two- way dual language immersion program...iv. annual facilities recommendation s facility master...

I V . A n n u a l F a c i l i t i e s R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s

F a c i l i t y M a s t e r P l a n

W O R K I N G D R A F T A S O F O C T O B E R 5 , 2 0 1 1 1

TWO-WAY DUAL LANGUAGE IMMERSION PROGRAM

DELIVERY MODEL: Austin ISD is currently implementing the Two-Way Dual Language Immersion Program on six campuses. This model is an academic delivery model that promotes the development of bilingualism, biculturalism, and biliteracy in a combination of English and another global language (e.g. Chinese, Vietnamese and Spanish). This research-based dual language immersion model includes challenging, interactive and authentic instruction for all participating students. The goal of this dual language immersion model is for students to meet and exceed state standards in all content academic areas, and an effort to prepare our students for a globally competitive economy, assure students graduate fluent in at least a second language.

STRATEGIC PLAN & BOARD PRIORITY INITIATIVE ALIGNMENT:

Goal 3: All students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy.

Strategy 1: Provide a high-quality, well-rounded educational experience to all students that is rigorous, culturally relevant, healthful, and engaging.

Key Action 1.7: Ensure that the district’s program for English Language Learners (ELLs) is research based, responsive to the needs of students, designed, implemented, supported, and monitored for impact on student learning through a one-way dual language model, and that it includes two-way dual language as a program option.

• Develop academic achievement and support strategy for special populations

• Establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options

RATIONALE: The implementation of the two-way dual language immersion program is a researched-based model with the highest long-term academic success. In their research findings, Collier and Thomas (2009), state that the program with the highest long-term academic success is two-way dual language education. This program will enable AISD educators to advance the instructional and linguistic needs of ELLs and eliminate the achievement gap.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:

• The two-way dual language immersion program is an academic program that enhances the development of bilingualism, biculturalism, and biliteracy so that students will graduate ready for college, career, and life in a globally competitive economy.

• The program design includes two-way dual language immersion that supports “two language” groups of students to become bilingual, bicultural, and biliterate (for example, an equal number of Spanish-speaking and English-speaking students would learn in both languages).

• The Two-Way Dual Language Immersion Model will utilize the following academic and linguistic plan:

o Reading and Language Arts Pre-K, K and grade 1-in native language only Grades 2 through 5-in both languages

o Mathematics Pre-K through grade 5-in English




o Science and Social Studies

Pre-K through grade 5-in Spanish

DISTRICT NEEDS: To expand the two-way dual language immersion model to ten campuses, the district will need additional classroom space, instructional materials such as language labs, books and other translated materials in the language of instruction e.g. (Chinese, Vietnamese, and Spanish). Recruiting teachers will also need to be factored as a cost.

SUPPORTING RESEARCH:

• The Astounding Effectiveness of Dual Language Education for All. http://njrp.tamu.edu/2004

• Review of Research and Best Practices on Effective Features of Dual Language Education Programs. www.lindholm-leary.com/...sources/review_research.pdf

• The Center for Applied Linguistics’ Two-Way Immersion Site http://www.cal.org/twi

• Educating English Learners For a Transformed World http://www.thomasandcollier.com

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS:

Austin ISD is currently implementing Dual Language at the following campus sites:

• Two-Way Dual Language Immersion - 2010-2011: Wooten Elementary, Ridgetop Elementary, Becker Elementary, & Perez Elementary

• Two-Way Dual Language Immersion - 2011-2012: Expand to Travis Heights Elementary and Sunset Valley Elementary

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Estimated Program Costs:

• One-Time Start Up Costs $ 420,138

• One-Time Facilities Costs $ 0

• Annual Operating Costs $ 0

Subtotal Estimated Costs $ 420,138

FACILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Additional classroom accommodations may be necessary because the district-wide two-way dual language immersion program is available to all elementary students as the program is being phased in.

http://njrp.tamu.edu/2004�

http://www.lindholm-leary.com/...sources/review_research.pdf�

http://www.lindholm-leary.com/...sources/review_research.pdf�

http://www.cal.org/twi�

http://www.thomasandcollier.com/�




IN-DISTRICT CHARTERS: GRADUATION PATHWAYS EDUCATION PROGRAM

DELIVERY MODEL: Provide a graduation pathway education charter program with a proven record of success to serve as an in-district charter guided by a MOU.

Alternative pathway program with extended time serving grades 9-12 using individualized, self-correcting, remediated, and accelerated curriculum, as well as character-based education.



Key Action 1.24: Enhance dropout prevention efforts and create multiple, proven pathways to graduation and course credit recovery.

Additional Key Actions: 1.14, 1.20, 1.22

• Develop academic achievement and support strategies for at-risk populations.

