BEST PRACTICES IN DISTRICT REZONING - Portland Public Schools

In this report, Hanover Research summarizes approaches that

school districts have used to determine school boundaries and

school assignment processes.

BEST PRACTICES IN DISTRICT

REZONING

Prepared for Portland Public Schools

November 2015

www.hanoverresearch.com

Hanover Research | November 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary and Key Findings ............................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................. 3

Section I: Best Practices Overview ................................................................................... 5

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 5

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINIG SCHOOL BOUNDARIES AND ASSIGNMENTS .................................................... 9

SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT MECHANISMS ............................................................................................. 10

ADDRESSING SEGREGATION ISSUES ............................................................................................... 16

Redistricting and Inequality ............................................................................................. 16

Department of Education Guidance for Race-Based School Assignment Policies .......... 18

Inter-District Policies ........................................................................................................ 20

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES ........................................................................................ 21

Section II: Case Studies .................................................................................................. 24

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................... 25

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................... 28

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........................................................................................................... 33

WASHINGTON, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS ........................................................................................... 35

Appendix A: Tools and Maps ......................................................................................... 41

Hanover Research | November 2015

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS

INTRODUCTION

Portland Public Schools (PPS) has sought the assistance of Hanover in identifying best

practices for re-drawing school boundaries within urban school districts. This report

summarizes the various approaches that school districts have used to determine school

boundaries and school assignment processes, divided into two sections:

Section I: Best Practices Overview summarizes strategies for projecting school 

enrollment and managing over- and under-enrollment, discusses potential criteria to

consider when creating or revising school boundaries, identifies common school

assignment mechanisms, discusses considerations for addressing segregation issues

related to redistricting, and provides an overview of strategies to engage families

and communities in the school boundary review process.

Section II: Case Studies profiles four school districts that have recently undergone 

boundary change processes, highlighting criteria used to create new school

boundaries and strategies used to solicit community feedback and communicate

information about policy changes.

KEY FINDINGS

Hanover identified the following key findings related to school district rezoning:

School assignment processes should be feasible, transparent, efficient, and 

equitable. Enrollment should not exceed school capacity, families should

understand how assignments are made, and the assignment process should not

disproportionately advantage or disadvantage certain groups.

Many urban school districts have turned to redistricting to address under-

enrollment or overcrowding issues, but neither educators nor researchers have

agreed upon best practices for redistricting. However, common approaches to

redistricting include:

o Using controlled choice mechanisms in which students are assigned to a default

school or set of schools (usually based on location) but may opt-out of the

default school through a specific application process.

o Using economic game theory to inform school assignment mechanisms and/or

hiring economists or consultants to re-design school assignment processes.

Hanover Research | November 2015

o Considering criteria such as sibling enrollment and proximity to schools to

determine school assignments. Additional common criteria that inform school

boundary creation include school capacity, transportation, natural or physical

barriers, diversity and equitable access to high-performing schools, student

achievement, enrollment projections, and feeder patterns.

Districts must be aware of how student assignment mechanisms and redistricting 

may have a disproportionate effect on disadvantaged students. High-performing

schools are often unequally distributed throughout districts or may not be

numerous enough to meet existing demand. Many school assignment processes

have the potential to exacerbate inequality because low-income or at-risk students

tend to choose or be zoned for low-performing schools close to their homes.

Districts such as Washington, D.C. and Boston have attempted to address equity

issues by enabling students to access schools outside their neighborhoods, such as

by allocating a certain number of seats at high-performing schools to at-risk, non-

neighborhood students or by creating assignment algorithms that include high-

performing schools as potential choices for all students. Districts should also strive

to improve school quality throughout the system to better serve all students.

Districts have used a variety of strategies to engage the community in revising 

school boundaries and assignment systems, such as interactive websites, focus

groups, surveys, community meetings and workgroups, and participatory advisory

committees. Districts also use websites, communications materials in multiple

languages, letters, public service announcements and billboards, school expos and

fairs, community meetings, and published school rankings to inform parents about

policy changes and school choices. However, districts should be aware that the

process of revising school boundaries or school assignment plans is often difficult

due to large demand for high-performing schools and the confusing and complex

nature of school assignments.

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

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

year projections integrated with data from multiple sources, such as local housing

plans, land use, and transportation plans.

Hanover Research | November 2015

SECTION I: BEST PRACTICES OVERVIEW

This section summarizes strategies for projecting school enrollment and managing over- and

under-enrollment, discusses potential criteria to consider when creating or revising school

boundaries, identifies common school assignment mechanisms, discusses considerations for

addressing segregation issues related to redistricting, and provides an overview of strategies

to engage families and communities in the school boundary review process.

ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Districts typically use enrollment projections to predict which schools will be over- or under-

enrolled.

This may necessitate building new schools or re-drawing school boundaries to

send more students to under-enrolled schools. Accurate enrollment projections are vital

for effective long-term planning. To ensure accuracy of enrollment projections, education

and planning expert Kelley D. Carey recommends the following:

Use five-year projections and planning integrated with data from multiple sources. 

Districts should look at five-year historical trends to better understand local

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

for future enrollment predictions, as these projections may be limited by too many

unknown economic and demographic factors. Districts should also take into account

local five-year plans for housing development or other initiatives that may affect

demographics. Carey recommends a “rolling five-year strategy to bring together

programs, demographics, and facilities.”

That is, districts should conduct computer

mapping of school zones and students every year, integrated with proven five-year

enrollment projections by grade and school. These data should be combined with

data related to building renovation needs and capacities. Additional data that may

inform enrollment projections include birth rates and cohort survival projections,

local transportation and land use plans, and zoning policies.

A full list of data

needed for a five-year planning process is provided in Figure 1.1.

Ensure that planners have skills in computer mapping, demographics analysis, five-

year planning, and involving the public. Educators may not be trained in long-range

planning processes or public engagement strategies.

Therefore, districts may need

to hire planners or other demographics experts to ensure the accuracy of

Enrollment and Student Assignment Planning Practices. (Hanover Research, 2012).

[1] Carey, K.D. “Why Enrollment Projections Go Wrong.” School Superintendents Association, April 2011.

http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=18586 [2] Carey, K.D. “Planning for Integration.”

American School Board Journal, 194:10, October 2007.

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=508004396&site=ehost-live [2] Enrollment

and Student Assignment Planning Practices, Op. cit.

Carey, “Why Enrollment Projections Go Wrong.,” Op. cit.

Practices for Anticipating District Growth. (Hanover Research, 2015).

Carey, K.D. “Why Schools Need Planners.” November 2011. http://www.ocde.us/Facilities/Documents/Why-

Schools-Need-Planners.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

enrollment projections. Districts should also ensure that planners for major

construction or redistricting are able to engage the public in multiple and

meaningful ways.

Figure 1.1: Basic Data Needed for Five-Year Enrollment Planning Processes

DATA TYPE

DATA NEEDED

Demographics

data

 A demographics map showing land uses and planned developments; and

 A demographics map plotting students by their home address for the three school

levels (all maps should be [digital] maps or they will not stay current with street

changes, zone changes, and enrollment changes).

Facilities data

 Data on number of standard and portable classrooms at each school site;

 Data on number of standard classrooms used at each building. List each standard

classroom with its actual use and how many periods per day that use goes on;

 Data on standard classroom uses accepted by the district for all schools and what

uses found are not standard;

 Known needs for renovations—not additions—at each school, and estimated costs;

 Building and site needs as to life safety code, building code, building integrity, health

security, site preservation, support programs, core programs, special programs, and

desirable options;

 Site acreage at each school that is buildable, along with playground area. Identify

site problems with drainage, security, faculty and visitor and student parking, and

bus parking and circulation; and

 Area of each core facility: media center, food service, and physical education, for

example, with a comparison to state standards.

Enrollment

data

 Enrollment projections by grade for five years at each school;

 A school‐zones map with overlays of elementary, middle, and high school zones on a

streets map;

 District student transfer policies: Use computer mapping of students overlaid on

attendance zones and [the district] enrollment database to determine how many

students attend a school other than their zoned school at each facility along with

their home school by the map plotting of all students;

 Data on how students are assigned to schools and what existing alternatives are;

Cost data

 Cost to operate each school per year, not including teachers who will be needed

whether the school is closed or not. It does include payroll costs for principal,

secretaries, media personnel, food‐service personnel and janitors, and utility

expenditures.

Program data

 Separate building and site needs including special program needs and wants; and

 Special needs of special programs (self‐contained special education, magnet, etc.).

Source: Carey, Kelley D.

For a more thorough discussion of public engagement strategies, see page 21 of this report.

Adapted from Carey, Kelley D. School District Master Planning: A Practical Guide to Demographics and Facilities

Planning, Rowman and Littlefield Education, 2011, pp. 18-19, as cited in Practices for Anticipating District Growth,

Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

As many urban school districts have experienced enrollment declines in the last decade,

most recent guidance on enrollment management in K-12 schools focuses on addressing

enrollment declines.

A 2013 report by Boston Consulting Group recommends the following

strategies for responding to enrollment declines:

Understand and manage classroom costs: Districts should be able to disaggregate 

spending data to better understand costs on a per-unit basis per student, course,

grade, and teacher. This data can better clarify how specific actions, such as

increasing class sizes at specific schools, would affect costs.

Plan in advance and take action early. Districts should strive to take a multi-year 

view of their finances, rather than planning year-to-year. Processes for closing

under-enrolled schools should start early in the year to allow time for engaging

families and preparing students for the change.

Retain your best talent: Districts should retain top teachers, leaders, and staff to 

ensure that high-performing schools continue to perform well.

Close severely underutilized schools: Closing low-performing and underutilized 

schools can give districts the opportunity to shift students to higher-performing

schools. A study of school closures in Chicago found that students who transferred

from closed low-performing schools to high-performing schools performed better in

math and reading after one year.

Enable creative staffing and teaching with technology: Schools may be able to use 

online or blended instruction to teach a greater number of students more

efficiently. Schools may also be able to replace some staff, such as librarians, with

non-certified paraprofessionals as a way to save money.

[1] McBride, L. et al. “Adapting to Enrollment Declines in Urban School Systems: Managing Costs While Improving

Educational Quality.” Boston Consulting Group, January 16, 2013.

