Page 1

Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve.

The Opportunity Gap–Defined A supply-and-demand analysis of student access to high-performing schools in Minneapolis

Strengthening nonprofits and the communities they serve.


The Opportunity Gap—Defined A supply-and-demand analysis of student access to high-performing schools in Minneapolis Acknowledgements IFF thanks the following individuals and organizations for their assistance with this project: Minnesota Comeback (formerly Education Transformation Initiative) Al Fan, Executive Director Amy Hertel, former Executive Director of ETI Nicholas Banovetz, Director of External Relations Allison Welch, Operations & Development Associate ETI School Pipeline Working Group and IFF Advisory Working Group These committees comprised more than two dozen leaders in education in Minneapolis, representation spanning the school district to charter schools and philanthropy advocates. Minnesota Department of Education IFF Project Staff Joe Neri, Chief Executive Officer Trinita Logue, President Matt Roth, Chief Operating Officer R. Jovita Baber, Managing Director of Research Cristina Silva, Research Associate Jose Cerda III, Vice President, Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Dawn Raftery, Corporate Communications Manager John Figel, Administrative Assistant IFF Chicago Office One North LaSalle Street, Suite 700 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: 312 629 0060 iff.org August 2015


Table of Contents

The Opportunity Gap—Defined A supply-and-demand analysis of student access to high-performing schools in Minneapolis

2 3 3 5 6 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 12 12 16 17 20 22 24 31 33 34 37 38 41 42 43 50 52 56 60 64 68 72 76 80 84 88 92

Preface Executive Summary Key Findings Key Insights Introduction Research Methodology Supply High-Performing Capacity Demand Service Gap Highest-Need Areas Commute Analysis Schools Included in the Study School MMR Scores and MMR Designations Study Areas Data Sources Citywide Analysis Top 11 Highest-Need Areas Minnesota State Accountability System School Performance and Capacity Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools Demographic Overview Demographics and School Readiness Grade Division Analysis K-5 Service Gap K-5 Commute Analysis 6-8 Service Gap 6-8 Commute Analysis 9-12 Service Gap 9-12 Commute Analysis Student Commute Patterns in MPS Attendance Areas Top 11 Highest-Need Area Profiles Highest-Need Area 1 – East Phillips and Midtown Phillips Highest-Need Area 2 – Phillips West and Ventura Village Highest-Need Area 3 – Willard-Hay Highest-Need Area 4 – Jordan Highest-Need Area 5 – Central Highest-Need Area 6 – Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper Highest-Need Area 7 – Powderhorn Park Highest-Need Area 8 – Near-North Highest-Need Area 9 – Corcoran and Standish Highest-Need Area 10 – Webber-Camden and Folwell Highest-Need Area 11 – Whittier

1 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Preface

Executive Summary

The Opportunity Gap–Defined was conducted by the IFF Research Department and was commissioned by Minnesota Comeback (formerly Education Transformation Initiative).

The Opportunity Gap–Defined is a place-based supply-and-demand needs assessment. It identifies the neighborhoods with the greatest need for high-performing schools, and provides data and analysis to inform stakeholders and guide actionable strategic plans. Further, it indicates that educational opportunity in Minneapolis can be fundamentally transformed through a differentiated strategy that recognizes the unique educational strengths and opportunities of each of the 11 highest-need neighborhoods, and involves parents and communities.

IFF is a nonprofit community development financial institution. Since 1988, IFF has provided financing and real estate consulting to nonprofit corporations. Today, IFF provides comprehensive community development solutions across the Midwest. IFF’s Research Department consults to municipalities, foundations, and nonprofit corporations throughout the country, and provides analysis that improves focus and resource allocation. Since 1996, IFF’s Research Department has conducted needs assessments for school districts to identify where the greatest number of children need better access to performing schools. IFF school studies evolved out of a partnership with district leaders in Chicago Public Schools, which in 2003 recognized a need to identify priority community areas in Chicago for the location of new performing schools. This allowed the district to focus its reform efforts and led to better distribution of choices for families. IFF’s methodology has evolved and been adapted to guide school reform efforts in St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Denver, Washington D.C., and Indianapolis. IFF’s school study methodology is distinctive in its assessment of capacity based on performance and facilities, as well as its spatial analysis of performing capacity at a neighborhood level. This neighborhood-level approach helps education stakeholders focus investments where they will reach the greatest number of underserved children. In other cities, the data and analysis informed such decisions as the disposal of vacant buildings, targeted investment in district schools, identification of schools for potential turnarounds, consolidation of underutilized buildings, investment in facilities modernization, location of magnet programs, solicitations for charter school applications, selection criteria for charter schools, and targeted communication to particular neighborhoods or populations regarding school choice options.

2 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

This study uses the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR) accountability system to define school performance. The definition of school quality and corresponding analyses that use MDE data may result in some unexpected findings. Although high-performing schools are determined in this report as those with Reward and Celebration Eligible MMRs, other factors can contribute to school quality. Key Findings Performance: In 2013-14, 25 Minneapolis public schools designated as Reward or Celebration Eligible (characterized as high-performing schools in this report) provided 11,116 seats for 41,933 students (see Table 2). l l

19 percent of district schools (12 schools) provided 64 percent (7,101 seats) of the high-performing seats. 36 percent of charter schools (13 schools) provided 36 percent (3,961 seats) of the high-performing seats.

Of the estimated 3,961 seats in high-performing charter schools in Minneapolis, MDE reported that 2,479 students, or 63 percent of these seats, were occupied by Minneapolis students in 2013-14 (see Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools). Although 26 percent of all seats were high performing, 41 percent were designated as Priority and Focus— the performance categories that approximate the lowest-performing 15 percent of schools statewide (see Table 4).


l l

52 percent of district schools (33 schools) with 14,051 seats were designated as Focus or Priority. 42 percent of charter schools (15 schools) with 3,221 seats were designated as Focus or Priority.