• Explore/establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options.

RATIONALE: The District is committed to providing a graduation pathways education program for students graduating high school and being prepared and eligible for college, career and life. 2010 graduation rates were 78.6% and completion rate was 89.8%. Quality in-district charter programs have proven records of meeting the needs of individual students and assuring that they graduate.


• Graduation pathways with extended time, learning communities. • Serving grades 9-12 using individualized, self-correcting, remediated, and

accelerated curriculum, as well as character-based education. • Goal to decrease dropout rate and increase completion rate, provide

an enhanced alternative education program, and to inspire and to implement measurable academic performance standards using an individualized, technology-based, direct instruction for at risk, credit recovery, as well as accelerated learners.

DISTRICT NEEDS: Decrease dropout rate and increase completion rate at high school.


The charter school movement was born in the late 1980’s as an innovative answer to closing the achievement gap in the United States. Charters were originally conceived as moderate, market-based solutions to achievement issues within urban educational systems (Merseth, 2009). They are distinctly different than a voucher system in that they remain inside the public system and are subject to public regulation, yet they are free or loosely controlled by district bureaucracies. Designed as autonomous, independent, client-centered, public schools, free from local bureaucratic policies, they provide real choices for families and are excellent models or “test beds” of effective innovative practice for the mainstream public education system (Merseth, 2009).

Considered one of the most significant education reforms in Texas, lawmakers first launched public charter schools in 1995 under Texas Education Code, Section 12.001 (Trevino, 2006). EL policy regarding in-district charter campus or program was first issued in Austin ISD in June 2001.




It authorized applications for a charter campus or program. This policy was updated in 2005. Changes approved by the Board of Trustees in January 2011 clarified the creation of an in-district charter on an existing school campus.

Our goal in re-examining EL policy and the role of charter schools in our district at this time is to provide a rich portfolio of options and choice in program design such as time, flexibility, and smaller learning communities. This work is aligned to the AISD Strategic Plan and progressive thinking on academic models to shape a “new vision” for how capital improvements and academic planning can improve academic outcomes. The administration has identified existing charter programs, with proven success records, that may enhance the quality of programs and address defined district needs such as chronically underperforming schools, dropout and completion rates, and alternative education programming.


Responsive Education Solutions, Austin CAN Academy, Austin Youth Works have a proven record of success.


Estimated Program Costs (based on prototypical model that would serve 200 students):

• One-Time Start Up Costs $ 0

• One-Time Facilities Costs $ 831,420

• Annual Operating Costs $ 1,174,634

Subtotal Estimated Costs $ 2,006,054

Estimated Revenue Sources/Savings:

• Reallocation of existing school/program costs

-$ 275,000

• Grant Fund -$ 0

• External/Private Funding -$ TBD

• Bond Contingency Funding -$ 831,420

Subtotal Revenue Sources/Savings -$ 1,660,700

TOTAL FUNDING GAP $ 899,634


District will use an existing facility.

FMP EDUCATIONAL OPTION FACT SHEET

5

In-District Charters: College Preparation Charter

DELIVERY MODEL Provide a college preparatory charter program with a proven record of success to serve as an in-district charter guided by a MOU. College Prep design emphasizes core curriculum, results driven culture, core values and a no excuses culture. Prepares students for success in college and citizenship by developing academic, social and leadership skills needed to succeed in a four-year college.

STRATEGIC PLAN: BOARD PRIORITY

INITIATIVE ALIGNMENTS:

Strategy 1: Provide a high-quality, well-rounded, educational experience to all students that is rigorous, culturally relevant, healthful, and engaging. Key Action 1.22: Develop a plan to effectively serve East Austin schools and their communities. Additional Key Actions: 1.6, 1.14, 1.20 Develop academic achievement and support strategies for at-risk

populations. Explore/establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced

portfolio of academic options.

RATIONALE AISD is committed to raising the achievement of all students. The East Austin Schools Plan clearly outlines specific strategies for academic improvement in east Austin schools. Economically Disadvantaged and Hispanic subgroups continue to lag behind White and non-economically disadvantaged peers. Though there have been gains in specific content areas we continue to have no Exemplary campuses in east Austin. Some charter schools have a record of success with Hispanic, economically disadvantaged students, and have consistently been rated as Exemplary.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

College Prep PK-12 program focused on STEM education. Strong emphasis on core curriculum, results driven culture, core values include no excuses. Prepares for success in college and citizenship, develops academic, social and leadership skills needed to succeed in a four-year college.

DISTRICT NEEDS To increase academic achievement of ELL secondary students in East Austin in math and science.