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/education_public_sector_adapting_enrollment_declines_urb

an_school_systems/#chapter1 [2] DeMoscp, A. “School Districts Get Creative When Enrollment Drops.” District

Administration, July 2013. http://www.districtadministration.com/article/school-districts-get-creative-when-

enrollment-drops [3] “Urban School Districts Can Adapt to Enrollment Declines and Improve Educational Quality

by Taking New Approaches to Cost Management.” Yahoo! Finance, January 16, 2013.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/urban-school-districts-adapt-enrollment-050100289.html [4] McMilin, E.

“Closing a School Building: A Systematic Approach.” National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities, September

2010. http://www.ncef.org/pubs/closing.pdf [5] Dillon, N. “The Hardest Choice.” American School Board Journal,

December 2006.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070701073421/http://www.asbj.com/specialreports/1206SpecialReports/S1.html

McBride et al., Op. cit.

[1] de la Torre, M. and J. Gwyne. “When Schools Close: Effects on Displaced Students in Chicago Public Schools.”

University of Chicago, Urban Education Institute, October 2009.

https://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/CCSRSchoolClosings-Final.pdf [2] DeMoscp, Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Shrink fixed costs and convert to variable costs: Districts may be able to reduce 

costs by reducing central administration expenses and outsourcing noncore

functions to vendors.

For schools experiencing overcrowding rather than under-enrollment, education

researchers, parent groups, and the National Center for Education Statistics suggest that the

following strategies may alleviate overcrowding issues:

Modify how school structures are used: Schools may use portable classrooms or 

use non-instructional spaces as temporary classrooms to ease overcrowding.

Create alternate schedules: Staggered lunch schedules, year-round schedules, or 

split-day schedules can ease overcrowding by ensuring that not all students are in

the building at the same time.

Lease buildings: Leasing arrangements may be a temporary solution to 

overcrowding while districts build new facilities.

Reconfigure existing schools: Redesigning grade configurations may be a potential 

solution to overcrowding issues. Some schools in Brooklyn, for example, established

K-3 centers at middle schools that had extra capacity.

Build new schools: Educational researchers Ready, Lee, and Welner argue that 

building new schools is the best sustainable response to overcrowding concerns.

They contend that common approaches such as increasing class sizes, providing

temporary structures, or creating alternative schedules ultimately decrease

educational quality, cause public health problems, and limit students’ ability to

participate in extracurricular activities. However, the authors do acknowledge that

building new facilities is a tremendous cost for districts. Plans for new facilities

should be based on the five-year planning strategies discussed previously in this

section. Districts may be able to build new schools on existing school property or use

innovative financing mechanisms, such as bonds or private sector partnerships, to

support new schools.

[1] Ready, D.D., V.E. Lee, and K.G. Welner. “Educational Equity and School Structure: School Size, Overcrowding,

and Schools-Within-Schools.” Teachers College Record, 106:10, October 2004.

http://www.colorado.edu/UCB/AcademicAffairs/education/faculty/kevinwelner/Docs/Ready_et_al_Educational_

Equity_School_Structure.pdf [2] “Condition of America’s Public School Facilities: 1999 - Overcrowding.” National

Center for Education Statistics, June 2000.

http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/frss/publications/2000032/index.asp?sectionid=8

Woloz, M. “Five Quick and Inexpensive Ways to End Overcrowding.” EPP Monitor, Spring/Summer 2004.

Ready, Lee, and Welner, Op. cit.

Woloz, Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Many urban school districts have recently turned to redistricting as a strategy to address

overcrowding,

but neither educators nor researchers have agreed upon best practices for

redistricting processes. A 2003 study of school boundary and school assignment methods

called for research to assess the effectiveness of school boundary and assignment policies in

districts throughout the country.

However, Hanover was unable to identify examples of

such research; most recent research on school boundaries consists of descriptive studies,

case studies, and economic theories, none of which have definitively pointed to the most

effective redistricting strategies or policies. Therefore, rather than making best practice

recommendations, the remainder of this report describes the various approaches school

districts throughout the country have used to determine school boundaries and

assignments. Where applicable, we provide recommendations made by education experts,

associations, or government agencies, but PPS should keep in mind that there is not a

general consensus in the education field regarding best practices for district rezoning.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINIG SCHOOL BOUNDARIES AND ASSIGNMENTS

District priorities play a large role in creating school boundaries and student assignment

plans. Districts may wish to consider factors such as costs of busing students to school;

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

schools; and desire to maintain racial and socioeconomic balance across schools.

A 2003

study of school boundary and school assignment methods in 15 urban school districts found

that districts considered these and a variety of other criteria to create boundaries for school

assignments.

Common considerations included:

School capacity and enrollment; 

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

[1] Green, E.L. and N. Sherman. “School Boundary Lines Could Change in City.” Baltimore Sun, March 30, 2015.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/education/bs-md-ci-school-zones-20150708-story.html [2] Teale,

C. “Alexandria City School Board Moves Forward with Redistricting Plan.” Alexandria Times, May 28, 2015.

http://alextimes.com/2015/05/alexandria-city-school-board-moves-forward-with-redistricting-plan/ [3]

Hennigan, G. “Iowa City School District Backs Off Redistricting Plans.” KCRG-TV9, April 23, 2014.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/Iowa-City-School-District-Backs-Off-Redistricting-Plans-151642415.html [4]

Taylor, K. “Race and Class Collide in a Plan for Two Brooklyn Schools.” September 22, 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/nyregion/race-and-class-collide-in-a-plan-for-two-brooklyn-schools.html

[5] Lindenbaum, J. “APS Redistricting: Bring on the Trailers.” Curbed Atlanta, April 10, 2012.

http://atlanta.curbed.com/archives/2012/04/10/aps-redistricting-bring-on-the-trailers.php [6] Chesky, M.

“Oklahoma City Public Schools Release Proposed Redistricting Maps.” KOCO 5 News, March 24, 2014.

http://www.koco.com/news/oklahoma-city-public-schools-release-proposed-redistricting-maps/25140844 [7]

Bottalico, B. “No Redistricting for Overcrowded Annapolis School.” Capital Gazette, April 23, 2015.

http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/ph-ac-cn-redistricting-0423-20150423-story.html

Brown, A.K. and K.W. Knight. “School Boundary and Student Assignment Procedures in Large, Urban, Public School

Systems.” Education and Urban Society, 37:4, August 2005.

http://search.proquest.com/docview/202706601?accountid=132487

Pathak, P.A. “The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment.” Annual Review of Economics, 3, 2011.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/9414

Brown and Knight, Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Neighborhood population and size of residential buildings; 

Anticipated growth; 

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

Sibling enrollment at schools; 

Census tract and geo-code data; 

Existing student feeder patterns; 

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

Race,

ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other demographic data. 

Two of the districts in the study—Boston and Chicago—collaborated with universities to

develop school assignment policies based on quantitative and mapping data. Several

districts commented that the boundary selection process was difficult, emphasizing the

need for flexibility and making compromises.

SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT MECHANISMS

This sub-section summarizes school assignment literature, most of which stems from

economic game theory. This body of literature discusses potential mechanisms for

incorporating student/family preferences and school priorities into students’ school

assignments. School priorities may include geographic or neighborhood considerations, such

as assigning students to schools within a certain walking distance.

In selecting a student assignment mechanism, economists say that schools should

consider:

Feasibility: Schools should ensure that enrollment does not exceed school capacity 

and only eligible students are enrolled at each school.

Individual choice: If students are assigned at schools that parents or families 

consider unacceptable, the family may choose an outside option such as a private or

charter school, home schooling, or another option.

The 2007 Supreme Court Case Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc. v. Seattle School District limited the use

of race as a deciding factor for school assignment. For a more detailed discussion of this issue, see page 18.

Abdulkadiroglu, A. “School Choice.” In The Handbook of Market Design, (Oxford University Press, 2013).

http://people.duke.edu/~aa88/articles/scsurvey-handbook.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

 Efficiency: The school assignment process should promote student welfare to the

greatest extent possible.

The Institute for Innovation in Public School Choice provides similar recommendations,

arguing that school assignment models should be guided by:

Transparency: It should be easy to tell how the seats were distributed and what 

policies were used in making allocations.

Efficiency: If there are two students applying to the same schools, both students 

should get an offer instead of one person getting two offers and the other person

having to wait until the other one chooses.

Equitability: The process should be fair, and no group should be intentionally or 

unintentionally disadvantaged.

Public school districts have used a variety of methods for school assignment. As traditional

neighborhood-based student assignments may lead to segregation based on race or

socioeconomic status, schools have explored various methods to offer students access to

schools beyond their neighborhoods.

Assignment methods are typically categorized as

comprehensive choice systems or controlled choice systems:

Comprehensive choice system: In this system, families are not assigned to a default 

school and can apply to any school in the district.

Few districts have implemented

true comprehensive choice systems due to court-ordered desegregation

guidelines.

Rather, most rely on controlled choice systems.

Limited or controlled choice system: In this system, students usually have a default 

school but can opt out through an application or other process.

Students may also

express preferences for schools by submitting rankings or preferences. Controlled

Quoted verbatim from “Q&A on School Choice and Enrollment: Neil Dorosin and Gaby Fighetti from The Institute

for Innovation in Public School Choice.” Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, May 19, 2015.

http://www.msdf.org/blog/2015/05/qa-school-choice-enrollment-processes-neil-dorosin-gaby-fighetti-institute-

innovation-public-school-choice/

Abdulkadiroglu, Op. cit.

Pathak, “The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment,” Op. cit.

Abdulkadiroglu, A. and T. Sonmez. “School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach.” American Economic Review,

93:3, June 2003.

http://www.uibk.ac.at/economics/bbl/lit_se/papierews06_07/abdulkadiroglu_soenmez(200_)_.pdf

Pathak, “The Mechanism Design Approach to Student Assignment,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

choice systems can give parents some options while also maintaining diverse

student bodies.

Common controlled choice mechanisms include:

Boston mechanism: This method was developed by Cambridge and Boston Public 

Schools in the 1980s after eliminating neighborhood zones. In this method, a central

clearinghouse collects students’ school preference rankings and matches students to

schools based on preferences and priority status, attempting to assign as many

students as possible to first-choice schools. Priority status is determined based on

how far away a student lives from a ranked school and whether a student’s sibling

attends the school. Because a number of students often tie for priority at certain

schools, random tie-breaking is used to determine school assignments for students

with equal priority. Variations of the Boston mechanism have been used in school

districts such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina; Miami-Dade, Florida;

Minneapolis, Minnesota; Providence, Rhode Island, and Tampa-St. Petersburg

Florida.