Twenty schools categorized as No Designation— considered mid performing in this study—provided 30 percent of seats citywide (12,738 seats) (see Table 4). District schools comprised 86 percent of the estimated capacity (11,003 seats) in these mid-performing schools. Highest-Need Areas: Subtracting the 11,116 highperforming seats from the 41,933 students attending public schools in Minneapolis leaves the city with a need for 30,818 high-performing seats. Forty-eight percent of the need for high-performing seats (14,767 seats) is concentrated in 11 highest-need study areas, located in northwest and central east Minneapolis: 1. East Phillips and Midtown Phillips 2. Phillips West and Ventura Village 3. Willard-Hay 4. Jordan 5. Central 6. Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper 7. Powderhorn Park 8. Near-North 9. Corcoran and Standish 10. Webber-Camden and Folwell 11. Whittier Commute Out of Minneapolis: In 2013-14, 7,685 Minneapolis students commuted out of the city each day and a high proportion are accessing higher-performing schools (see Map 2 and Chart 1). Approximately 5,600 additional students attended independent schools within Minneapolis. Nearly half of the students (3,518 students) who commuted outside of Minneapolis enrolled in Reward or Celebration Eligible district and charter schools. Twentynine percent (2,267 students) were in mid-performing schools in adjacent municipalities. Twenty-five percent

(1,900 students) commuted to low- and lowest-performing (Continuous Improvement, Priority and Focus) schools outside Minneapolis. Commute within Minneapolis: Commuting within the city did not significantly increase access to high-performing schools. Although 51 percent (16,574 children) attending Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) were commuting beyond their attendance area, only 18 percent (2,943) of commuting students attended Reward or Celebration Eligible MPS schools (see Map 2 and Chart 1). About half of commuting students, or 51 percent (8,377 students), attended Focus or Priority MPS schools. In analyzing the opportunities created by open enrollment policies and family choices, a high proportion of children did not fare better academically by commuting beyond their attendance boundary: l

l

l

Of grades K-5 students, 66 percent (5,795 students) commuted out of their attendance boundary to lowest-performing schools and 12 percent (1,080 students) to high-performing schools. Of grades 6-8 students, 46 percent (1,927 students) commuted out of their attendance boundary to lowest-performing schools and 23 percent (952 students) to high-performing schools. Of grades 9-12 students, 22 percent (685 students) commuted to lowest-performing schools and 11 percent commuted to high-performing schools (325 students).

Demographics: Citywide, 66 percent of students in MPS schools and 86 percent of students in charter schools reported household incomes below 185 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL) (see Chart 3). In examining the educational opportunities accessed by low-income children: l

l

Of MPS students, 9 percent attended high-performing schools, while 40 percent attended lowest-performing schools. Of charter students, 36 percent attended highperforming schools, while 30 percent attended lowestperforming schools.

3 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


In comparing Minneapolis with other Midwestern cities in which this study has been conducted, Minneapolis’ 11 highest-need areas have higher concentrations of students facing multiple school-readiness challenges. As presented in Chart 2, the highest-need areas have: l

l

l

l

More poverty: 44 percent of children live in households with incomes below 185 percent of the FPL, which is 13 percentage points higher than the citywide average of 31 percent. More mobility: 26 percent of children changed residence, which is seven percentage points higher than the citywide average of 19 percent. Lower educational attainment: 69 percent of adults did not have a bachelor’s degree, which was 15 percentage points higher than the citywide average of 54 percent. More English language learners: 14 percent of the children speak another language and speak English less than very well, compared to the citywide average of 10 percent.

Schools designated as Focus and Priority predominate in these neighborhoods. There are few seats available to these children in mid-performing and high-performing schools. However, in examining schools that serve predominately low-income students, this study found 12 high-performing schools: one traditional district school and 11 charter schools.

4 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Key Insights 1. High-performing seats could be increased in the highest-need areas by replicating, expanding, or imitating the strategies of high-performing schools that have a track record of successfully serving predominately low-income populations. 2. Approximately 12,700 seats could be converted to high performing by accelerating performance in mid-performing schools — especially the high schools serving youth from the highest-need areas. 3. Over 17,000 seats, which predominately serve students in the highest-need areas, are in schools designated as Focus or Priority.


5 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Introduction

The Opportunity Gap–Defined is a study about communities and children’s educational opportunities. Through a supply-and-demand needs analysis, it identifies the neighborhoods where the greatest number of children need better access to high-performing schools. It presents actionable data and analyses to enhance the focus of education improvement and to maximize the impact of resources across 35 neighborhood clusters in Minneapolis. Its methodology is centered on the idea that all children should have the option to attend a Reward or Celebration Eligible school in their neighborhood. To identify the neighborhoods that have the greatest need for high-performing seats, the study calculates the Service Gap—the difference between the capacity of high-performing public schools (both traditional district and charter schools) and the number of students—for each of the 35 study geographies, based on neighborhood clusters (hereafter, called Study Areas) in Minneapolis. Demand is the number of students living in a neighborhood. Supply is the capacity of high-performing schools. This includes all Title I schools that earned a Reward or Celebration Eligible designation based on the MMR score calculated by MDE. Reward schools represent the highest-performing schools and are the top 15 percent of schools statewide with the highest MMR scores. Celebration Eligible schools are the 25 percent of schools statewide directly below the Reward category. Additionally, to be more inclusive in the supply-anddemand analysis, this study assigned designations to non-Title I schools, to which the state provides an MMR score but not an MMR designation.

