is already raising questions. What I am interested in is the analysis that Dr. Alves and others have done concerning the shift in the cultural and socio-economic makeup of Carrie Busey. Over time, the population of Carrie Busey will transition towards Savoy residents and away from west-central Champaign. Parents of children who live near the current Carrie Busey building will have the option of filling in empty seats at nearby schools if they wish to not transport their child to Prairie Fields. That sounds a bit odd to me. I hope they come up with a better way to transition those parents. How is this going to affect fairness? How will it affect equity?

I put up the questions I heard from parents during the Q&A time. Again, I really want to see a better FAQ. I had the pleasure of meeting Ms. Sandra Duckworth and am very excited about the prospect of working with her to develop information we can throw up on a website; numbers in particular, but charts, graphs, and much better explanations and examples of what Controlled Choice is. Heck, even the forumla that Dr. Alves will give us. Dr. Alves even suggested a video (ala real estate “virtual tours”). Seriously, we have been doing this for 13 years? Part of me is starting to realize why; Unit 4 is pinching pennies, and nobody from the community has stepped up to help add spice and flavor to the website. For all intents and purposes, the Unit 4 staff has prioritized other aspects of school administration, and for the most part, they are doing their jobs very well.

Ok, my brain is starting to shut down. I’ll try to add more later.

So what questions *do* Unit 4 parents have?

I realize that only two of you have setup feedburners, and only two more stop by occasionally…. I am trying to get the FIC to update their FAQ, or at least provide a list of common questions that can be answered with numbers.

My thinking is, if we can collect common questions, we can work with the FIC to pre-format queries for the kindergarten lottery database and have them ready to go on a Unit 4 website. Kinda need a forum for new parents, though…. however, I would expect parents with kids in Unit 4 to remember and/or have outstanding questions anyway.

We will see.

Another interesting chart

I was asked to find the correlation coefficient between race and income level, and I was actually pretty shocked at the severity of disparities. Color me ignorant.

                     



Correlation Coefficient























-0.013939347


























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9




Race
Count
Population
$1,604 or less
$1,605 - $2,159
$2,160 - $2,714
$2,715 - $3,269
$3,270 - $3,824
$3,825 - $4,379
$4,380 - $4,934
$4,935 - $5,489
$5,490 or above






Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%


2
African-American
194
31.1%
106
62.4%
23
43.4%
4
30.8%
15
22.4%
6
19.4%
1
3.2%
2
8.3%
1
3.8%
12
8.1%


4
Asian/Pacific Islander
94
15.1%
8
4.7%
6
11.3%
2
15.4%
11
16.4%
3
9.7%
3
9.7%
2
8.3%
10
38.5%
43
28.9%


3
Hispanic
46
7.4%
19
11.2%
6
11.3%
2
15.4%
5
7.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
8.3%
1
3.8%
5
3.4%


5
Native American/Alaskan
2
0.3%
1
0.6%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
1.5%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%


1
White
287
46.1%
36
21.2%
18
34.0%
5
38.5%
35
52.2%
22
71.0%
27
87.1%
18
75.0%
14
53.8%
89
59.7%



Total
623
100.0%
170

53

13

67

31

31

24

26

149

I will qualify this data as before; be careful what you read into it, and remember that I am no authority.

The numbers on the far left are the actual ethnic codes in the data I received. I manually cross-referenced them with the Ethnic question from the Kindergarten Application form. In a similar fashion, the number across the top of the income ranges (1-9) are the income codes I received, and I cross-referenced them to the income levels as question on that same form. It is entirely possible that what I did was incorrect, but so far nobody from Unit 4 has either confirmed or denied.

The “%” column is the Count for that Race for that Income Level, divided by the total count for that income level. For example, The “%” in the first income range for Native American’s is (1)/(170) = .00588 = .6%. Keep in mind that there are many different ways to look at the data. For instance, the third income bracket ($2,160 – $2,714) only has 13 people in it, thus the percentages seem a little larger than more “populated” income brackets, such as the first and the last. Another angle would be to see the percentages based on the total kindergarten population, or by the racial population.

                    


Race
Count
Population
$1,604 or less
$1,605 - $2,159
$2,160 - $2,714
$2,715 - $3,269
$3,270 - $3,824
$3,825 - $4,379
$4,380 - $4,934
$4,935 - $5,489
$5,490 or above





Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%
Count
%


Percentage as a function of Overall Total


African-American
194
31.1%
106
17.0%
23
3.7%
4
0.6%
15
2.4%
6
1.0%
1
0.2%
2
0.3%
1
0.2%
12
1.9%


Asian/Pacific Islander
94
15.1%
8
1.3%
6
1.0%
2
0.3%
11
1.8%
3
0.5%
3
0.5%
2
0.3%
10
1.6%
43
6.9%


Hispanic
46
7.4%
19
3.0%
6
1.0%
2
0.3%
5
0.8%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
0.3%
1
0.2%
5
0.8%


Native American/Alaskan
2
0.3%
1
0.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
0.2%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%


White
287
46.1%
36
5.8%
18
2.9%
5
0.8%
35
5.6%
22
3.5%
27
4.3%
18
2.9%
14
2.2%
89
14.3%