However, this method is often criticized for its potential for manipulation;

that is, students/families may improve their assignments by misrepresenting their

preferences. Abdulkadiroglu and colleagues, economists who have redesigned

school assignment mechanisms in school districts such as Boston and New York,

provide the following explanation of the Boston mechanism’s limitations:

“Since a student who ranks a school as her second choice loses her priority to

students who rank it as their first choices, it is very risky for the student to

“waste” her first choice at a highly sought after school if she has relatively low

priority. Hence the Boston mechanism gives students and their parents a strong

incentive to misrepresent their preferences by improving the ranking of schools

for which they have high priority.”

Gale-Shapley student-optimal stable mechanism (SOM), also known as a student-

proposing deferred acceptance mechanism: In this method, a student “proposes” a

first-choice school, and schools tentatively assign students to first-choice schools

Ehlers, L. et al. “School Choice with Controlled Choice Constraints: Hard Bounds versus Soft Bounds.” Journal of

Economic Theory, 153, 2014. https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/isaemin/EHYY-JET.pdf

[1] Abdulkadiroglu, Op. cit. [2] Kesten, O. and M.U. Unver. “A Theory of School-Choice Lotteries.” Theoretical

Economics, 10, 2015. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3982/TE1558/pdf [3] Kesten, O. and M.U. Unver. “A

Theory of School-Choice Lotteries.” May 2010. http://people.duke.edu/~aa88/matchingconference/Kesten.pdf

[4] Abdulkadiroglu and Sonmez, Op. cit. [5] Ehlers et al., Op. cit. [6] Pathak, “The Mechanism Design Approach to

Student Assignment,” Op. cit. [7] Morrill, T. “Two Simple Variations of Top Trading Cycles.” Economic Theory, 60,

2015. [8] Pathak, P.A. and T. Sonmez. “School Admissions Reform in Chicago and England: Comparing

Mechanisms by Their Vulnerability to Manipulation.” American Economic Review, 103:1, 2013.

http://economics.mit.edu/files/9410 [9] Abdulkadiroglu, A. et al. “Changing the Boston School Choice

Mechanism.” National Bureau of Economic Research, January 2006. http://www.nber.org/papers/w11965.pdf

[10] Pathak, P.A. “Lotteries in Student Assignment.” November 2006.

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2007_01-16_Pathak_Loitteries.pdf

Pathak and Sonmez, Op. cit.

Abdulkadiroglu et al., Op. cit., p. 6.

Hanover Research | November 2015

based on priority order (based on location, siblings, test scores, or other priority

criteria). Students not assigned in the next round propose their next best choice.

Schools assign remaining seats while considering students held over from previous

steps and new applicants. Unlike the Boston method, students are assigned

tentatively so that students with higher priorities may be considered in subsequent

steps. Therefore, students do not lose seats to lower priority students and do not

lose priority at a school to those who rank the school as a higher choice. This

mechanism is considered to be “strategy-proof,” or not prone to manipulation like

the Boston mechanism. The outcome of SOM can easily be explained to parents: if a

student does not get into their first-choice school, it is because every enrolled

student at the first-choice school has a higher priority than that student.

A graphic

representation of the SOM process used by New York City’s public schools is

provided in Figure 1.2 on the following page.

Abdulkadiroglu, Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Figure 1.2: New York Times Depiction of New York City’s SOM-Based Student Assignment

Process

Source: New York Times

Tullis, T. “How Game Theory Helped Improve New York City’s High School Application Process.” New York Times,

December 5, 2014. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/nyregion/how-game-theory-helped-improve-new-

york-city-high-school-application-process.html?_r=0

Hanover Research | November 2015

Top trading cycles (TTC) mechanism, also known as the efficient transfer 

mechanism: While SOM makes tentative assignments based on student preferences,

TTC makes tentative assignments based on school priorities.

Again, priorities may

be related to sibling enrollment, demographic balances, students’ distance from

school, or other criteria of importance to districts. This method consists of cycles in

which one seat at a time is assigned to highest priority students. In each cycle, a

student identifies their preferred school, and each school identifies a student with

the highest priority. Each student is included in one cycle, and each cycle results in a

student being assigned to a seat. If a student is unhappy with their assignment,

priority at one school can be “traded” for priority at another school, depending on

the student’s priority status. This mechanism is also considered to be strategy-proof.

If a student is not accepted to their first-choice school in this method, it is because

every seat at the first-choice school was initially assigned to a higher priority

student, and the student could not be transferred to the first choice because they

did not have enough priority at other schools.

Serial dictatorship mechanism, or random priority mechanism: In this mechanism, 

the school does not make priority-based assignments. Students are assigned to their

preferred schools (among available schools) one at a time in a randomly drawn

order. This method is considered to be strategy-proof due to its random selection

process. However, students must be able to rank all possible choices for the

mechanism to be strategy-proof. In Chicago’s previous high school assignment

method, students were only able to rank four out of nine possible choices, creating

the need for “strategic calculations on which choices to list and which ones to

drop.”

First Preference First mechanism: This method is a hybrid between the Boston 

mechanism and SOM. School assignments are based solely on student rankings of

schools. When a student applies to their first-choice school, they are immediately

offered a seat if they qualify. This method was widely used in England, but was

banned in 2007 due to concerns about incentives for parents to distort their

preferences as well as potential unfairness to participants who didn’t attempt to

“game” the system.

SOM appears to be the most commonly used and commonly recommended mechanism.

In fact, Dr. Lloyd Shapley, an early theoretical contributor to SOM, and Dr. Roth, one of

several economists who developed a version of SOM used in New York City’s public high

Abdulkadiroglu, Op. cit.

Ibid.

Pathak, P.A. “NBER Reporter 2014 Number 1: Research Summary - School Assignment and School Effectiveness.”

National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014. http://www.nber.org/reporter/2014number1/pathak.html

[1] Pathak and Sonmez, Op. cit. [2] Pathak, “NBER Reporter 2014 Number 1: Research Summary - School

Assignment and School Effectiveness,” Op. cit.

[1] Abdulkadiroglu et al., Op. cit. [2] Sonmez, T. “Policy and Practice Impacts.” 2013.

http://www.tayfunsonmez.net/policy-impact/

Hanover Research | November 2015

schools, both won a Nobel Prize for the SOM algorithm in 2012.

A number of school

districts in the past decade have shifted to SOM due to desires to use assignment systems

less prone to manipulation than the Boston mechanism. Boston Public Schools, for example,

shifted to SOM in 2005 in an effort to “remove ‘incentives to game the system.’”

Denver

Public Schools have also shifted to a version of the SOM model,

and all schools in England

rely on SOM for public school assignments.

Ultimately, developing school assignment

mechanisms, particularly in urban districts, is a complex task for which school districts often

seek the guidance of economists or consultants.

ADDRESSING SEGREGATION ISSUES

In addition to considering school priorities and student/family preferences in school

assignment, school districts must be aware of potential equity and segregation issues

associated with redistricting and school choice processes. Although a thorough discussion of

segregation issues in K-12 education is beyond the scope of this report, this section

identifies three areas that PPS may wish to be aware of as it undergoes its rezoning process:

1) potential effects of redistricting on education inequality; 2) U.S. Department of Education

guidance for race-based school assignment policies; and 3) inter-district policies.

REDISTRICTING AND INEQUALITY

School districts should be aware of how the application of student assignment mechanisms

and redistricting may have a disproportionate effect on disadvantaged students. For

example, a 2014 New York Times article about New York City’s SOM school assignment

process says that while the mechanism greatly increased the number of students assigned

to first-choice schools, high-performing schools are still scarce within the district.

Low-

income and low-performing children are more likely to be assigned to low-performing

schools, partly because they tend to rank lower-achieving schools as their top choices. The

article’s author explains:

“It seems that most students prefer to go to school close to home, and if nearby

schools are underperforming, students will choose them nevertheless. Researching

other options is labor intensive, and poor and immigrant children in particular may

not get the help they need to do it.”

[1] Tullis, Op. cit. [2] “The Prize in Economic Sciences 2012 - Stable Matching: Theory, Evidence, and Practical

Design.” Royal Swedism Academy of Sciences, 2012. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-

sciences/laureates/2012/popular-economicsciences2012.pdf

Abdulkadiroglu et al., Op. cit., p. 2.

[1] Pathak and Sonmez, Op. cit. [2] Pathak, “NBER Reporter 2014 Number 1: Research Summary - School

Assignment and School Effectiveness,” Op. cit.

Sonmez, Op. cit.

[1] Schulzke, E. “‘Controlled Choice’: Does Mixing Kids Based on Family Income Improve Education?” Desertet News

National, April 10, 2014. http://national.deseretnews.com/article/1265/controlled-choice-does-mixing-kids-

based-on-family-income-improve-education.html [2] Pathak, “The Mechanism Design Approach to Student

Assignment,” Op. cit. [3] Abdulkadiroglu et al., Op. cit.

Tullis, Op. cit.

Ibid.

Hanover Research | November 2015

In addition, a 2013 study by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform found that a large

number of students in New York City—36,000 each year—do not participate in the high

school choice process, requiring the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to assign

them to schools.

The students are usually high-need students, such as new immigrants,

special needs students, previous incarcerated students, homeless youths, or students with

histories of behavioral problems. Unfortunately, these students are disproportionately

assigned to low-performing high schools that are unequipped to serve their unique needs.

The study’s authors argue that the district must improve school performance overall and

more equitably distribute students throughout the city, but they do not make

recommendations for strategies to reduce the number of students left out of the school

choice process.

Rezoning and redistricting process may also negatively affect disadvantaged students and

families. A 2014 study of the redistricting process in a major metropolitan city (not

identified by the study author) found that the process actually increased racial and

socioeconomic segregation in the district.

To address over- and under-enrollment in

several schools, the district considered several re-zoning options, including merging over-

and under-capacity schools and re-zoning some white students to a predominantly black

middle school. This option was preferred primarily by African-American families wanting to

preserve their neighborhood schools, as well some middle-class white families already using

these schools. This choice would have also increased racial and socioeconomic diversity

within schools. However, the district ultimately decided to close two predominately black

elementary schools and re-zone these students to other Title I schools. This resulted in a

number of minority and low-income students being zoned out of more academically

competitive schools into lower-performing schools and/or schools further away from their

homes. In addition, many white middle-class families who had previously used the

neighborhood schools were concerned about the district’s lack of commitment to their

neighborhoods and decided to enroll their students in charter schools.