6 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

The following sections, Research Methodology and the Citywide Analysis, provide a more detailed description of the MMR score and designations. The study is based on data from the 2013-14 academic year. For each grade division (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12), the study subtracts the number of children in each study area from the number of seats in Reward and Celebration Eligible schools that serve the same study area. The difference in demand and supply is the Service Gap. After calculating the service gap for each study area, the 35 study areas were ranked by their need for highperforming seats, from highest to lowest, for each grade division. The core ranking includes traditional district, magnet, charter, and alternative schools that had an MMR score and enrollment in the fall of 2013-14. The Highest-Need Areas are the top 11 study areas with the highest average rank across the grade divisions. The first section of the report, Research Methodology, provides a thorough explanation of the study’s methodology, its terminology, MMR designations, and mapping models. A careful reading of the methodology is advised to assist in a full understanding of the report. The second section, Citywide Analysis, presents the core supply-and-demand analysis and research findings. The culmination of the central analysis is the final ranking of study areas in order of their need for high-performing seats. The final ranking is the average rank based on the service gap analysis for the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade divisions. The top 11 highest-need areas and the rankinggroups of the remaining 24 study areas are found on Map 1.


Additionally, the Citywide Analysis examines school performance, capacity, and enrollment by school type and grade division. Finally, an overview of demographic trends and school-readiness indicators contextualizes study area ranking results, and a commute analysis reveals student travel patterns of children leaving MPS to attend charters and district schools outside of Minneapolis. Although the highest-need areas in the Citywide Analysis provide guidelines for prioritizing action, the following section, the Grade Division Analysis, provides data by grade division (K-5, 6-8 and 9-12) to support differentiated strategies in each of the top 11 study areas. The grade division maps and tables present an analysis of service gap and commute patterns for K-5, 6-8, and 9-12, which underlie the Minneapolis Top 11 Highest-Need Areas map and the Highest-Need Area Profiles section. Lastly, the Highest-Need Area Profiles section further analyzes the top 11 study areas through an examination of the service gap, demographics, and performance of schools within one mile of each study area.

7 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Research Methodology

The methodology for this study is a supply-anddemand needs assessment. Supply is the number of seats in high-performing traditional district, magnet/ citywide, and charter schools. Demand is the number of children living in a neighborhood. The difference between supply (high-performing seats) and demand (students) is the Service Gap, which is calculated for each neighborhood and for each grade division (e.g., K-5, 6-8, 9-12). Based on the service gap, neighborhoods are ranked for each respective grade division. The average rank across the grade divisions produces the final rank. The highestneed areas are the neighborhoods with the highest average rank across grade divisions. In essence, the study identifies the top neighborhoods (highest-need areas) in which the children have the greatest need for better access to high-performing schools. Supply Supply is the number of seats (capacity) in highperforming schools, distributed across neighborhoods based on the catchment area of each school. High-performing schools are defined by MDE’s MMR accountability system, which is based on the student data that measure proficiency, growth, achievement gap reduction, and graduation rates. High-Performing Capacity High-performing capacity is the number of seats available in schools with an MMR designation of Reward or Celebration Eligible for each grade division, and distributed across the areas they serve. IFF was unable to collect program or building capacity data for this study. To estimate the capacity data of schools for which capacity data was not obtained, IFF used an estimated program capacity. For district schools, average enrollment over the previous five years proxies as program capacity. This approach assumes that district schools tend

8 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

to have relatively steady enrollment, which is at or near capacity, but recognizes that many urban district schools operate over capacity. For charter schools, maximum enrollment over the past five years proxies as capacity. By estimating capacity with the highest enrollment point, this method captures the expansion or contraction of charter schools, as well as a steady state. Estimated capacity is calculated across the grades that a school serves and allocated to the corresponding grade division in the analysis. The capacity of a high-performing school contributed to the seat count of its respective grade division. If the grade configuration of a high-performing school crossed the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade divisions, the performing capacity was distributed across the grades in the school based on enrollment patterns in each grade. Finally, high-performing capacity is further distributed across each neighborhood based on the catchment area or enrollment pattern of the school. Significant numbers of students in Minneapolis attend district or charter schools outside their neighborhood. Although MPS neighborhood schools have boundaries, in practice the boundaries are not meaningful. In order to proportion high-performing capacity for district and charter schools, IFF calculated the school catchment areas based on national research on the average distance children commute to school. Demand Demand is the number of children based on where they live not where they attend school. For the charter schools, demand was calculated with an algorithm that proportions students to neighborhoods using audited enrollment and density of school-age children. For MPS schools, student residence was derived from data that provided the number of children living in MPS attendance areas.


Service Gap The service gap is the difference between the number of students enrolled in schools (demand) and the capacity of Reward or Celebration Eligible schools (supply). The service gap was calculated for the public (district and charter) schools and students—for each grade division (K-5, 6-8 and 9-12) for 2013-2014. To identify where the greatest number of children by grade division need access to a high-performing school, the study ranks each study area based on its service gap. The highest-ranked study area (No. 1) has the largest number of students without access to a high-performing school. At the core of the study is ranking neighborhoods by service gaps for public K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 schools. Highest-Need Areas The top 11 highest-need areas are neighborhood clusters (also called study areas) that have the highest mean rank across the grade divisions (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) for the academic year 2013-14 for district and charter schools (supply) and children (demand). Commute Analysis To understand student commute patterns within Minneapolis, IFF used an MPS dataset that aggregates how many students live within an attendance boundary and where they attend school, allowing us to analyze where students live compared to where they attend school. For the map and tables that show students’ commute to high-performing schools, IFF aggregates the number of students by their respective attendance areas and the high-performing school they attend. IFF also aggregates the performance of schools attended by children in each neighborhood to discern how many students can access high-performing seats based on their residence. For the highest-need area profiles, IFF analyzes by school performance the number of MPS students commuting from adjacent MPS attendance areas to MPS schools. Finally, the study uses a dataset