Percentage as a function of Racial Total


African-American
194
31.1%
106
54.6%
23
11.9%
4
2.1%
15
7.7%
6
3.1%
1
0.5%
2
1.0%
1
0.5%
12
6.2%


Asian/Pacific Islander
94
15.1%
8
8.5%
6
6.4%
2
2.1%
11
11.7%
3
3.2%
3
3.2%
2
2.1%
10
10.6%
43
45.7%


Hispanic
46
7.4%
19
41.3%
6
13.0%
2
4.3%
5
10.9%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
2
4.3%
1
2.2%
5
10.9%


Native American/Alaskan
2
0.3%
1
50.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
1
50.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
0
0.0%


White
287
46.1%
36
12.5%
18
6.3%
5
1.7%
35
12.2%
22
7.7%
27
9.4%
18
6.3%
14
4.9%
89
31.0%

Kindergarten Lottery data mining (2009)

I submitted a couple FOIA requests to Unit 4 asking about Kindergarten lottery information, as I was very curious what information is collected and how it is used in the context of “Controlled Choice”. As always, the more I got involved, the more questions I had. *grin* Thankfully, Ms. Sandra Duckworth of the Family Information Center has been very helpful, and continues to aid me in my quest of understanding. She has initiated a conversation with Dr. Michael Alves, and it is my hope that, working together, we are able to provide helpful, factual information to the public without having to file an FOIA.

I would love to post some sample html files I created for a proof-of-concept, but I am not sure how to post them properly via wordpress. So, instead, I will post the output tables and charts.

Warning: these are data charts, and only represent a small view of the entire data set. Be careful about drawing conclusions concerning the data below; more often than not, there are a few undisclosed factors involved.

Which schools are overchosen?

School Assignment	# of times chosen	Total Seats	Wait List	% of Total seats
Barkstall	142	70	72	103
Bottenfield	99	69	30	43
Westview	70	54	16	30
Washington	37	23	14	61
Stratton	73	61	12	20
South Side	56	46	10	22
Kenwood	66	69	-3	-4
Robeson	81	92	-11	-12
Carrie Busey	36	69	-33	-48
Garden Hills	47	82	-35	-43
Dr. Howard	33	69	-36	-52

This chart shows how many parents chose each school, and to a degree, how successful they were. Note that with Unit 4′s Controlled Choice program, you get three choices, the first having the highest priority. I’ll get to that in a second. The chart is sorted in order of the “Wait List”. I calculated “Wait List” to be the number of times that school was chosen (as a first choice only) minus the total number of seats available. Some “Wait List” numbers are negative because those schools had available seats left at the time the numbers were collected. I do not know what that date was.

How many households received their first choice?

School Assignment	Total 1st Choices	Fulfilled 1st Choices	% of 1st Choices Fulfilled
Barkstall	142	68	47.9
Bottenfield	99	62	62.6
Carrie Busey	36	36	100
Dr. Howard	33	31	93.9
Garden Hills	47	45	95.7
Kenwood	66	59	89.4
Robeson	81	77	95.1
South Side	56	46	82.1
Stratton	73	57	78.1
Washington	37	33	89.2
Westview	70	63	90
Total	740	577	78

This chart focuses on the first choice that parents indicated during the School Registration process. It shows how many parents actually received their first choice school. Some things that are working behind the scenes in this particular result set:

• Students in special programs like ESL are excluded from this list, as the data I have does not make it easy to determine how parents chose those programs as a “first choice”
• There are households that did not include any choice in their application. They are not represented above.

How many households did not receive any of their choices?

Final School Placement	Total Students Placed	# of students not here by choice	% of Choices Unfulfilled
Carrie Busey	69	6	8.7
Dr. Howard	64	13	20.3
Kenwood	68	1	1.5
Robeson	92	1	1.1
WITHDRAWN	49	49	100
Total	754	86	11.4

I realize this is a more negative way of looking at the objective picture. It is not my intent to cast a shadow on this aspect of the lottery, but I was trying to think of questions that parents might ask. It is inevitable that there will always be parents that wish their child to go to particular schools and may just not make it;  schools have a limited number of seats. However, what this chart does show (in a neutral sort of way) is which schools served as “overflow” destinations, those that had seats available and yet did not meet the top three choices of the applicant.

Please understand I am in no way trying to say that one school is better than another based on these facts. In fact, I would be utterly mortified to learn that someone had used this data to cast a subjective judgement upon any given school. The usefulness of this data, in my opinion, is to be aware of which school you are likely to get into. I have heard stories that parents were berated for choosing “overchosen” schools during their application. I see this information as a tool to help figure that out. Keep in mind that there are lots of factors, most importantly “socio-economic status” which are not even included in these charts. These data points serve as a very generic, big-picture place to start. There is a ton of data available. Personally, I find this type of exercise quite interesting, and has helped me to see “how things work” with Unit 4.

Again, I am merely a citizen. I hold no authority whatsoever. For all you know, I fabricated all this data in a dream last night. I invite you to discover the facts for yourself.