The study’s author makes several broad recommendations to address unequal impacts of

redistricting:

Districts may develop strategies to make schools more attractive to middle-class 

families who are zoned for, but frequently opt-out of neighborhood schools; and

School districts must work to ensure that minority and low-income students, 

families, and communities do not bear the burden of redistricting.

Arvidsson, T.S., N. Frutcher, and C. Mokhtar. “Over the Counter, Under the Radar: Inequitably Distributing New York

City’s Late-Enrolling High School Students.” Annenberg Institute for School Reform, 2013.

http://annenberginstitute.org/sites/default/files/OTC_Report.pdf

Penn, D. “School Closures and Redistricting Can Reproduce Educational Inequality.” Center for Poverty Research

Policy Brief, 3:5, 2014. http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/sites/main/files/file-

attachments/cpr_penn_redistricting_brief.pdf

Quoted almost verbatim from Ibid., p. 2.

Hanover Research | November 2015

However, the author does not provide detailed guidance regarding strategies for making

neighborhood schools more attractive or ensuring that redistricting does not

disproportionately affect disadvantaged students. A 2013 evaluation of New York City’s

school assignment mechanism does provide several recommendations to improve student

outcomes and promote equity within the school choice and assignment process, although

these recommendations are specific to New York City’s needs:

Remove residential preferences for school assignment, as well as other screening 

procedures that are not essential to the mission of a school. The report’s authors

argue that prioritizing residential preferences is a problem because “parents of

means” can choose a school through purchase of a home in certain neighborhoods,

whereas lower-income families do not have this option.

Take significantly greater care to assure that economic, educational, and 

residential advantages of students’ parents are not reflected in the quality of

public schools to which students are assigned. Potential strategies include:

o Using student test scores to inform the student assignment policy and achieve a

balanced distribution of students;

o Improving the web-based process by which parents and students express their

preference for schools, such as by providing more information on individual

schools and developing tools to help parents determine the best choice for their

child; and

o Strengthening district-wide policies that enhance the effectiveness of schools and

the teacher workforce.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GUIDANCE FOR RACE-BASED SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT POLICIES

The 2007 Supreme Court decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle

School District invalidated programs in Seattle and Louisville that considered race as a

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

demonstrated that they had seriously considered race-neutral alternatives to their

policies.

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

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

Schools are

Whitethurst, G. and S. Whitfield. “School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools - Will

the Past Be Prologue?” Brookings Institution, October 2013.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/10/08-school-choice-in-new-york-city-

whitehurst/school-choice-and-school-performance-in-nyc-public-schools.pdf

Ibid., p. 7.

“Guidance on the Voluntary Use of Race to Achieve Diversity and Avoid Racial Isolation in Elementary and

Secondary Schools.” U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Jusstice, 2011.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/guidance-ese-201111.pdf

Ibid.

Hanover Research | November 2015

not prohibited from using race as a consideration for achieving diversity or avoiding racial

isolation in school districts. However, the agencies state that schools must “consider

approaches that do not rely on the race of individual students before adopting

approaches that do.” These approaches may include:

Race-neutral approaches, which take racial impact into account but do not rely on 

race as an express criterion; and

Generalized race-based approaches, which use race as an express criterion but do 

not treat individual students differently because of race.

Districts may consider the race of individual students only if the district does so “in a

manner that is narrowly tailored to meet a compelling interest,” that is, to meet the goals of

achieving diversity or avoiding racial isolation. Race-based approaches should only be used

if race-neutral or generalized approaches are unable to achieve the district’s compelling

interests. Even when taking race into account, race cannot be the deciding factor in school

assignment.

Finally, the agencies provide a set of key steps for implementing programs to achieve

diversity or avoid racial isolation:

Identifying the reason for the district plan: 

o Determine how these compelling interests relate to the school district’s mission

and unique circumstances.

o Evaluate how the district will know when compelling interest has been achieved.

Implement the plan: 

o Consider whether there are race-neutral approaches the district can use, such as

looking at socioeconomic status or the educational level attained by parents. In

selecting among race-neutral approaches, the district may take into account the

racial impact of various choices. If it’s determined that race-neutral measures

would be unworkable, consider whether using an approach that relies on the

generalized use of racial criteria, such as the racial demographics of feeder

schools or neighborhoods, would help to achieve your goals.

o If race-neutral and generalized race-based approaches would be unworkable to

achieve compelling interest(s), the district may then consider approaches that

take into account the race of individual students. When doing so, evaluate each

Quoted almost verbatim from Ibid., p. 8.

Hanover Research | November 2015

student as an individual and do not make the student’s race his or her defining

characteristic. Periodically review the program to determine if the district

continues to need to consider the race of individual students to achieve the

compelling interest. It is important to ensure that race is used to the least extent

needed to workably serve the district’s compelling interest.

General considerations: 

o Continue to consider factors that the district ordinarily weighs in student

assignment and other decisions, such as current and projected student

enrollment, travel times, and sibling attendance issues. As the district reviews

these factors in light of changes, such as increased or decreased demand at

school sites, it should also examine its practices to achieve diversity or avoid

racial isolation and modify them if needed.

o The district’s process for students or parents to raise concerns about school

assignments or other school decisions should be open to students or parents

who wish to raise concerns about decisions made pursuant to efforts to achieve

diversity or avoid racial isolation.

o It would be helpful to maintain documents that describe the district’s compelling

interest, and the process the district has followed in arriving at its decisions,

including alternatives considered and rejected and the ways in which the chosen

approach helps to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation. These documents

will help the district answer questions that may arise about the basis for the

decisions.

INTER-DISTRICT POLICIES

Educational policies to address segregation and inequality by re-configuring boundaries

have generally focused on boundaries within school districts.

However, more than 80

percent of racial and ethnic segregation in public schools in the United States is due to

boundaries between school districts rather than within districts.

This inequality between

districts has led several researchers and education organizations to argue for the need for

more inter-district desegregation programs.

For example, a 2011 report by the National

School Boards Association states that school leaders “may want to consider inter-district

Wells, A.S. et al. “Boundary Crossing for Diversity, Equity and Achievement: Inter-District School Desegregation and

Educational Opportunity.” Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race & Justice, Harvard Law School, November

2009. http://www.charleshamiltonhouston.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Wells_BoundaryCrossing.pdf

[1] Ibid. [2] Siegel-Hawley, G. “Mitigating Milliken? School District Boundary Lines and Desegregation Policy in Four

Southern Metropolitan Areas, 1990-2010.” American Journal of Education, 120:3, May 2014.

[1] Wells et al., Op. cit. [2] Siegel-Hawley, Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

policies to enhance the size and diversity of the participating student pool.”

However,

inter-district policies may be complicated by legal, logistical, and political challenges related

to transportation, resources, and community resistance.

Due to PPS’ interest in rezoning within its own district, this report does not provide case

studies of inter-district policies to achieve diverse student bodies. However, case studies of

inter-district desegregation programs are available in recent reports published by the

Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice

and the American Journal of

Education.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGIES

Parental and community engagement in school decision-making processes is vital,

particularly in redistricting and rezoning processes. The 2003 study of school boundary

processes in 15 school districts identified several promising community engagement

strategies, including:

Focus groups to determine parental preferences for school choice options; 

Community meetings and workshops to gather input and convey information; 

Attendance boundary committees, consisting of both staff and parents, to 

determine school boundaries. These committees were reported by several districts

in Florida:

o Miami-Dade County reported that its committee, composed of 17 non-school-

board members, used a “grassroots, democratic-driven process” for decisions

about boundary changes.

Regional superintendents would present information

about schools targeted for boundary changes or reconfiguration, and the

committee made recommendations based on public forums, board meetings,

and analysis of demographic data.

o Palm Beach County reported that its committee served in an advisory capacity to

the Superintendent of Schools. The committee would hold community meetings

to gather input regarding proposed changes to school boundaries. Final

decisions were based on the district’s five-year capital plan; population growth

Coleman, A.L., F.M. Negron, Jr., and K.E. Lipper. “Achieving Educational Excellence for All: A Guide to Diversity-

Related Policy Strategies for School Districts.” National School Boards Association, 2011. p. 33.

https://diversitycollaborative.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/document-

library/educexcellenceforall_printfriendly.pdf

Coleman, Negron, Jr., and Lipper, Op. cit.

Wells et al., Op. cit.

Siegel-Hawley, Op. cit.

Brown and Knight, Op. cit., p. 405.

Hanover Research | November 2015

data; land use and residential development plans within the municipality; and

criteria such as transportation time, socioeconomic diversity, facility capacity,

and feeder systems and transfers.

o Hillsborough County’s committee consisted of parents, “concerned citizens,”

principals, and other district staff.

The committee focused on diversity, student

proximity to schools, student safety, transportation requirements, projected

population growth, community issues, geographic dividers, feeder patterns, and

student needs to make boundary decisions.

Providing the community with demographic information and a set of steps for the 

boundary review process. Broward County reported that its school boundary

process occurs annually and lasts throughout almost the whole year. The district

developed a boundary process flowchart and timeline to communicate information

about the process to the public. Steps in the process included data gathering,

boundary conferences, forums, public workshops, scenario development, analysis of

community input, and public hearings.

A 2014 guidance document for Race to the Top grantees provides general recommendations

for engaging the community to improve low-performing schools.

These general

engagement strategies can easily be applied to engaging the community the school zoning

and districting process:

Make engagement a priority and establish an infrastructure. Districts can develop 

mission statements and plans for engagement or create advisory groups dedicated

to engaging parents and the community. Districts or schools may also wish to create

staff positions for community engagement and/or ensure that hired staff have roots

in the community and have backgrounds in communications or community

organizing.

Communicate proactively in the community. Districts should use a range of 

traditional and nontraditional communication tools, such as mailings, newsletters,

blogs, email, open houses, workshops, and events such as barbecues or picnics.

Schools should also make outreach materials accessible by providing materials in

multiple languages, considering parent literacy and technology access, holding

events in safe and welcoming places. Schools should also strive to remove barriers

to participation by offering transportation and/or child care for community meetings

or forums. Finally, districts must ensure that parents and communities are engaged

early on in the process.

Ibid., p. 407.

“Strategies for Community Engagement in School Turnaround.” Reform Support Network, March 2014.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/implementation-support-unit/tech-assist/strategies-for-community-

engagement-in-school-turnaround.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

Listen to the community and respond to its feedback. Districts can gather feedback 

through conversations, public forums, surveys, or focus groups. Districts can show

that that have listened to feedback by taking action in response to community input.