SUPPORTING RESEARCH

The charter school movement was born in the late 1980’s as an innovative answer to closing the achievement gap in the United States. Charters were originally conceived as moderate, market-based solutions to achievement issues within urban educational systems (Merseth, 2009). They are distinctly different than a voucher system in that they remain inside the public system and are subject to public regulation, yet they are free or loosely controlled by district bureaucracies. Designed as autonomous, independent, client-centered public schools, free from local bureaucratic policies, they provide real choices for families and are excellent models or “test beds” of effective innovative practice for the mainstream public education system (Merseth, 2009). Considered one of the most significant education reforms in the state’s history Texas, lawmakers first launched public charter schools in 1995 under Texas Education Code, Section 12.001 (Trevino, 2006). EL policy regarding in-district charter campus or program was first issued in Austin ISD in June 2001. It authorized applications for a charter campus or program. This


6

policy was updated in 2005. Changes approved by the Board of Trustees in January 2011 clarified the creation of an in-district charter on an existing school campus.

Loss of students within AISD to charter schools amounts to a loss in revenue of approximately $26,100,000 yearly (Conley-Abrams, 2011). Local charters have been viewed as competition to our district’s educational programming; draining state ADA funds, and recruiting motivated students from our district. To date, Austin ISD has not strategically collaborated with local charter schools, nor have we identified existing charter programs with successful records that could address our district’s defined needs. Our goal in re-examining EL policy and the role of charter schools in our district at this time is to provide a rich portfolio of options and choice in program design such as time, flexibility, and smaller learning communities. This work is aligned to the AISD Strategic Plan and progressive thinking on academic models to shape a “new vision” for how capital improvements and academic planning can improve academic outcomes. The administration has identified existing charter programs, with proven success records, that may enhance the quality of programs and address defined district needs such as chronically underperforming schools, dropout and completion rates, and alternative education programming.

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS

IDEA Public Schools in South Texas have five Exemplary rated 6-12 campuses. Results for low-income, minority students are above the average for Region 1 and the state. IDEA Campuses include: IDEA Donna, IDEA Frontier (Brownsville) IDEA Quest (McAllen/Edinburg) IDEA Mission, IDEA San Benito IDEA San Juan, IDEA Alamo IDEA Pharr, IDEA Edinburg IDEA Weslaco

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Estimated Program Costs (based on prototypical model YR 1):

One-Time Start Up Costs $ 0 One-Time Facilities Costs $ 410,000 Annual Operating Costs $1,675,300-$4,122,600

Subtotal Estimates Costs $2,085,300-$4,532,600


Reallocation of existing school/program costs -$0 - $3,500,000* Grant Funding TBD (based on entitlement) External/Private Funding -$ 400,000 Bond Contingency Funding -$ 410,000

Subtotal Revenue Sources/Savings $810,000-$4,310,000

TOTAL FUNDING GAP -$ 0 to $3,722,600


7

*Under a full conversion model, the operating costs of an existing school site could be reallocated to support the proposed in-district charter. Conversely, partial conversion or co-location within a site would not yield full savings and could result in additional costs.

FACILITY IMPLICATIONS





ADDRESS BEYOND CURRENT ACTIONS, NORTH CENTRAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OVERCROWDING

DELIVERY MODEL: Utilize existing district space to relieve overcrowding in north central area.




Key Actions: 1.4, 1.11, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21

Key Actions 4.6 and 4.7 Key Action 4.6: Consider school consolidations, school repurposing boundary adjustments and possible school closures to reduce operational costs, meet the need for new or expanded programs, and respond to changes in student enrollment. Key Action 4.7: Ensure efficiency and efficacy of existing facilities before investing in new facilities. Board Priorities • Improve overall school district climate for learning. • Develop academic achievement and support strategy for special

populations through accelerated/differentiated instruction.

RATIONALE: The district needs to address critical overcrowding in schools to improve student safety and health. Moreover, the district needs to provide immediate relief to overcrowded schools and to utilize existing school capacity.

2010-11 School Year

Middle School Permanent Capacity – 6045 seats

Middle School Students – 4.744 students

Surplus Seats – 1,301

Elementary School Capacity – 5,512

Elementary School Students – 8,244

Seat deficiency – 2,732


Students in Pk-5 will be better served by improving student safety and health.

DISTRICT NEEDS: The district needs to address critical over-capacity in schools by providing immediate relief to overcrowded schools and by utilizing existing capacity.




SUPPORTING RESEARCH: N/A


N/A


Bond Contingency Funding - $4,000,000


The district will maximize existing facilities.