from MDE to show students commute outside Minneapolis to other district and charter schools. Schools Included in the Study Schools with a general education or alternative program that reported their MMR score and enrollment data to the state in 2013-14 are included in the study. Schools that do not report data because the student population is not tested, including early childhood education or independent schools because policy does not require reporting, cannot be included in the analysis. Similarly, new schools with insufficient data to determine a state-assigned accountability rating cannot be included. Future studies will include an analysis of independent schools when comparable academic performance data becomes available. School MMR Scores and MMR Designations This study uses the MDE MMR accountability system to determine school performance. The MMR measures four components for each school: proficiency, growth, achievement gap reduction, and graduation rate, which are based on AYP targets and the Minnesota Growth calculation. Within each of these four categories, schools are awarded points. The school MMR is a percentage calculated by dividing the total points earned by the total number of points possible. For example, for most elementary and middle schools, there are 75 possible points, while for most high schools there are 100 possible points. All schools in the state also receive a Focus Rating (FR), which measures the proficiency and growth of students of color and native students, and students receiving special services (English language, special education, free and reduced-price lunch) in two domains: focused proficiency and achievement gap reduction. Each domain is worth 25 points, for 50 possible points. The FR score is a percentage generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible.

9 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


To further identify schools for recognition, accountability, and support, MDE gives MMR designations to schools that are Title I (i.e., MDE does not assign MMR designations to non-Title I schools), serve grades higher than K-2 or K-3, and have more than 20 students. The schools that qualify for an MMR designation are assigned to one of four categories based on their MMR score: Reward, Celebration Eligible, Continuous Improvement, or Priority. The FR score is used to assign Title I schools to the Focus category. The MMR designations are allocated as follows: l Reward School: Top 15 percent on MMR—these represent the highest-performing Title I schools on the four components in the MMR. l Celebration Eligible School: Next 25 percent below Reward on the MMR. l No MMR designation: 20 percent of Title I schools that score between Celebration Eligible and Continuous Improvement do not receive an MMR designation. (IFF refers to non-Title I schools with MMR scores that fall between Celebration Eligible and Continuous Improvement as No Designation.) l Continuous Improvement School: Lowest 25 percent on the MMR—these are Title I schools that have not already been identified as Priority or Focus. l Focus School: Bottom 10 percent of Title I schools on the FR. l Priority School: Bottom 5 percent on MMR—these are the 5 percent most persistently low-performing Title I schools based on the MMR. In order to include and analyze as many schools that received MMR scores as possible, IFF used the above MMR designation allocations to assign designations to non-Title I schools. This allowed IFF to conduct a more accurate supply-and-demand analysis.

1 Minnesota Department of Education: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/index.html 10 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Ten non-Title I schools are included in the supplyand-demand analysis. Based on their MMR/FR score, the following eight non-Title I schools are represented in the analysis as having a Reward, Celebration Eligible, Continuous Improvement, Focus or Priority MMR designation: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Armatage Elementary Burroughs Elementary Extended Day Program Field Elementary Hale Elementary Lake Harriet Upper School Upper Mississippi Middle Academy Yinghua Academy

Additionally, two non-Title I schools are included the study as No Designation: 1. Barton Elementary 2. Kenwood Elementary This study considers schools with a Reward or Celebration Eligible designation as high performing; schools without a designation whose MMR score falls between Celebration Eligible and Continuous Improvement, referred to as No Designation, are mid performing; Continuous Improvement designations are low performing; and Focus and Priority designations are lowest performing. Underperforming schools refer to both low- and lowest-performing schools. For further details on the MMR and how MMR designations are determined, see the MDE website.1


Study Areas The 35 IFF study geographies, referred to as study areas, are comprised of neighborhood clusters. The original 87 neighborhood boundaries—provided by the Minneapolis Planning Commission—were clustered into 35 study areas based on the location and student-age population of each neighborhood. Neighborhoods with low counts of children ages 5-17 were grouped with one or several adjacent neighborhoods with a greater number of children to balance the proportion of students across each cluster. The average number of children ages 5-17 across the study areas is 1,462. Data Sources The primary data sources for IFF school studies are the National Center for Education Statistics and MDE. From these sources, IFF gathers school directory information, audited enrollment, performance data, and commute data. School attendance boundary data used in the demand and commute analysis came from the Minneapolis Public Schools Where Students Live 2013 Fall dataset. Demographic data came from the 2005-2009 and 2009-2013 American Community Survey (five-year estimates) and 2014 ESRI 2014 Single Year Age data. Shapefiles for mapping and geographic analysis came from ESRI, the U.S. Census Bureau, Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Planning Commission.

11 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Citywide Analysis

This is a place-based study that identifies the areas in Minneapolis where the greatest number of children need better access to high-performing schools. It also includes an analysis of demographic data to illustrate key characteristics of school readiness in the student population. In 2013-14, approximately 53,400 Minneapolis students enrolled in 84 traditional district schools, 48 charter schools, and 20 independent schools located within the city (see Table 1). Sixty-seven percent of students attended district schools, 22 percent attended charter schools, and 11 percent attended independent schools. Of the students enrolled in district schools, a majority of 63 percent (22,659 students) attended neighborhood schools, while 29 percent (10,325 students) attended magnet schools, 6 percent (2,278 students) attended special program schools, and 2 percent attended a district other school.

The Opportunity Gap–Defined includes 41,933 of the students in grades K-12 who are enrolled in public schools (district and charter schools) that offer either general education or alternative programs. As indicated in Table 2, public schools in Minneapolis provided these students with 11,116 seats in schools designated as Reward or Celebration Eligible in 2013-14. Minneapolis’ high-performing capacity is comprised of 25 Reward and Celebration Eligible schools with capacity to serve 11,116, which is 27 percent of seats citywide (see Table 2). Sixty-one percent of high-performing seats were in schools serving children in grades K-5, while 26 percent were serving grades 6-8 and 13 percent were serving grades 9-12. Fifty-nine percent of these seats (6,573 seats) were in traditional district and magnet schools, and 36 percent (3,961 seats) were in charter schools authorized by nonprofit organizations or higher education institutions.