For more information about strategies that individual school districts have used to inform

and engage parents in the school boundary and assignment process see Section II. In

addition, links to tools and maps that districts have used to communicate information about

school boundary changes are provided in Appendix A.

Hanover Research | November 2015

SECTION II: CASE STUDIES

This section profiles four school districts that have recently undergone boundary change

processes: Boston Public Schools, Denver Public Schools, Seattle Public Schools, and

Washington, D.C. Public Schools. We highlight criteria districts have used to create new

school boundaries as well as strategies used to solicit community feedback and

communicate information about policy changes. Figure 2.1 provides demographic

information about each district, although profiled districts were not chosen based on

demographic similarity to PPS.

Figure 2.1: Demographic Information for Profiled School Districts

SCHOOL YEAR 2012-2013 DATA

BOSTON

DENVER

SEATTLE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

PORTLAND

Land area (square miles)

48.4

153.3

83.9

61.4

152

Population

625,087

634,265

620,778

632,323

460,248

(2010)

Percent of population under 18

17%

22%

16%

17%

19% (2010)

Total public school enrollment

63,780

84,424

49,870

80,231

48,459

School district enrollment

57,100

72,618

49,870

45,557

45,218

Number of district schools

127

162

117

Charter school enrollment

6,680

11,806

34,674

1,764

Number of charter schools

101

Percent of students eligible for meal

subsidies

75%

72%

40%

77%

49%

Percent of students bused

52% (2012)

34%

42% (2011)

<1%

Unknown

Source: 21

Century School Fund,

school district data,

and census data

Profiled districts have used controlled choice systems that prioritize neighborhood schools.

Denver, Seattle and Washington, D.C. use neighborhood attendance zones to determine

school assignment, although each district provides options for students to access schools

outside their neighborhoods. Boston has eliminated zones altogether, instead

implementing a home-based model that prioritizes access to schools within a one-mile

radius of students’ homes while ensuring that students have the ability to select high-

performing schools if none exist in their neighborhoods. Profiled districts generally rely on

school location and sibling priority to determine school assignments, and also consider

Data for PPS is from school year 2014 to 2015.

Adapted from “Student-Assignment Policies in Other Cities.” 21st Century School Fund, November 19, 2013. p. 5.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Policy%20Brief%202%20-

%20Other%20Cities%20Final%20Draft.pdf

[1] “About Portland Public Schools.” Portland Public Schools, 2014. http://www.pps.k12.or.us/about-us/ [2] “School

Profiles - Reports.” Portland Public Schools, 2014. http://www.pps.k12.or.us/departments/data-

analysis/9837.htm [3] “Portland Public Schools Enrollment Forecasts.” Portland State University Population

Research Center, August 2014. http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/data-analysis/PSU-PPS_Report_1314.pdf [4]

“Annual Budget.” Portland Public Schools, June 23, 2014.

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/files/budget/2014_15_PPS_Adopted_Budget1.pdf

“Portland (city) QuickFacts.” U.S. Census Bureau, October 14, 2015.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html

Hanover Research | November 2015

factors such as diversity, physical barriers, transportation, and distribution of at-risk

students when determining school boundaries and priorities.

Districts have used a variety of strategies to engage the community in revising school

boundaries and assignment systems, such as interactive websites, focus groups, surveys,

community meetings and workgroups, and participatory advisory committees. Districts use

websites, communications materials in multiple languages, letters, public service

announcements and billboards, school expos and fairs, community meetings, and published

school rankings to inform parents about policy changes and school choices. Despite

community engagement strategies, however, the process of revising school boundaries or

school assignment plans is often difficult due to large demand for high-performing schools

and the confusing and complex nature of school assignments.

BOSTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Boston Public Schools’ (BPS) school assignment process was redesigned in 2004 and again in

2013.

As mentioned in Section I, the district switched from the so-called Boston

mechanism to SOM-based assignment in 2004.

In this algorithm, half of schools’ seats were allotted for students with neighborhood or

“walk-zone” priority, while half of seats were allotted for students without neighborhood

priority.

From 1989 to 2013, zoning was based on a three-zone system originally

implemented to desegregate the city’s schools. The 2004 re-design process proposed a new

system with four, six, or 12 zones, but BPS chose to retain the three-zone system under the

new assignment algorithm.

However, this system was often cumbersome and confusing to

parents—families had to select from approximately two dozen school choices over a large

geographical area. In addition, this system often led to disadvantaged students being

assigned to low-performing schools because these schools were closer to their homes.

As part of a mayor-led effort to improve families’ confidence in school choice process and

provide better school options close to families’ homes, the district began searching for a

new school assignment plan in 2012.

The mayor appointed a 27-member advisory

committee—divided into data, equality, and community sub-committees—to identify and

propose changes to the existing school assignment system. The committee conducted an

intensive, year-long research process to develop a new plan, working closely with university

[1] Abdulkadiroglu et al., Op. cit. [2] Dur, U. et al. “The Demise of Walk Zones in Boston: Priorities vs. Precedence in

School Choice.” October 2014. http://economics.mit.edu/files/10007

Dur et al., Op. cit.

Vaznis, J. “Boston School Committee Expected to Take Historic Vote on Student Assignment.” Boston Globe, March

13, 2013. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/03/13/boston-school-committee-expected-take-historic-

vote-student-assignment/WNqa3hYG1YNFgkTnEqV8NI/story.html

[1] Seligson, S. “Boston School Assignment Plan Marks New Era.” BU Today, March 26, 2013.

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/boston-school-assignment-plan-marks-new-era/ [2] Seelye, K.Q. “No Division

Required in This School Problem.” New York Times, March 12, 2013.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/education/no-division-required-in-this-school-problem.html

Vaznis, “Boston School Committee Expected to Take Historic Vote on Student Assignment,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

researchers and holding over 70 community meetings to solicit feedback on proposed

plans.

The new plan, designed by a doctoral student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

is a home-based school assignment model that eliminated zones altogether.

The system

still uses an SOM-based assignment algorithm, but does not consider walk-zone priority.

Under the new plan, parents receive customized lists of schools to choose from based on

where the family lives. Every school on the list is located within a one-mile radius of the

family’s home, but the list must include at least two top-performing schools (in the top 25

percent) and at least four schools in the top 50 percent of the district’s performance.

schools within the one-mile radius do not meet these qualifications, the list will include the

next nearest high-performing schools. In addition, lists may include schools further than one

mile if the population of an area exceeds the number of available seats at a school. The

algorithm guarantees a minimum of six choices, but each family typically receives a list of

approximately 10 to 16 schools.

Families may rank as many choices as they wish.

In addition to considering school performance and neighborhood, the new plan makes

assignments based on the following priorities:

Sibling priority: Students that have siblings at the same school are given priority; 

Feeder patterns: Students attending certain early education or middle schools have 

priority at certain pathway/feeder schools; and

English language learning students and students with disabilities: These students 

have access to a wider cluster of schools due to program availability.

BPS has used a variety of public outreach strategies to inform families about the new school

assignment method and school choices, including:

Public service announcements and billboards (see Figure 2.2). 

[1] Seligson, Op. cit. [2] Seelye, Op. cit.

[1] Seelye, Op. cit. [2] “Student Assignment Policy.” Boston Public Schools, 2014.

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/assignment [3] “How BPS Assigns Students.” Boston Public Schools, 2015.

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/654 [4] “The Home-Based School Choice Plan.” Boston Public Schools,

2015. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/1024 [5] “How School Assignment Works In Boston.” WBUR,

November 20, 2014. http://learninglab.wbur.org/topics/how-school-assignment-works-in-boston/

Pathak, P.A. and P. Shi. “Demand Modeling, Forecasting, and Counterfactuals: Part 1.” January 2015.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1401.7359v4.pdf

[1] “Student Assignment Policy,” Op. cit. [2] “How School Assignment Works In Boston,” Op. cit.

[1] Vaznis, J. “Boston Parents Acclimate to School Choice System.” Boston Globe, January 27, 2014.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/01/27/new-school-assignment-plan-causes-some-confusion-among-

parents/GLORWdD0zdw3SvkAdpnSfM/story.html [2] “Learn about Your School Choices.” Boston Public Schools.

http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/29

[1] “Learn about your school choices,” Op. cit. [2] Vaznis, “Boston Parents Acclimate to School Choice System,” Op.

cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

A total of 24 informational meetings in neighborhoods throughout the city. 

BPS’ school registration website:

The website allows parents to view their 

customized lists after entering their address and child’s grade. Parents can also

search for schools on a variety of criteria, from location to school hours to uniform

policy.

In addition, the BPS’ website explains the school assignment process and

choices in thorough detail.

Documents describing the district’s K-8 and high

schools are available in eight languages.

BPS’ website provides the following advice

on navigating the registration process:

o Apply within the first registration period;

o Select at least five choices;

o List schools in order of true preference; and

o Choose a variety of schools.

Annual school showcases and information sessions: K-8 and high school showcases 

provide information about families’ various school options. In addition, school

registration information sessions take place in each neighborhood annually in

November through January.

“Discover BPS.” Boston Public Schools. http://www.discoverbps.org/

Scola, N. “How Boston Is Building the Hotels.com of Public Schools.” Next City, November 14, 2013.

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/how-boston-is-building-the-hotels.com-of-public-schools

“Student Assignment Policy,” Op. cit.

“Publications.” Boston Public Schools, 2015. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/304

“When to Make Choices and Register.” Boston Public Schools. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/653

“Learn about your school choices,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Figure 2.2: Example of Billboard Sponsored by Boston Public Schools to Advertise New

School Choice Plan and Website

Source: Next City

Initial registration under the new system went smoothly,

but software glitches led to a

delay in 9,000 students receiving their school assignments; some students did not receive

assignments until just three weeks before classes started. For the 2015 school year, over six

thousand students were assigned to schools that were not their first choices.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS

In 2010, Denver Public Schools began introducing the concept of “shared enrollment

zones”—geographic areas in which students are guaranteed a seat at one of several schools

but not at one particular school.

The district’s stated reasons for using shared boundary

zones include:

Increasing access to high-performing schools; 

Increasing access to transportation options; 

Scola, Op. cit.

Vaznis, “Boston Parents Acclimate to School Choice System,” Op. cit.