W O R K I N G D R A F T A S O F O C T O B E R 5 , 2 0 1 1 1 0

LEARNING SUPPORT CENTERS / DISCIPLINARY PLACEMENT

DELIVERY MODEL: As a general rule, discretionary removals will be served at the home campus with additional support from district staff that will be assigned based on number of discretionary removals and student need. The additional District staff will be part of the existing Child Study Teams.

Campus administrators will no longer be permitted to remove a student for discretionary reasons, unless the student is considered a safety concern (i.e., physical harm to oneself or others). Discretionary removals for safety concerns will be reviewed by the Associate Superintendent's Office.

We will prepare a RFP for a district alternative education program or a Learning Support Center (LSC) that will serve all mandatory removals and discretionary removals if the student is considered a safety concern. The discretionary removals must be reviewed by the Associate Superintendent’s office.



Key Action 1.20: Support campuses in developing culturally relevant training and learning experiences to eliminate achievement gaps, and to decrease over-representation of any student groups in discipline and Special Education programs.

Key Action 1.24: Enhance dropout prevention efforts and explore multiple, proven pathways to graduation and course credit recovery.

Additional Key Actions:

1.16 Improve attendance rates for all students.

1.17 Improve completion rates for all students.

1.19 Implement behavioral, character, social, and other student support systems at all schools effectively and equitably

RATIONALE: District TEAMS data from 2010-11 indicate that attendance rates were 74.6% at ALC and 93.4% at ACES, compared with the AISD district rate of 94.82%. In AISD overall, 10.07% of students were enrolled in special education services, however, on DAEP campuses, almost one-third of the students were enrolled in special education (24.23 % at ALC and 31.41 % at ACES). English language learners made up 28.62 % of students in the District. On DAEP campuses, the enrollment range for ELL students was 22.20% at ACES to 18.24% at ALC. The majority of students enrolled at ACES (81.04%) and ALC (79.09%) campuses were economically disadvantaged. Overall, reading scores for students at the DAEPs lagged up to 18.11 points below the District’s reading results and 27.73 points in writing.

In 2010-2011 high schools had 353 discretionary removals and 783 mandatory removals, and middle schools had 201 discretionary removals and 435 mandatory removals to ALC. At the elementary level, there were 43 mandatory removals and 70 discretionary removals. (Figure 1)




Figure 1: ACES/ALC Removals 2010-2011

Recidivism: The total number of DAEP enrollments and students with at least one removal has continued to increase over the past three years at the elementary and high school levels, but did decrease slightly by .64% at the middle school level for SY2009-2010. (Figure 2)

Figure 2: Three-Year Overview of DAEP Removals

Level Removal Type 2008-2009

2009-2010

2010-2011

High

Sch

ool

Unique Students with a Mandatory Removal 565 704 707

Unique Students with a Discretionary Removal 310 295 314

Total Number of Removals* 1067 1238 1271

Percent of Students with at Least One Removal 3.80% 4.44% 4.50%

Mid

dle

Scho

ol

Unique Students with a Mandatory Removal 422 423 376




Elem

enta

ry S

choo

l Unique Students with a Mandatory Removal 32 53 41




Source: DEEDS Discipline Database for PEIMS

* Includes emergency placements




This data summary demonstrates that students need a different system of academic and therapeutic support.


Campuses will support students by maintaining rigorous and aligned academic programming, social emotional learning curriculum, health education, substance abuse prevention, and parent support and engagement.

DISTRICT NEEDS: District data demonstrate a disproportionate number of minority and special education students are assigned to the District Alternative Education Program. Professional development and campus support will provide an opportunity to change the culture of our district.



• One-Time Start Up Costs $ 0






-$ 5,388,469

• Grant Fund -$ 0

• External/Private Funding -$ 0

• Bond Contingency Funding -$ 0


TOTAL FUNDING GAP -$ 1,048,469*

*The redesigned model is projected to result in an operational savings. This savings could be reduced if negotiated costs exceed projections.

Cost Avoidance: Under this model, the existing site that supports these services could be decommissioned which would yield cost avoidance savings and possible revenue. Estimates are as follows:

1. High Priority Renovations/Maintenance $1,400,000

2. Utility savings $ 200,000

3. Building Sale $7,000,000 - $9,000,000


Full implementation of this model begins in school year 2012-2013. Discretionary removals will be served at the home campus, unless the student is considered a safety concern. Mandatory removals and some discretionary removals (based on issues regarding student safety) will be served at the




district Learning Support Center. If the provider for the Learning Support includes facility space, the existing site that serves mandatory and discretionary removals could be decommissioned.




STEM - MAGNET (9-12)

DELIVERY MODEL: The program delivered in grades 9-12 at an existing school in the southwestern part of the district. Emphasis will be placed on independent research, group collaboration, presentation of new learning, and development of original designs and solutions in science, technology, engineering, and math.