12 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

To close the citywide service gap and provide every child a seat in a Reward or Celebration Eligible school, Minneapolis needs approximately 31,000 additional high-performing seats in grades K-12. Forty-eight percent of the service gap (14,767 seats) is concentrated in the top 11 ranked highest-need areas in the city’s northwest and central east neighborhoods (see Map 1). Top 11 Highest-Need Areas The top 11 highest-need areas have the largest overall need across the K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 grade divisions. The top 11 highest-need areas, in order of need are: 1. East Phillips and Midtown Phillips 2. Phillips West and Ventura Village 3. Willard-Hay 4. Jordan 5. Central 6. Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper 7. Powderhorn Park 8. Near-North 9. Corcoran and Standish 10. Webber-Camden and Folwell 11. Whittier Forty percent of schoolchildren (16,978 students) live in these 11 highest-need areas. However, only 20 percent of the seats (2,211 seats) in Reward and Celebration Eligible schools serve these students, as indicated in Table 3. Forty-eight percent of the citywide service gap is concentrated in these study areas; the 11 highest-need areas need 14,767 seats in high-performing schools. As illustrated in Map 1, Minneapolis’ highest-need areas, indicated with bold white numbers, are clustered in the northwest and central east neighborhoods of the city.


Table 1: 2013-2014 Minneapolis Schools Overview School Type

Program Type

Number of Campuses

K-5 Students Enrolled in 2013-14

6-8 Students Enrolled in 2013-14

9-12 Students Enrolled in 2013-14

Total

Percent Students Enrolled

District Traditional District

General Education

37

11,352

3,691

7,616

22,659

42.5%

District, Magnet

General Education

17

7,040

3,285

10,325

19.4%

District, Other

General Education

1

211

286

497

0.9%

District, Special Program

Alternative/Other Special Education Virtual Total

20 8 1 84

89 108 — 18,800

151 161 1 7,289

1,266 461 41 9,670

1,506 730 42 35,759

2.8% 1.4% 0.1% 67%

Charter, Higher Education Institution, Authorized by Augsburg College

General Education

7

655

161

390

1,206

2.3%

Charter, Higher Education Institution, Authorized by Concordia University

General Education

2

715

281

996

1.9%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Minneapolis Public Schools

General Education

4

427

10

90

527

1.0%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Audubon Center of The North Woods

General Education

7

1,444

511

238

2,193

4.1%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Volunteers of America

General Education

3

406

329

735

1.4%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis

General Education

1

182

56

238

0.4%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Fraser Foundation

General Education

1

77

77

0.1%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Friends of Education

General Education

4

1,070

290

1,360

2.5%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Innovative Quality Schools

General Education

4

252

99

351

0.7%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Novation Education Opportunities

General Education

1

148

36

184

0.3%

Charter, Nonprofit, Authorized by Pillsbury United Communities

General Education Alternative/Other Virtual Total

10 2 2 48

885 — 401 6,410

338 — 448 2,712

462 240 1,358 2,877

1,685 240 2,207 11,999

3.2% 0.4% 4.1% 22%

Charter

Independent Independent,

General Education

5

379

138

541

1,058

2.0%

Independent, Catholic

General Education

10

1,473

697

1,049

3,219

6.0% 2.5%

Other Religious, unaffiliated

General Education Total Grand Total

5

582

298

443

1,323

20

2,434

1,133

2,033

5,600

11%

152

27,644

11,134

14,580

53,358

100%

13 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Table Reading Hints The Minneapolis Schools Overview table identifies the number of K-12 schools by local education agency (LEA) type. For each category of schools, it provides the number of campuses, enrollment counts, and percent of students enrolled by LEA type. Table Takeaways There are approximately 53,400 students enrolled in Minneapolis schools. Sixty-seven percent of students are enrolled in district schools. Of these district school students, 63 percent are enrolled in traditional district schools. Twenty-two percent of students are enrolled in charter schools mostly authorized by nonprofits, and the remaining 11 percent are enrolled in independent schools.


Table 2: 2013-2014 Minneapolis Service Gap Grade Span

Number of Performing Schools

Demand: InIn-Study Students

Supply: Performing Seats

Service Gap

Percent of Service Gap

K-5

21

22,646

6,826

15,821

51%

6-8

15

9,220

2,860

6,360

21%

9-12

2

10,067

1,430

8,637

28%

25*

41,933

11,116

30,818

100%

2013-2014

Citywide

*Number of performing schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

Table Reading Hints The Minneapolis Service Gap table identifies the number of highperforming schools in comparison to the number of in-study students (demand)—students enrolled in a general education school that had an MMR score in 2013-14—and the number of seats provided by Reward and Celebration Eligible schools (supply). The service gap is the number of children who do not have access to a high-performing seat and is calculated by subtracting the supply from the demand. The percent of service gap is the service gap for K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 divided by the citywide service gap. Table Takeaways There are 25 Reward and Celebration Eligible schools in Minneapolis that supply slightly over 11,000 seats citywide. The city needs 31,000 highperforming seats to provide each child access to a quality school. Fifty-one percent of the total service gap is in grades K-5.

Table 3: 2013-2014 Minneapolis Service Gap, Highest-Need Areas Grade Span

Number of Performing Schools

Demand: In-Study Students

Supply: Performing Seats

Service Gap

Percent of Districtwide Service Gap

K-5

3

9,158

1,334

7,824

25%

6-8

4

3,722

492

3,230

11%

9-12

1

4,098

385

3,713

12%

5*

16,978

2,211

14,767

48%

2013-2014

Top 11 Highest-Need Areas

*Number of performing schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

Table Reading Hints Similar to Table 2, the Minneapolis Service Gap, Highest-Need Areas table focuses solely on the top 11 highest-need areas. It shows the students (demand) and the number of seats provided by Reward and Celebration Eligible schools (supply) in the highest-need areas. The service gap is the difference between demand and supply. The percent of the service gap is the service gap for K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 divided by the citywide service gap. Table Takeaways There are five Reward and Celebration Eligible schools in the highest-need areas that provide 2,200 seats citywide. The top 11 study areas need 14,800 highperforming seats, which is 48 percent of the citywide service gap. Twenty-five percent of the service gap in the highest-need areas is in grades K-5.

