Judy Brennan, Portland Public Schools' Enrollment and Transfer Director, has published in this week's PPS Board materials (here) four scenario relating to the sibling versus low income priority admissions discussion for focus option schools. In looking at the data for the Richmond Japanese immersion program, I come to three conclusions:
(1) It does not matter whether siblings or low income students (up to the 45% goal) are given admission priority because there is room for both. Reserving 48 slots (45% of the total 108 slots) for low income students. then leaves 60 slots for siblings and others. The current average taken by siblings is 47, leaving a cushion of 13 slots for a variable increase in siblings or other non-sibling, non-low income applicants. It would be useful if Brennan published the annual historical number of sibling admitted just to check that the fluctuation has not gone above 60. In two of the scenarios, Brennan uses 68 as the number of hypothetical applicants who qualify as co-enrolled siblings. It is not clear whether or not this number is based on any historical fact. I do not think so.
(2) Non-sibling, non-low income applicants would see their chances of admission significantly reduced. In 2014-15, 55 applicants were turned away from kindergarten admission. If after successful marketing programs to low income families, 47 of the 114 admitted were sibling, then 67 were non-siblings (17 low income and 50 non-low income) and the percentage chance of a non-sibling, non-low income applicant getting in was 47.6%. If there are 31 more applicants (the additional low-income applicants needed to reach 45%), the total applicants and those tuned way will each increase by 31 (assumes the number of non-sibling, non-low income applicants remains constant). Those turned away will then number 86. The percentage chance of a non-sibling, non-low income applicant getting in will then drop to 13.1%.
Those potential non-sibling, non-low income applicants for kindergarten are often overlooked. They are not organized yet as a group and are largely unaware of what is happening to their opportunities to learn Japanese.
(3) There needs to be another Japanese immersion program to increase access for all categories - low income, sibling and others. If SACET and the Superintendent were really serious about expanding access for low income students, they would expand capacity by adding another Japanese immersion program.
Here is the data from Brennan's memo showing that the current average number of low income applicants for kindergarten at Richmond is 17 and that the current average number of sibling applicants is 47.
Note that in Brennan's memo the total number of kindergarten slots at Richmond drops by 6 from 114 to 108.
This is the data from the 2014-15 lottery for Richmond.
This is the October, 2014, enrollment count at Richmond.
There are several complexities to Richmond data. (1) To date, Richmond has had a pre-kindergarten program. Some students were admitted at this pre-K level and then carried over into kindergarten when more students were admitted. This pre-K program was not free to all students. There were fees. I am not clear whether the fees were waived or not for low income students. I have heard that this is the last year of the pre-K program at Richmond. In the future all students will start the Japanese immersion program at Richmond in kindergarten. (2) 2014-15 was the first year that slots were reserved for Japanese speaking students. I do not know the future of such slots. (3) It is not clear how the proposed counting of students in multiple categories will work or how the Japanese speaking slots interact with low income slots. For example, would a low income Japanese student count as both a Japanese speaker and as a low income student. (4) It is also not clear how low income applicants in excess of the 48 will be treated. I presume a lottery would be held to see which of the low-income students are admitted. But what happens to those low income students not picked? Are they just out or do they compete at another level with the non-sibling, non-low income students.
I acknowledge I may have made mistakes in understanding, data, or calculations. I welcome any corrections.
Update # 1 (12/7/14): In the comments below, Matt Giacomini writes: "One thing missing from this is that Richmond has 16 slots reserved for native speakers that comes as the first priority." If he is right, and I think he is, then my analysis missed that point and it would significantly change two of my conclusions.
Note that Judy Brennan's scenarios also leaves out any slots for Japanese native speakers (as well as any consideration for non-sibling, non-low income, non-native speakers applicants).
16 slots for native speakers plus 48 slots for low income applicants (if PPS can successfully increase their numbers) plus 47 slots for sibling (given an "average" year) total 111 slots, three more than the 108 allocated. Something would have to give. Then it would make a difference whether low income or siblings had priority.
And no, absolutely zero, non-sibling, non-low income, non-native speaker applicants would be able to get in. This, IMHO, would be very unfair to a large number of applicants, especially if there is not a second, alternative Japanese immersion program for them to apply to.
One thing missing from this is that Richmond has 16 slots reserved for native speakers that comes as the first priority.
Posted by: Matt Giacomini | December 06, 2014 at 10:42 PM