[1] “Boston Public Schools Superintendent Apologizes For Delayed Release Of School Assignment Lists.”

iSchoolGuide, September 2, 2015. http://www.ischoolguide.com/articles/24224/20150902/boston-public-

schools-superintendent-release-school-assignment.htm [2] Fox, J.C. “BPS Superintendent Chang Pledges Smooth

Start despite Wait-List Woes.” Boston Globe, August 20, 2015.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/08/20/bps-superintendent-chang-pledges-smooth-start-despite-

wait-list-woes/KlTfTS9K0wenIXZH5wVAYM/story.html

[1] Robles, Y. and E. Gorski. “Denver Public Schools Looks to Better Integrate Schools through ‘Enrollment Zones.’”

Denver Post, June 13, 2015. http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_28305017/dps-looks-better-integrate-schools-

through-enrollment-zones [2] “Shared Enrollment Zones.” Denver Public Schools.

http://face.dpsk12.org/community/shared-enrollment-zones/

Adapted from “Shared Enrollment Zones,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Prioritizing neighborhood students; 

Providing access to different types of school programs; and 

Helping schools to better plan for the right number of students. 

The district’s superintendent argues that the larger shared zones will promote integration

and school choice within the district, saying:

“The narrower you draw your boundaries, the more likely you are to see schools

that are less diverse. The broader you draw the zone, the more likely you are to

draw greater diversity.”

The district uses an “opt-in” school choice process, meaning that students are assigned to

their default neighborhood or zoned schools, unless they decide to participate in the

district’s choice system.

Both district schools and charter schools are included in the

school choice process. Families in shared enrollment zones have extra incentive to

participate in the choice process, because their children would otherwise be randomly

assigned to a school within the zone.

Through a centralized, annual application process, either paper or online, families can list up

to five school choices in order of preference.

Final assignments are primarily based on

neighborhood and sibling priority. Students are guaranteed a spot at their neighborhood

school, but if a student lists a non-neighborhood school as the first choice, they may lose

their guaranteed spot at their neighborhood school.

The district states that it makes

school assignments based on the following priority order:

Students who, for various reasons, have a new residence school within Denver and 

wish to remain at the current school;

Zubrzycki, J. “School Board Moves a Step Away from Neighborhood Middle Schools in Northwest Denver.”

Chalkbeat Colorado, June 18, 2015. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/06/18/school-board-moves-another-step-away-

from-neighborhood-middle-schools-in-northwest-denver/#.Vjfv3LerSUk

[1] Gross, B., M. DeArmond, and P. Denice. “Common Enrollment, Parents, and School Choice: Early Evidence from

Denver and New Orleans.” Center on Reinventing Public Education, May 2015.

http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/cpe-report-common-enrollment-denver-nola.pdf [2] Zubrzycki, J. “In

Denver Enrollment Zones, Charter Middle Schools Are Clear Favorite (and 4 Other Takeaways).” Chalkbeat

Colorado, April 6, 2015. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/04/06/in-denver-enrollment-zones-charter-middle-schools-

are-clear-favorite-and-4-other-takeaways/#.VjjS27erTIW

Zubrzycki, “In Denver Enrollment Zones, Charter Middle Schools Are Clear Favorite (and 4 Other Takeaways),” Op.

cit.

“2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Elementary Schools.” Denver Public Schools, 2015.

http://webforms.dpsk12.org/departments/communications/Guide_Elementary_web.pdf

Quoted verbatim from “Choice Brochure Document.” Denver Public Schools. p. 3.

http://www.dpsk12.org/manila/departments/sts/ChoiceApplicationInformation.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

Students wishing to return to their residence school; 

Denver resident siblings of students currently enrolled and projected to be enrolled 

in the school for the next school year;

Students residing in approved special transportation areas to those schools where 

transportation is provided;

Other district resident applicants; 

Non-resident siblings of students projected to be enrolled in the school for the next 

school year; and

Other non-resident applicants. 

In addition, many magnet programs, innovation schools, traditional schools, and charter

schools may develop their own priority criteria for selecting students.

Some schools, for

example, may give priority to children of school staff.

The district uses several strategies to communicate information about school choice to

families:

Enrollment guides and school rankings: The district publishes annual guides in 

English and Spanish to assist parents in selecting district and charter schools.

The

guide uses a “School Performance Framework” to code each school by performance:

red for “on probation,” orange for “priority watch,” yellow for “on watch,” green for

“meeting expectations,” and blue for “exceeding expectations.” These ratings are

based on measures for academic growth, academic proficiency, college and career

readiness, student engagement, enrollment rates, and parent satisfaction.

addition, school profiles in the enrollment guide provide information about

transportation, before- and after-school programming, breakfast and lunch,

uniforms, and English language acquisition services.

An example of a school profile

is provided in Figure 2.3 on the following page. Most parents in Denver rely heavily

on the district’s performance rankings to select schools.

“2015-16 Individual School Priorities.” Denver Public Schools, 2015. http://schoolchoice.dpsk12.org/how-to-enroll-

in-a-school/individual-school-priorities-pages/

[1] Gross, DeArmond, and Denice, Op. cit. [2] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Elementary Schools,”

Op. cit. [3] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Middle and High Schools.” Denver Public Schools, 2015.

http://webforms.dpsk12.org/departments/communications/Guide_Secondary_web.pdf

“School Performance Framework.” Denver Public Schools. http://spf.dpsk12.org/

[1] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Middle and High Schools,” Op. cit. [2] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice

Enrollment Guide - Elementary Schools,” Op. cit.

Gross, DeArmond, and Denice, Op. cit., p. 15.

Figure 2.3: Sample Denver Public Schools Enrollment Guide Profile of an Elementary School

Source: Denver Public Schools

“2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Elementary Schools,” Op. cit., p. 49.

Interactive website: The district’s SchoolMatch website allows parents to search for 

school features important to them and review lists of matched schools. Parents may

search for schools based on a variety of criteria, such as language or physical

education services, meals offered, before- and after-school programming,

performance rankings, special programs, athletics, and honors courses.

School fairs: The district’s “Great Schools Expo” allows parents to speak with 

representatives from schools throughout the district to learn more about school

options.

School visits: Parents may schedule visits at individual schools to meet the principal, 

take a tour, or schedule a classroom visit.

100

In 2015, around 25,000 students participated in the school choice process, with around 95

percent being placed in one of their top five schools, while 78 percent were placed in their

first-choice schools.

101

Although a significant number of students were not placed in first-

choice schools, district staff argue that this does not mean the system is not working. It

simply means that some schools, especially certain charter schools, are much more popular

than others and not all students can be assigned to their top choices.

102

Ultimately, an

uneven supply of high-quality schools throughout the district can lead to dissatisfaction

with school choices when demand for high-quality schools exceeds the supply.

103

Parents at

recent community meetings regarding school zones in Denver expressed concern over

proposed middle school zoning plans, saying that new enrollment zones will not meet the

demand for high-quality middle schools in the area.

104

A recent evaluation of the district’s school choice process lauded the simple enrollment

process, but pointed out several problems:

105

Low-income students are more likely than middle-income students to be assigned 

to their first choice schools, but this is because they tend to select lower-quality

schools based on transportation.

[1] “Discover a World of Opportunity at the DPS Great Schools Expo!” Denver Public Schools, 2015.

https://www.dpsk12.org/expo/ [2] Gross, DeArmond, and Denice, Op. cit.

100

“How to Choose a School.” Denver Public Schools. http://schoolchoice.dpsk12.org/how-to-choose-a-school/

101

Zubrzycki, “In Denver Enrollment Zones, Charter Middle Schools Are Clear Favorite (and 4 Other Takeaways),” Op.

cit.

102

Ibid.

103

Gross, DeArmond, and Denice, Op. cit.

104

Zubrzycki, J. “Denver Parents Push for More Space in Neighborhood Middle Schools.” Chalkbeat Colorado, May 19,

2015. http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/05/19/denver-parents-push-for-more-space-in-comprehensive-middle-

schools/#.VjjS3berTIV

105

DeGrow, B. “Report Finds Denver’s ‘SchoolChoice’ System Improves Enrollment, More Focus Needed on

Performance.” Education Watchdog, January 20, 2015. http://watchdog.org/194131/school-choice-study-denver/

Hanover Research | November 2015

The higher the district ranks a school on performance, the less likely a student will 

be assigned to that school as a first choice. Parents tend to prefer high-performing

schools. However, researchers argue that the district’s performance ranking

methods are flawed because too much emphasis is placed on year-to-year academic

growth measures rather than proficiency measures that would be more meaningful

for parents. A survey of Denver parents found that parents wanted more

information about school culture, teachers’ approaches, and relationships between

adult staff and students, and parents tend to find school visits to be the most helpful

in identifying preferred schools.

106

SEATTLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Seattle Public Schools has made two major revisions to its school assignment plan in recent

years—first in 2009 and again in 2013.

107

The 2009 change moved the district to a

neighborhood-based system in an effort to simplify school assignments and address over-

and under-enrollment,

108

using a version of the Boston mechanism to assign students to

schools.

109

In this plan, each student is assigned to an elementary, middle, and high school

based on their residence, but may apply to be admitted to a school in another area or a city-

wide magnet school.

110

Attendance areas were based on demographic data and

projections, proximity to school and walk zones, physical barriers, bus routes, and

diversity.

As a result of overcrowding and enrollment projections that predicted an increase of more

than 10,000 students in the next decade, the district created new attendance boundaries

for elementary and middle schools in 2013,

111

but did not change its neighborhood-based

assignment policy.

112

A key component of the 2013 revision was changing around 20

percent of elementary school boundaries. Elementary schools were previously clustered

around nine middle schools, but the new plan assigned some elementary schools to new

middle schools to ease overcrowding.

113

106

Gross, DeArmond, and Denice, Op. cit., p. 19.

107

[1] Higgins, J. “Seattle Redraws School Maps to Ease Overcrowding.” Seattle Times, September 18, 2013.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/seattle-redraws-school-maps-to-ease-overcrowding/ [2]

Higgins, J. “Seattle School Board OKs Boundary Plan.” Seattle Times, November 21, 2013.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/seattle-school-board-oks-boundary-plan/ [3] Shaw, L.

“Seattle Schools Return to Neighborhood-Based System.” Seattle Times, November 18, 2009.

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/seattle-schools-return-to-neighborhood-based-system/

108

Shaw, Op. cit.

109

Pathak and Sonmez, Op. cit.