14 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 1 Minneapolis Top 11 Highest-Need Areas Rank based on 2013-14 Service Gaps

Study Area Rankings for Grades K-12 n 1-11 (Highest Need) n 12-23 n 24-35 n Study Areas n Park

Shingle Creek Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

Victory

Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Study Area 4 Study Area 7

Columbia Park md Ca

Webber - Camden

Waite Park

ial str

du

In en

10

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

Marshall Terrace Cleveland Folwell

#

Audubon Park

McKinley Holland

Jordan

Bottineau

4

#

Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

#

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

Nicollet Island East Bank

#

North Loop

94

Marcy Holmes Como

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Loring Park

Kenwood

Cedar Riverside

#

2

#

11

East Isles

Lowry Hill East

1

E Lake St

5 # #

Cooper Longfellow

Corcoran

# East Harriet

6

East Phillips

Powderhorn Park

Central

Lyndale

Seward Midtown Phillips

#

W Lake St

CARAG

Ventura Village

#

Phillips West

Whittier

ECCO West Calhoun

Bryant

7

Bancroft

9

#

Howe

Standish

King Field Linden Hills Regina

#

Northrop

Hiawatha

#

Ericsson

Field

Lynnhurst

Fulton

Keewaydin

Tangletown

#

Study Area 12

Minnehaha Page

# Kenny Windom

Hale

#

Study Area 10

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

Map Reading Hints The map identifies the rank of each neighborhood based on its service gap. The bold white ranking numbers indicate the 11 highest-need areas. The geometric shapes and their color indicate the school type and MMR designation.

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Lowry Hill

Study Area 8

Prospect Park East River Road

Bryn - Mawr

# #

Study Area 6

Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Study Area 33

Sumner Glenwood

Cedar Isles - Dean

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Mid - City Industrial

Beltrami

Near - North

8

Harrison

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

#

3

Windom Park

Study Area 5

Wenonah

Diamond Lake

Morris Park

Armatage

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data. 15 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Each study area is comprised of neighborhood clusters. Individual neighborhoods are labeled on the main map, and the inset map labels the study area numbers. Map Takeaways The highest-need areas ranked 1-11 are clustered in the central east and northwest parts of the city. Only five Reward or Celebration Eligible schools are across the 11 highest-need areas. There is a high concentration of Focus and Priority schools in these study areas. The top ranking study area in need of quality seats is Study Area 20: East Phillips and Midtown Phillips.


Minnesota State Accountability System In February 2012, the U.S. Department of Education approved Minnesota’s No Child Left Behind waiver request. As part of the flexibility waiver, Minnesota began transitioning to a new system of school accountability, recognition, and support. At the core of the new accountability system is the Multiple Measure Rating (MMR), a school performance score given annually to each school. Each school’s MMR score is calculated based on points earned versus total possible points in four categories: proficiency, growth, achievement gap reduction, and graduation rate, which are based on the Minnesota Growth calculation and AYP targets. The MMR score is a 0-100 percentage for all schools. All schools in the state also receive a Focus Rating (FR), which measures the proficiency and growth of students of color and students receiving special services (English language, special education, free and reduced-price lunch) in two components: proficiency and achievement gap reduction. The FR score is generated by dividing the total number of points earned by the total number of points possible. Using the MMR and FR score results, Title I schools that meet the MMR designation criteria are assigned one of five designations: l l

l

Continuous Improvement School: Lowest 25 percent of MMR (not already Priority or Focus)

l

Focus School: Bottom 10 percent on FR

l

Priority School: Bottom 5 percent on MMR

Note: 20 percent of schools statewide that score between Celebration Eligible and Continuous Improvement do not receive an MMR designation. To include non-Title I schools that received MMR scores in the analysis, IFF assigned designations to non-Title I schools. These designations were determined by using MMR score cut points based on the above MMR designation allocations. Ten non-Title I schools are represented in this study as having MMR designations for the purpose of conducting the supply-and-demand analysis. See the Research Methodology section for a list of non-Title I schools included in the study. This study considers schools with a Reward or Celebration Eligible designation as high-performing; schools without a designation whose MMR score falls between Celebration Eligible and Continuous Improvement, referred to as No Designation, are mid performing; schools designated as Continuous Improvement are low performing; and Focus and Priority designations are lowest performing.

Reward School: Top 15 percent on MMR Celebration Eligible School: Next 25 percent below Reward on MMR

2 Minnesota Department of Education: http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/index.html 16 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

For further details on the MMR scores and how MMR designations are determined, see the Research Methodology section or the MDE website.2


School Performance and Capacity There are 25 high-performing schools citywide rated as Reward or Celebration Eligible; 12 are district schools and 13 are charter schools. As Table 4 shows, MPS schools tend to be larger, and the majority of the high-performing capacity, or 64 percent (7,101 seats), is in the district schools. Traditional district schools have 5,592 Reward and Celebration Eligible seats, which is over 40 percent more than the number of high-performing seats in charter schools (3,961 seats). Of the total high-performing seats in charter schools, 69 percent (2,727 seats) are in charter schools authorized by nonprofit organizations and 31 percent (1,234 seats) are in charters authorized by higher education institutions. Based on estimated capacity calculations, high-performing schools consistently operate near or over capacity. On average, Reward and Celebration Eligible schools have a 95 percent utilization. Twenty No Designation schools, considered mid performing, comprise 30 percent of the seats citywide. Twenty percent of all schools statewide that have MMR scores are not assigned an MMR designation if their scores fall between the Continuous Improvement or the Celebration Eligible category, or do not meet the required MMR designation criteria. Of the total number of seats in the mid-performing schools, 86 percent (11,003 seats) are in district schools while 14 percent (1,735 seats) are in charter schools. Although the number of high-performing schools is slightly higher than those that are mid-performing, the estimated capacity is much greater in the No Designation schools, especially within the traditional district and magnet schools (see Table 4). Approximately, 12,700 seats citywide could be converted to high-performing seats by accelerating the performance in these mid-performing schools.