Key Action 1.6: Maintain strong core academic programs with focus on math and science, including at least one fourth-year science course in engineering at each high school.

• Develop academic achievement and support strategy for special populations

• Establish new delivery models to provide an enhanced portfolio of academic options

RATIONALE: STEM education provides students with the opportunity to become critical thinkers through problem-based learning, while increasing science literacy. The ability to apply scientific, technological, engineering, and mathematical principles to design and invent solutions is essential in sustaining and growing our local economy.

The STEM Magnet (9-12) South is an educational option that meets student needs and creates efficient use of space in an under-enrolled campus in Austin ISD. There is a need to have a better utilization of capacity particularly in middle school sites throughout the district, including the southwest area.

Akins and Bowie Vertical Team Data Vertical team analysis of Kindergarten, Prekindergarten, and Prekindergarten through Grade 5 Enrollment from 2007-2011 show the following with regard to the Akins Vertical Team:

• Pre-K through grade 5 enrol lment “growth” for the Akins Vert ical Team has exceeded the distr ict growth (8.6% Akins vt, 6.7% distr ict) over the past four years.

• Akins Vert ical Team kg enrol lment growth i s s l ightly h igher than the growth shown at the distr ict level (5.9% for Akins vt, 5.4% distr ict average) over the past four years.

For the Bowie Vertical Team, vertical team analysis for the same time period and grade levels show that:

• Pre-K through grade 5 enrollment “growth” over the five year period for the Bowie vertical team was much higher than the growth shown at the district level (42% Bowie VT, 6.7% district).

• Bowie Vert ical Team kindergarten growth has s lowed and in the 2010-11 school year was lower than the three previous years at 2%, but the overall growth was 30% over the f ive year per iod compared to 5.4% at the distr ict level .




1 The data are based on the campus designations by vertical teams, not individual student feeder patterns based on students’ residential attendance zone.

The tables below present enrollment data for prekindergarten (pre-k), kindergarten (kg), and prekindergarten through grade 5 based on the October PEIMS snapshot date in each school year. The analysis will focus on kindergarten and the overall enrollment across grades (i.e., prekindergarten – grade 5). Enrollment in prekindergarten is dependent on eligibility; therefore, in isolation it is not viewed as a reliable indicator of enrollment trends. It is important to note that the analysis is historical and does not include projections based on housing starts, applications for building permits, or other possible predictor measures. Akins Vertical Teams1

• Pre-K through grade 5 enrol lment “growth” for the Akins vert ical team has exceeded the distr ict growth (8.6% Akins vt, 6.7% distr ict) over the past four years.

• Akins Vert ical Team kg enrol lment growth i s s l ightly h igher than the growth shown at the distr ict level (5.9% for Akins vt, 5.4% distr ict average) over the past four years.

TABLE 1A: ENROLLMENT: AKINS VERTICAL TEAM

Vertical team 2006–2007

2007–2008

2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Prekindergarten 471 515 478 551 590 Kindergarten 720 719 737 765 763 Pre-K through 5th grade 4,689 4,756 4,756 4,986 5,093

Table 1b: Percentage Change in Enrollment: Akins Vertical Team


2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Kindergarten --- 0% 3% 4% 0% Pre-k through 5th grade --- 1% 0% 5% 2%

Source. PEIMS, 2006–2007 through 2010–2011, Enrollment on October Snapshot Date Note. Elementary schools in the Akins vertical team include: Blazier, Casey, Kocerek, Langford, Menchaca, Palm, and Perez 1 The data are based on the campus designations by vertical teams, not individual student feeder patterns based on students’ residential attendance zone.




2 Baldwin opened in school year 2010-2011.

Bowie Vertical Teams1 • Pre-K through grade 5 enrol lment “growth” over the f ive

year per iod for the bowie vertical team was much higher than the growth shown at the distr ict level (42% bowie vt, 6.7% distr ict).

• Bowie vert ical team kindergarten growth has s lowed and in the 2010-11 school year was lower than the three previous years at 2%, but the overall growth was 30% over the f ive year per iod compared to 5.4% at the distr ict level .