110

“Student-Assignment Policies in Other Cities,” Op. cit.

111

[1] Higgins, “Seattle Redraws School Maps to Ease Overcrowding,” Op. cit. [2] “Growth Boundaries.” Seattle Public

Schools, October 13, 2015. http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/cms/one.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=17293

112

“Superintendent’s Procedures for Student Assignment.” Seattle Public Schools, December 10, 2014.

http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/Migration/Families&Communities/3130SP.pdf

113

Higgins, “Seattle Redraws School Maps to Ease Overcrowding,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

The district’s boundary review process was guided by the following principles:

114

Ground decisions in data; 

Create boundaries that reflect equitable access to services and programs; 

Maximize walkability; 

Enable cost-effective transportation; 

Maintain key elements of the current student assignment plan, including diversity, 

choice, and feeder patterns;

Minimize disruptions by aligning new boundaries with current attendance area 

boundaries when feasible;

Be mindful of fiscal impact; and 

Be responsive to family input to the extent feasible. 

The district began phasing in the new boundaries in 2014 and will continue until

construction and renovation of new schools is completed in 2020.

115

The district holds

community meetings each year to provide information about boundary changes and answer

questions.

116

In addition, the district’s process for revising school boundaries involved

several community engagement efforts, including:

A dedicated website describing the boundary review process; 

Informal meetings and discussions to share ideas; and 

Community meetings throughout the district, with interpreters provided at each 

meeting.

114

Adapted almost verbatim from “Guiding Principles.” Seattle Public Schools, 2013.

http://www.seattleschools.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_543/File/District/Departments/Enrollment%20Planning/

Growth%20Boundaries/GB_guiding-principles-050813.pdf

115

[1] “Project Archive - Summary of the 2013 Growth Boundaries Project.” Seattle Public Schools.

http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=2756479 [2] “Maps for Future Years.”

Seattle Public Schools. http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=17300

116

“Upcoming Community Meetings.” Seattle Public Schools, September 21, 2015.

https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=2297605

Hanover Research | November 2015

In September 2015, the School Board introduced amendments to the approved boundary

changes due to parents’ feedback—parents of students at a certain elementary school

wanted their students to be assigned to their previously zoned middle school rather than

the new middle schools.

117

In addition, the Board is considering adjustments to its student

assignment plan to address tiebreakers and other confusing aspects of the plan.

118

Seattle school assignments are primarily based on attendance zones but families can

request that their students be assigned to a school outside their attendance area through

an annual open enrollment process.

119

Parents may list several choice options that can

include traditional schools as well as “option schools” such as STEM, college prep, or

language immersion schools.

120

Assignments are based on school capacity, neighborhood

zones, sibling priority, feeder patterns, and transportation zones.

A 2013 report by the 21

Century School Fund noted that the district has created extensive

grandfathering policies and modifications to its student assignment plan and new school

boundaries, creating additional costs for the district and confusion for families as the district

must communicate policy changes on an annual basis.

121

WASHINGTON, D.C. PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Washington, D.C. Public Schools conducted a ten-month planning process (see Figure 2.4 on

the following page) from 2013 to 2014 to revise student assignment policies and school

boundaries, resulting in a new student assignment plan beginning in the 2015 to 2016

school year.

122

The goal of the process was to redraw boundaries to minimize over- or

under-crowding, address travel and safety issues, prevent transfers to charter or suburban

schools, and change confusing zoning policies that had resulted from school closures.

123

The

117

“Proposed Changes to Approved Boundaries.” Seattle Public Schools, September 25, 2015.

http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=2411705

118

[1] Ibid. [2] “Growth Boundaries,” Op. cit.

119

“Open Enrollment for School Choice (1).” Seattle Public Schools, 20155.

https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=19543

120

“Seattle Public Schools’ Option Schools.” Seattle Public Schools, February 20, 2015.

https://www.seattleschools.org/cms/One.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=19699

121

“Student-Assignment Policies in Other Cities,” Op. cit.

122

“Student Assignment and School Boundaries Review Process.” Govermnent of the District of Columbia, Office of

the Deputy Mayor for Education, 2015. http://dme.dc.gov/book/student-assignment-and-school-boundaries-

review-process

123

[1] Brown, E. “D.C. Releases Proposed School Boundaries and Far-Reaching Student Assignment Policies.”

Washington Post, April 5, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-releases-proposed-school-

boundaries-and-far-reaching-student-assignment-policies/2014/04/05/368521e0-bc46-11e3-96ae-

f2c36d2b1245_story.html [2] Brown, E. “D.C. Releases New Boundaries Proposal with Emphasis on Neighborhood

Schools.” Washington Post, June 12, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-releases-new-

boundaries-proposal-with-emphasis-on-neighborhood-schools/2014/06/12/828e30b0-f245-11e3-914c-

1fbd0614e2d4_story.html

Hanover Research | November 2015

boundary review process was the first major boundary change for D.C. schools in 40

years.

124

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education worked with an advisory committee of

parents, community members, and other experts to review student assignment policies,

district school boundaries, and feeder patterns. The advisory committee contracted the 21

Century School Fund to assess current school assignment policies and demographic

projections in the district and analyze school choice policies in other cities. These data

informed the committee’s policy recommendations.

125

In addition, the committee solicited

community feedback through several methods:

126

Focus groups: The advisory committee conducted 22 focus groups for 177 

participants, mostly parents of school-age children. An additional focus group was

added late in the process to ensure participation from a traditionally underserved

area of the city.

127

Community working group meetings: Community working groups were held in 

three locations throughout the city to provide information about the school

boundary review process and solicit community input.

Online forum: An online forum provided a venue for the public to review materials 

from advisory committee meetings and share ideas.

City-wide community dialogues: After proposed policy recommendations were 

released, the advisory committee held three community meetings throughout the

city. At each meeting, breakout groups discussed how the proposed policies would

affect specific high schools and corresponding feeder schools.

128

124

Chandler, M.A. and A.C. Davis. “Bowser Announces ‘tweaks’ to D.C. School Boundary Plan.” Washington Post,

February 27, 2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/bowser-announces-tweaks-to-dc-school-

boundary-plan/2015/02/27/b5f33f34-be2f-11e4-bdfa-b8e8f594e6ee_story.html

125

[1] “Student Assignment and Choice Policy in the District of Columbia.” 21st Century School Fund, October 25,

2013. http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Policy%20Brief%201%20-

%20DC%20Student%20Assignment%20and%20Choice%20Policy%20DRAFT_0.pdf [2] “Student-Assignment

Policies in Other Cities,” Op. cit. [3] “The Landscape for Student Assignment and School Choice in D.C.” 21st

Century School Fund, January 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Policy%20Brief%203_The%20Lands

cape%20for%20Student%20Assignment%20and%20School%20Choice_Jan%20DRAFT_0.pdf

126

“Getting Involved and Timeline.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for

Education, 2014. http://dme.dc.gov/book/student-assignment-and-school-boundaries-review-process/getting-

involved-and-timelin

127

“D.C. Student-Assignment Focus Groups.” 21st Century School Fund, March 17, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Fcus%20Grp%20Rpt%20Anlys%20FI

NAL%20DRAFT_3-17.pdf

128

“Join the Conversation: Student Assignment and DCPS School Boundaries Review Process.” D.C. Public Schools,

2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/June%20Meetings%20flier_0.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

Online survey: An online survey solicited community feedback on the initial draft of 

policy recommendations.

Figure 2.4: Washington, D.C. Public Schools Timeline for School Boundary Review Process

ACTIVITY TYPE

OCT.

2013

NOV.

2013

DEC.

2013

JAN.

2014

FEB.

2014

MAR.

2014

APR.

2014

MAY

2014

JUN.

2014

JULY.

2014

AUG.

2014

SEPT.

2014

Boundary

revision

Advisory committee meetings

Proposed

policies

released

Meeting

Final

report

Final

meeting

Final

plan

released

Research

Technical research and analysis

Develop

recommendations

Proposed

policies

released

Revise

recommendations

Community

engagement

Focus groups, surveys, and small

group meetings

Working group

meetings

City-wide meetings

Source: Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education

129

and D.C. Public Schools

130

Information about the new school boundaries was communicated to parents and the public

through:

Press releases;

131



Online materials and maps: Documents such as the new student assignment 

plan,

132

frequently asked questions,

133

implementation plan, and boundary tweaks

134

were posted on the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education’s website. Important

documents, such as flyers for community meetings and the document describing the

new boundary plan, were provided in six languages: English, Spanish, French,

Amharic, Chinese, and Vietnamese.

135

An interactive map provided by the

Washington Post allowed parents to look up specific addresses or schools re-

129

“Timeline Table.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/node/734972

130

“Boundaries and Feeder Planning.” District of Columbia Public Schools, 2014. http://dcps.dc.gov/boundaries

131

[1] “DC Advisory Committee on Student Assignment Releases Its Final Recommendations.” DC Advisory Committee

on Student Assignment, August 21, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Advisory%20Committee%20Press%

20Release%20-%20Final.pdf [2] “Mayor Gray, Citing Need to Continue Progress on Education Reform, Accepts

Committee’s Final Recommendations on Student Assignment Policies and DCPS Boundaries.” Government of the

District of Columbia, Executive Office of the Mayor, Office of Communications, August 21, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/DCPS_Boundaries_Press%20Release

%20COS-Comms%20FINAL.pdf

132

“Student Assignment and School Boundaries - DCPS Summary of SY15-16 Implementation Plan - October 2014.”

Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, November 3, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/node/945162

133

[1] Ibid. [2] “Implementation Plan March 2015.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy

Mayor for Education, June 2, 2015. http://dme.dc.gov/node/1072102

134

“Boundary and School Assignment Tweaks (February 2015).” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the

Deputy Mayor for Education, February 27, 2015. http://dme.dc.gov/node/1018112

135

[1] “Getting Involved and Timeline,” Op. cit. [2] “Final Recommendations on Student Assignment Policies and DCPS

School Boundaries - August 2014.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for

Education, August 21, 2014. http://dme.dc.gov/node/885172

Hanover Research | November 2015

assigned to new zones.

136

Finally, the district’s Enrollment Boundary Information

System allows families to search for schools assigned to their home address,

137

and

the district’s LearnDC website allows parents to review comprehensive profiles of

each school.

138

Parent letters: Parent letters, also available in six languages, provided an overview 

of boundary changes.