Almost 50 percent of schools (48) in Minneapolis are designated as Focus and Priority. Of the 48 schools, 33 are district schools and 15 are charter schools—together, they constitute 41 percent of the seats (17,272) citywide. Schools designated as Continuous Improvement— categorized as low-performing—comprise a small proportion of seats citywide: 3 percent (1,171 seats). Fifty-four percent (637 seats) of this low-performing estimated capacity is in district schools, while 46 percent (534 seats) is in charter schools. As indicated by the high number of Focus and Priority district schools, the majority of lowest-performing seats citywide, or 81 percent (14,051 seats), are in MPS schools, while 19 percent (3,221 seats) are in charter schools. In examining underperformance by school type, district schools and nonprofit charter schools have a similar proportion of Focus or Priority seats. Of the total number of seats provided by nonprofit charter schools, 39 percent are lowest performing, while 43 percent of the total number of district seats are lowest performing. Mid performing and underperforming schools require different improvement strategies and interventions. As demonstrated in more detail later, the highest-need areas have an exceptionally high density of Focus and Priority schools—compared to other cities in which IFF has conducted school needs assessments. Despite the ability to commute, most children in these neighborhoods are attending lowest-performing schools. To increase educational opportunity for the children in these neighborhoods, an action plan to radically transform the 18,000 low- and lowest-performing seats into high-performing capacity is essential. Transformation strategies may include the continued development of MPS Community Partnership Schools, which are based on collaborative site-based models that provide schools with educational autonomy and flexibility.

17 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Table 4. School Performance and Estimated Capacity

Reward (15% statewide) LEA Type

No Designation (20% statewide)

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Count Percent Within School Type

4 11%

3,188 15%

5 14%

2,404 11%

9 26%

7,401 34%

District, Magnet

Count Percent Within School Type

1 6%

415 4%

1 6%

566 6%

5 29%

3,401 35%

District, Special Program

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

1 10%

201 19%

District, Other

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

1 100%

528 100%

— 0%

— 0%

Total

Count Percent Within School Type

5 8%

3,603 11%

7 11%

3,498 11%

15 24%

11,003 34%

Count Percent Within School Type

1 50%

116 63%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

Charter, Authorized by Friends of Education

Count Percent Within School Type

2 67%

724 61%

1 33%

458 39%

— 0%

— 0%

Charter, Authorized by Audubon Center of North Woods

Count Percent Within School Type

1 14%

129 5%

1 14%

480 20%

2 29%

987 41%

Charter, Authorized by Innovative Quality Schools

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

Charter, Authorized by Novation Education Opportunities

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

1 100%

184 100%

Charter, Pillsbury United Communities

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

1 11%

85 4%

— 0%

— 0%

Charter, Volunteers of America

Count Percent Within School Type

2 67%

536 73%

1 33%

199 27%

— 0%

— 0%

Charter, Authorized by YMCA of Metropolitan Minneapolis

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

Total

Count Percent Within School Type

6 21%

1,505 21%

4 14%

1,222 17%

3 11%

1,171 16%

Count Percent Within School Type

1 17%

202 17%

1 17%

433 0%

1 17%

161 13%

Charter, Authorized by Concordia University – St. Paul

Count Percent Within School Type

— 0%

— 0%

1 50%

599 60%

1 50%

403 40%

Total

Count Percent Within School Type

1 13%

202 9%

2 25%

1,032 47%

2 25%

564 26%

Grand Total

Count Percent of All Schools/Students

12 12%

5,310 13%

13 13%

5,752 14%

20 20%

12,738 30%

District Traditional District

Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Authorized by Minneapolis Public Schools

Charter, Higher Education Institution Charter, Authorized by Augsburg College

Type of School

Celebration Eligible (25% statewide)

This table only includes schools that have an MMR Designation for the 2013-14 academic year by the Minnesota Department of Education. Enrollment counts may not match in-study demand counts on the District Service Gap due to a difference in data sources.

18 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Continuous Improvement (25% statewide)

Focus (10% statewide)

Priority (5% statewide)