Table 2a: Enrollment: Bowie Vertical Team


2007–2008

2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Prekindergarten 53 81 105 101 125 Kindergarten 616 694 755 785 798 Pre-K through 5th grade 3,491 3,884 4,281 4,540 4,869

Table 2b: Percentage Change in Enrollment: Bowie Vertical Team


2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Kindergarten --- 13% 9% 4% 2% Pre-k through 5th grade --- 11% 10% 6% 7%

Source. PEIMS, 2006–2007 through 2010–2011 Note. Elementary schools in the Bowie vertical team include: Baranoff, Cowan, Baldwin2

, Clayton, Kiker, and Mills

Table 3a: Enrollment: District

2006–2007

2007–2008

2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Prekindergarten 4,619

4,704

4,681

5,018

5,176

Kindergarten 7,312

7,404

7,567

7,680

7,709

Pre-K through 5th 44,854 45,213 46,158 47,194 47,885




Table 3b: Percentage Change in Enrollment: District


2008–2009

2009–2010

2010–2011

Kindergarten --- 1% 2% 2% 0%

Pre-k through 5th grade --- 1% 2% 2% 2%

2 Baldwin opened in school year 2010-2011.

There also needs to be parity and balance of academic options in the district. Currently, there are no middle or high school magnets in the South

Austin.


• Magnet programs offer students advanced academic studies in an environment built on collegial relationships, individual growth, and intellectual rigor. Emphasis is placed on independent research, group collaboration, presentation of new learning, and the development of original designs and solutions. Computers are used as tools to access, process, and generate ideas and students have the opportunity to collaborate with engineers, authors, doctors, and other professionals. Internships, field-based experiences, and laboratory studies also are an integral component of the magnet experience.

• Each program has its own admission application form and deadlines. Some common factors in admission include previous report card grades, nationally-normed standardized test results, an essay or letter, and teacher recommendations.

• Students who are successful in magnet programs are committed to: o a fast paced and challenging academic program o an intensive, high energy day o learning to budget time and activities o cooperation and challenge from peers

DISTRICT NEEDS: Although the district has two middle school magnets (Kealing and Fulmore) and one high school magnet (LASA) and students are recruited from across the district with transportation provided by the district, there are no middle or high school magnets in South Austin. District needs are based on access and equity geographically.


• U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement (2008). Successful Magnet High Schools. http://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/magnet-hs/magneths.pdf

http://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/magnet-hs/magneths.pdf�




• Flaxman, E., Guerrero, A., & Gretchen, D. (1999). The Educational Benefits of Academic Magnets. http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/abstracts/MDS-803/MDS-803-THE.html

• Center for Policy Studies and Education Research. Informational Notes on Research on Magnet Schools. http://icee.isu.edu/Publications-All/RegionIV&VIPubs/Notes_on_magnet_schools.pdf

• What are the Most Effective Elements of Magnet Schools? http://relnei.org/referencedesk.2011-08-26.php


• LASA HS – science strand

• Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders – STEM for grades 6-12

• STEM Academy at Akins HS (Uses Project Lead the Way curriculum http://www.pltw.org/ )




• One-Time Facilities Costs $ 1,631,500

• Annual Operating Costs $ 616,000 - $746,000

Subtotal Estimated Costs $ 2,947,500 - $3,077,500



-$ 0

• Grant Fund -$ 0


• Bond Contingency Funding -$ 1,631,500


TOTAL FUNDING GAP $ 1,316,000 - $1,446,000


An existing campus will be used. The site must include science and technology labs and technology enhancements to support STEM programming.

http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/abstracts/MDS-803/MDS-803-THE.html�

http://vocserve.berkeley.edu/abstracts/MDS-803/MDS-803-THE.html�

http://icee.isu.edu/Publications-All/RegionIV&VIPubs/Notes_on_magnet_schools.pdf�

http://icee.isu.edu/Publications-All/RegionIV&VIPubs/Notes_on_magnet_schools.pdf�

http://relnei.org/referencedesk.2011-08-26.php�

http://www.pltw.org/�




SCHOOL FOR YOUNG MEN AND SCHOOL FOR YOUNG WOMEN

DELIVERY MODEL: Two middle school attendance areas will be combined. Males will attend one school, and females will attend the other middle school. Students who live in the combined attendance zone and who do not want to attend a single-gender school will enroll in another middle school.



Key Actions: 1.4, 1.11, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21


Single-gender schools (serving 650 boys and 650 girls in grades 6 – 8). Mission: Create an academic environment that fully prepares males and females for success in college, career, and life. Goals: Ensure all students: • Reach grade-level performance benchmarks in reading, writing, math, and

science; • Graduate on-time with college-ready skills; and • Enroll in a post-secondary academic program that puts them on the road to

a successful career.

DISTRICT NEEDS: Not only are achievement gaps in AISD evident between girls and boys district wide, they are evident both between racial/ethnic and between boys and girls within racial/ethnic groups. In general, Black and Latino students have lower academic performance than white and Asian students, are more likely to drop out of school, and even if they stay in school, are less likely to graduate on time or graduate at the top of their class. The same gaps exist between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income counterparts.