139

Despite community engagement throughout the boundary review process, the Washington

Post reported that redrawing school boundaries was “emotional and politically heated

because of a dramatic variation in the quality of the city’s schools.”

140

The advisory

committee’s initial recommendations proposed replacing neighborhood schools with lottery

admissions, which was met with enormous resistance.

141

The final approved plan preserved

a neighborhood school system while providing pathways for children to gain access to

schools outside their immediate neighborhoods. Key components of the new school

assignment and boundary plan include:

142

Assigning each home address to one elementary, middle, and high school, 

eliminating previous policies that allowed students to be zoned to multiple schools;

Converting existing K-8 schools to elementary schools and assigning older students 

to three new neighborhood middle schools;

Allowing students in re-zoned schools to stay in their former school if they have a 

sibling attending the school;

Opening a new application-only middle school in an underserved area of the city; 

Creating smaller attendance zones for some in-demand schools; 

136

Mellnik, T., E. Chow, and K. Park. “D.C.’s New School Boundaries for 2015.” Washington Post, August 21, 2014.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/dc-school-zones/

137

“EBIS - Enrollment Boundary Information System.” District of Columbia Public Schools.

http://dcatlas.dcgis.dc.gov/schools/

138

“LearnDC.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the State Superintendent of Education.

http://learndc.org/

139

[1] “DCPS Parent Letter.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education,

August 21, 2014. http://dme.dc.gov/node/885142 [2] “DCPS Parent Letter - October 2014.” Government of the

District of Columbia, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Education, November 5, 2014.

http://dme.dc.gov/node/946332 [3] “Getting Involved and Timeline,” Op. cit.

140

Chandler and Davis, Op. cit.

141

Brown, “D.C. Releases New Boundaries Proposal with Emphasis on Neighborhood Schools,” Op. cit.

142

[1] Chandler, M.A. and M. DeBonis. “D.C. Mayor Gray Adopts New School Boundary Recommendations.”

Washington Post, August 21, 2014. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/dc-mayor-gray-adopts-

new-school-boundary-recommendations/2014/08/21/9fed7d4a-249b-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html [2]

Brown, “D.C. Releases Proposed School Boundaries and Far-Reaching Student Assignment Policies,” Op. cit. [3]

Brown, “D.C. Releases New Boundaries Proposal with Emphasis on Neighborhood Schools,” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

Allowing students zoned for Title I schools to attend preschool in these schools, 

replacing a previous preschool lottery system; and

Setting aside 10 percent of elementary school seats, 15 percent of middle school 

seats, and 20 percent of high school seats for out-of-boundary students to better

distribute at-risk and disadvantaged students by giving at-risk students priority

status for out-of-boundary seats in affluent schools.

The school assignment system uses a lottery in which students can rank up to 12 school

choices. Families submit rankings via the My School DC online portal, which also allows

students to search for schools by grade and location and find key information about schools,

such as transportation options and average reading and math scores for each school.

143

Students are given priority status for school assignment based on:

144

In-boundary preference for pre-school students: Priority is given to preschool 

students to attend schools in their neighborhood.

Sibling preference: Students with a sibling attending a specific school for the current 

or upcoming year are given preference for that school.

Proximity preference: Students who are zoned for an elementary school that is 

more than a half mile from their home are given preference in the lottery for a

school that is within a half mile of their home address.

D.C. mayor Muriel Bowser, elected after the school boundary review process was

completed, was concerned that the new boundaries would still lead to increased racial

disparities in the district, arguing that the new boundaries relied too heavily on physical

barriers, such as green spaces and rivers, to determine attendance zones.

145

In 2015, she

implemented several “tweaks” to the new attendance boundaries to allow students to have

more access to sought-after high schools.

146

Changes included extending the phase-in policy

143

“My School DC.” D.C. Public Schools. http://www.myschooldc.org/

144

“My School DC Lottery and Enrollment Policy Handbook.” D.C. Public Schools, February 23, 2015.

http://dcps.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dcps/publication/attachments/Lottery%20Policy%20Handbook4.p

145

Chandler and Davis, Op. cit.

146

[1] Ibid. [2] “Frequently Asked Questions - Tweaks to the Student Assignment Policies and DCPS School Boundary

Recommendations.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of Mayor Muriel Bowser, February 27, 2015.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundary%20Tweaks%20FAQ%20%

282%29.pdf [3] “Mayor Bowser Unveils Tweaks to Student Assignment Plan; Announces State Superintendent of

Education.” Government of the District of Columbia, Office of Mayor Muriel Bowser, February 27, 2015.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/Boundaries%20Release%20%28Febr

uary%202015%29%20_0.pdf [4] “Grandfather and Boundaries Graphic.” Government of the District of Columbia,

Office of Mayor Muriel Bowser, February 27, 2015.

http://dme.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/dme/publication/attachments/grandfather%20and%20boundaries

%20graphics.pdf

Hanover Research | November 2015

for families assigned to new middle schools; and allowing certain middle school students to

have two high school options.

Hanover Research | November 2015

APPENDIX A: TOOLS AND MAPS

This table lists examples of maps and other tools that school districts mentioned in this

report have used to communicate information about school assignment processes and

boundaries.

Figure A.3.1: School District Tools and Maps Communicating Information about School

Boundaries and

SCHOOL DISTRICT

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION

Boston Public

Schools

 School registration website

147

and school choice information available on district

website,

148

including a description of the assignment plan available in several

languages,

149

advice on registering,

150

and answers to frequently asked

questions

151

 School listing and map

152

Denver Public

Schools

 School choice information available on district website,

153

including general

information about the school assignment process, shared enrollment zone

information,

154

list of individual school priorities,

155

a school finder search

function

156

, and answers to frequently asked questions

157

 Annual enrollment guides in English and Spanish for elementary, middle, and high

schools, including school performance rankings

158

 SchoolMatch website

159

Seattle Public

Schools

 Archived information about 2013 boundary review process

160

 Maps of school boundaries by year through 2020

161

 Instructions for the open enrollment process

162

147

“Discover BPS,” Op. cit.

148

[1] “Learn about your school choices,” Op. cit. [2] “How BPS assigns students,” Op. cit.

149

“The Home-Based School Choice plan,” Op. cit.

150

“When to Make Choices and Register,” Op. cit.

151

“Frequently Asked Questions.” Boston Public Schools. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/Page/223

152

“School Listings.” Boston Public Schools. http://www.bostonpublicschools.org/domain/175

153

[1] “How to choose a school,” Op. cit. [2] “New Student Enrollments.” Denver Public Schools.

http://schoolchoice.dpsk12.org/how-to-enroll-in-a-school/new-student-enrollment/

154

“Shared Enrollment Zones,” Op. cit.

155

“2015-16 Individual School Priorities,” Op. cit.

156

“Find Your Neighborhood Denver Public Schools.” Denver Public Schools. http://schoolfinder.dpsk12.org/

157

“FAQs.” Denver Public Schools. http://schoolchoice.dpsk12.org/contact/frequently-asked-questions-2/

158

[1] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice Enrollment Guide - Elementary Schools,” Op. cit. [2] “2015-2016 SchoolChoice

Enrollment Guide - Middle and High Schools,” Op. cit.

159

“SchoolMatch.” Denver Public Schools. http://schoolmatch.dpsk12.org/

160

“Project Archive - Summary of the 2013 Growth Boundaries project,” Op. cit.

161

[1] “Growth Boundaries,” Op. cit. [2] “Maps by Year.” Seattle Public Schools.

http://sps.ss8.sharpschool.com/cms/one.aspx?portalId=627&pageId=17296

162

“Open Enrollment for School Choice (1),” Op. cit.

Hanover Research | November 2015

SCHOOL DISTRICT

RESOURCE DESCRIPTION

Washington, D.C.

Public Schools

 Various communication materials and reports regarding the boundary review

process, including: timeline,

163

parent letters in multiple languages,

164

final

recommendations,

165

information about boundary tweaks,

166

and boundary

change implementation plan

167

 Searchable boundary information system to identify schools assigned to specific

home addresses

168

 My School DC website, an online portal where families can search for schools and

submit school choice preferences

169

 Washington Post boundary map

170

 LearnDC website, which provides comprehensive school profiles developed by the

D.C. Office of the State Superintendent of Education

171

163

“Getting Involved and Timeline,” Op. cit. [2] “Timeline Table,” Op. cit.

164

[1] “DCPS Parent Letter,” Op. cit. [2] “DCPS Parent Letter - October 2014,” Op. cit.

165

“Final Recommendations on Student Assignment Policies and DCPS School Boundaries - August 2014,” Op. cit.

166

[1] “Boundary and School Assignment Tweaks (February 2015),” Op. cit. [2] “Frequently Asked Questions - Tweaks

to the Student Assignment Policies and DCPS School Boundary Recommendations,” Op. cit.

167

[1] “Implementation Plan March 2015,” Op. cit. [2] “Student Assignment and School Boundaries - DCPS Summary

of SY15-16 Implementation Plan - October 2014,” Op. cit.

168

“EBIS - Enrollment Boundary Information System,” Op. cit.

169

“My School DC,” Op. cit. [2] “My School DC Lottery and Enrollment Policy Handbook,” Op. cit.

170

Brown, “D.C. Releases Proposed School Boundaries and Far-Reaching Student Assignment Policies,” Op. cit.

171

“LearnDC,” Op. cit.

PROJECT EVALUATION FORM

Hanover Research is committed to providing a work product that meets or exceeds partner

expectations. In keeping with that goal, we would like to hear your opinions regarding our

reports. Feedback is critically important and serves as the strongest mechanism by which we

tailor our research to your organization. When you have had a chance to evaluate this

report, please take a moment to fill out the following questionnaire.

http://www.hanoverresearch.com/evaluation/index.php

CAVEAT

The publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this brief. The publisher

and authors make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or

completeness of the contents of this brief and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of

fitness for a particular purpose. There are no warranties that extend beyond the

descriptions contained in this paragraph. No warranty may be created or extended by

representatives of Hanover Research or its marketing materials. The accuracy and

completeness of the information provided herein and the opinions stated herein are not

guaranteed or warranted to produce any particular results, and the advice and strategies

contained herein may not be suitable for every partner. Neither the publisher nor the

authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but

not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages. Moreover, Hanover

Research is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services.

Partners requiring such services are advised to consult an appropriate professional.

4401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 400

Arlington, VA 22203

P 202.559.0500 F 866.808.6585