TAKS Results for 2009-2010

Category Female Male Total

Reading ELA - Met Standard 88.0% 83.0% N/A

Reading ELA - Commended 36.0% 30.0% N/A

Writing - Met Standard 94.0% 87.0% N/A

Writing - Commended 36.0% 26.0% N/A

Math - Met Standard 80.0% 79.0% N/A

Math - Commended 30.0% 31.0% N/A




SY 08-09 Dropouts by Ethnicity within Gender*

Ethnicity Female Male Total

Native American 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Asian/Pacific Is 1.4% 2.4% 1.9%

African American 4.6% 4.9% 4.8%

Hispanic 4.8% 6.0% 5.4%

White 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%

Total 3.7% 4.4% 4.0%

*Grades 9 - 12 only

Class of 2009 Graduation Rate by Ethnicity within Gender



Asian/Pacific Islander 95.3% 86.7% 91.5%


Hispanic 70.5% 64.1% 67.3%

White 89.9% 87.4% 88.7%

Total 78.1% 73.1% 75.6%


Some research shows that schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths (Sax, 2006). Proponents of single-gender education point to a range of other potential benefits, both for students and their teachers (Bracey, 2006), including:

• Increased academic achievement, particularly among “at-risk” students; • Greater staff sensitivity to and awareness of sex differences in learning

and maturation; • Teaching that can more readily incorporate research on differences in

brain development for girls and boys; • Increased equity in curriculum and access to student opportunities; • Diminished strength of youth-culture values; • Provision of positive same-sex role models; • Better peer interactions; • Increased opportunities for students to pursue academic, extracurricular,

and career-oriented activities without regard to sex-role stereotypes. • More same-sex bonding and community.





• Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders, Austin, TX • Excellence Boys & Girls Charter Schools (K-8), Brooklyn, NY • William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity Preparatory (WALIPP)

Academy • Excellence Boys Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant • Young Women’s Leadership School, East Harlem, NY • The Young Women’s Leadership Charter School, Chicago, IL • Irma Rangel Young Women’s Leadership School, Dallas, TX • Urban Prep Academies, Chicago, IL


Estimated Program Costs (based on prototypical model for two schools):







-$ 9,600,000

• Grant Fund (Based on entitlement) -$ TBD


• Bond Contingency Funding -$ 616,204


TOTAL FUNDING GAP $ 1,072,000


The use of an existing facility for each school.




SCHOOL FOR YOUNG MEN (SYM)

DELIVERY MODEL: A single-gender boys school will be created that will serve students from various attendance zones.

STRATEGIC PLAN & BOARD PRIORITY INITIATIVE ALIGNMENTS:

Strategy 1: Provide a high-quality, well-rounded educational experience to all students that is rigorous, culturally relevant, healthful, and engaging. Additional Key Actions: 1.19, 1.20, 1.21


Single-gender school serving grades 6 – 12. Enrollment to begin SY 2013-2014, enrollment projected at 230 students in grades 6th & 7th, Enrollment will increase by 115 students each school year through 2017-2018. Mission: Create an academic environment that fully prepares young men for success in college, career, and life. Goals: Ensure all students: • Reach grade-level performance benchmarks in reading, writing, math,

and science; • Graduate on-time with college-ready skills; and • Enroll in a post-secondary academic program that puts them on the road

to a successful career.

DISTRICT NEEDS: • Only 30% of boys scored above average (achieved “commended” performance) on state assessment of reading, compared with 36% of girls.

• Only 25% of boys scored above average in writing compared with 30% of girls.

• Only 73% of boys graduate high school, compared with 78% of girls. • Only 42% of students in the top 10 percent of the most recent graduating

class were boys, while 58% were girls.

Not only are achievement gaps in AISD evident between girls and boys district wide, they are evident both between racial/ethnic and between boys and girls within racial/ethnic groups. In general, Black and Latino students have lower academic performance than white and Asian students, are more likely to drop out of school, and even if they stay in school, are less likely to graduate on time or graduate at the top of their class. The same gaps exist between low-income students and their middle- and upper-income counterparts.




TAKS Results for 2009-2010

Category Female Male Total

Reading ELA - Met Standard 88.0% 83.0% N/A

Reading ELA - Commended 36.0% 30.0% N/A

Writing - Met Standard 94.0% 87.0% N/A

Writing - Commended 36.0% 26.0% N/A

Math - Met Standard 80.0% 79.0% N/A

Math - Commended 30.0% 31.0% N/A

SY 08-09 Dropouts by Ethnicity within Gender*



Asian/Pacific Is 1.4% 2.4% 1.9%


Hispanic 4.8% 6.0% 5.4%

White 1.6% 1.7% 1.7%

Total 3.7% 4.4% 4.0%

*Grades 9 - 12 only

Class of 2009 Graduation Rate by Ethnicity within Gender



Asian/Pacific Islander 95.3% 86.7% 91.5%


Hispanic 70.5% 64.1% 67.3%

White 89.9% 87.4% 88.7%

Total 78.1% 73.1% 75.6%

SUPPORTING RSEARCH:

Proponents for boys’ schools point to research from Stetson University in Florida that shows boys making significant educational advances in all-boys




classrooms – even greater than the advances made by girls in all-girls classrooms (National Association for Single-Sex Public Educationi). Results from the study showed that on Florida Comprehensive Assessment Tests: 37% of boys in coed classes scored proficient compared with 86% of boys in single-gender classes. In a study published in 2003, the University of Virginia found that boys who attended single-sex schools were more than twice as likely as boys of comparable ability in coeducational settings to pursue subjects such as art, music, drama, and foreign languages, countering gender stereotypesii

.

Interwoven into our single gender educational environment will consist of educational strategies that have been found to be effective. Some research (Younger & Warringtoniii

) groups strategies into four primary domains: pedagogic strategies, individual strategies, organizational strategies, and socio-cultural strategies.

• International Boys School Coalition (http://www.theibsc.org/page.cfm?p=16); Boys-only school can provide a stimulating and safe learning environment that encourages full participation by boys in all activities; promotes self-expression and a respect for the diverse paths to manhood; and provides an atmosphere in which to explore sensitive gender and sex-related issues.

• Sax, L. (2006). Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know about the Emerging Science of Sex Differences? Three Rivers Press. Research shows that schools that use best practices for gender-specific teaching may be more successful at teaching to boys’ and girls’ strengths.

• Lehr, C. A., Johnson, D. R., Bremer, C. D., Cosio, A., & Thompson, M. (2004). Essential tools: Increasing rates of school completion: Moving from policy and research to practice. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, National Center on Secondary Education and Transition.

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS

• Ann Richards School for Young Women Leaders, Austin, TX • Excellence Boys & Girls Charter Schools (K-8), Brooklyn NY • William A. Lawson Institute for Peace and Prosperity Preparatory (WALIPP)

Academy • Excellence Boys Charter School of Bedford Stuyvesant • Urban Prep Academies, Chicago,

PROGRAM COSTS: Estimated Program Costs (based on prototypical model for one school):

• Feasibility and Planning Costs SY 2011-2013 $ 580,716 • One-Time Facilities Costs SY 2012-2013 $ 250,000 • Annual Operating Costs SY2013-2014 $ 2,218,700 • Private Funding Cost SY 2013-2014 $ 1,005,352

Subtotal Cost $ 4,054,768

• Other - Transportation (Receiving School) $ 110,000 • Receiving – one-time support $ 55,000

Total Cost $ 4,219,768

http://www.theibsc.org/page.cfm?p=16�





• Reallocation of existing school/program costs -$ 2,218,700

• External/Private Funding SY2011-2014 -$ 1,586,068 • Bond Contingency Funding -$ 250,000

Total Revenue Sources/Savings -$ 4,054,768

TOTAL FUNDING GAP $ 165,000

*Note: Projected funding contingent on funder approval.

• 2011-2013 Planning $580,716 (Moody Foundation) • 2013-2014 School Operating Contribution $1,005,352 (Moody Foundation) • 2014-2018 School Operating Contribution $3,047,060 (Moody Foundation)

Moody Foundation Funding $4,633,128






DESIGNATE 2008 BOND PROGRAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

DELIVERY MODEL: Open a new elementary school with a capacity for 669 students.




Key Actions: 1.4, 1.11, 1.19, 1.20, 1.21

RATIONALE: 2015-16 School Year

Elementary School Capacity –6,181 seats

Elementary School Students – 8,941 students

Seat deficiency – 2,760

The construction of the 2008 Bond Program elementary school would provide an additional 669 seats, reducing the seat deficiency to 2.091.


At this time, this school will open as an elementary school with grades

Pk – 5.

DISTRICT NEEDS: Provide relief from severe overcrowding at the elementary school level in the north central area of the district.

SUPPORTING RESEARCH: NA

EXAMPLE IMPLEMENTATIONS: NA



• One-Time Start Up Costs $

• One-Time Facilities Costs $

• Annual Operating Costs $

Subtotal Estimated Costs $




Bond funding cost is $27,743,831.


• Reallocation of existing school/program costs -$

• Grant Fund -$

• External/Private Funding -$

• Bond Funding -$

Subtotal Revenue Sources/Savings -$

TOTAL FUNDING GAP $


Construct a single-story, 32-classroom elementary school with land.

two- way dual language immersion program...iv. annual facilities recommendation s facility master...

Documents