Total

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Schools

K-12 Capacity

Schools

K-12 Capacity

2 6%

622 3%

8 23%

4,471 21%

7 20%

3,377 16%

35 56%

21,463 65%

— 0%

— 0%

7 41%

4,042 41%

3 18%

1,345 14%

17 27%

9,769 30%

1 10%

15 1%

8 80%

816 79%

— 0%

— 0%

10 16%

1,032 3%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

1 2%

528 2%

3 5%

637 2%

23 37%

9,329 28%

10 16%

4,722 14%

63

32,792

1 50%

69 37%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

2 7%

185 3%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

3 11%

1,182 16%

2 29%

465 19%

1 14%

356 15%

— 0%

— 0%

7 25%

2,417 33%

— 0%

— 0%

2 100%

252 100%

— 0%

— 0%

2 7%

252 3%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

1 4%

184 3%

— 0%

— 0%

3 33%

486 25%

5 56%

1,371 71%

9 32%

1,942 27%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

3 11%

735 10%

— 0%

— 0%

1 100%

355 100%

— 0%

— 0%

1 4%

355 5%

3 11%

534 7%

7 25%

1,449 20%

5 18%

1,371 19%

28

7,252

— 0%

— 0%

3 50%

401 34%

— 0%

— 0%

6 75%

1,197 54%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

— 0%

2 25%

1,002 46%

0 0%

0 0%

3 38%

401 18%

0 0%

0 0%

8

2,199

6 6%

1,171 3%

33 33%

11,179 26%

15 15%

6,093 14%

99 100%

42,243 100%

19 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Table Reading Hints The School Performance and Estimated Capacity table presents the number and percentage of schools, the estimated student capacity within each school type, and by MMR designation. Read the data for each school type horizontally. On the far right vertically, read the Total column, which displays percentages of the total within the LEA type (e.g., district, charter, nonprofit, higher education institution). Table Takeaways Only 26 percent of seats citywide are in high-performing schools. While only 19 percent of district schools are Reward and Celebration Eligible, 64 percent of high-performing seats are in district neighborhood and magnet schools. Forty-one percent of seats (17,272 seats) citywide are in lowest-performing schools—81 percent (14,051 seats) of those seats are in district schools. While 13 Reward or Celebration Eligible charters (31 percent) served 3,961 charter students (42 percent), 15 lowestperforming charter schools (42 percent) served 3,221 (43 percent) of the charter students.


Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools In mapping MPS students’ commute and the performance of schools they attend, Map 2 reveals the connections among education policy, residency, and family choices. In partnership with MPS and MDE, the West Metro Education Program and its member districts administer an open enrollment program, The Choice is Yours, which provides low-income families in Minneapolis an opportunity to receive state-funded transportation to attend schools in other districts. As a result of making open enrollment more accessible, more low-income families and students can decide to travel to a school of their choice. Map 2 and Chart 1 illustrate that nearly half of the MPS children participating in open enrollment are accessing highperforming schools, the majority of which are district schools outside of Minneapolis. In 2013-14, over 14,700 students enrolled in schools outside of MPS. Fifty percent (7,394 students) attended district or charter schools outside of Minneapolis and 46 percent (6,838) attended charter schools in Minneapolis.

As evidenced in Map 2 and Chart 1, the 7,034 students who left MPS but stayed in the city were primarily enrolled in charter schools. Thirty-seven percent (2,606 students) who remained in Minneapolis attended high-performing charter schools. In comparing the capacity of highperforming charter schools in Minneapolis—estimated at 3,961 seats (see Table 4), with the number of students reported by MDE as leaving MPS for these charter schools (2,606 students)—the data suggests that Minneapolis students occupy only 66 percent of the high-performing charter school seats. In 2013-14, 41 percent of children who left MPS to attend Minneapolis charter schools enrolled in an underperforming charter. Thirty-five percent (2,392 students) attended lowest-performing charter schools, 6 percent (399 students) attended low-performing charter schools, and 21 percent (1,441 students) attended mid-performing charter schools. Chart 1. Student Commute Out of Minneapolis Public Schools

988

Of those who commuted beyond the city, a significant proportion accessed high- and mid-performing schools: 46 percent (3,518 students) commuted to a high-performing school and 29 percent (2,267 students) commuted to mid-performing schools; whereas 25 percent (1,900 students) commuted to low- and lowest-performing schools. The high number of students leaving the city signals an opportunity to recapture students by improving school performance in the urban core, regardless of school type.

1,618 1,368

1,441 1,189 399 621

In examining the proportion of students who commuted outside of the city to enroll in a Reward or Celebration Eligible school, 73 percent (2,557 students) attended district schools and 27 percent (934 students) attended charter schools. In contrast, of the students who commuted out to underperforming schools, 51 percent (967 students) were in district schools and 37 percent (710 students) were in charter schools.

20 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

1,557

1,333

313

458 311 198

District Schools Outside MPS

27 41 223

Regional Education Services Agency

669 7 274 429

Charter Schools Outside MPS

Students Commuting Outside of Minneapolis

1,059 196

Multi-District School in Minneapolis

Charter Schools in Minneapolis

Students Staying in Minneapolis


Map 2 Student Commute Patterns Out of MPS By School Type and MMR Designation

Map Reading Hints The school point colors and shapes indicate their type and MMR rating. The points are sized by the number of children who left MPS to attend that school. The Minneapolis study area colors identify the rank of each area based on its service gap. The beige areas are the municipalities adjacent to Minneapolis.

Spring Lake Park

Brooklyn Park

Mounds View Fridley

Arden Hills

Brooklyn Center

New Brighton

Columbia Heights Crystal New Hope

Robbinsdale St. Anthony

Roseville

Lauderdale Falcon Heights

Golden Valley

St. Paul

St. Louis Park

Hopkins

Edina Richfield

Bloomington

Study Area Rankings for Grades K-12 n 1-11 (Highest Need) n 12-23 n 24-35

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

School Type l Traditional District Š District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter District, Other Study Areas n Adjacent Municipalities

Number of Students Leaving MPS l 1-30 l 30-60 l 60-100 l 100-200 200-300

l

l 300-400

l

400-500

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data. 21 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Map Takeaways The 5,370 students who commuted to schools outside of Minneapolis had a slightly higher probability of attending a highperforming school. In 2013-14, 46 percent of the students (3,518 students) who left the city attended a high-performing school and 25 percent (1,900) attended an underperforming school. Of the students who stayed in the city, 40 percent (2,802 students) attended high-performing schools, and 40 percent (2,791 students) attended underperforming schools.


Demographic Overview Population Reversing a 60-year pattern of population decline, Minneapolis experienced a recent uptick in population growth since 2010.3 The rebounding regional economy is drawing (and is predicted to continue to draw) families to the Twin Cities with employment opportunities and competitive wages.4 According to the Twin Cities regional planning agency, the Metropolitan Council, the area’s population has increased by almost 4 percent since 2010, with suburban edge communities growing at a quicker rate. The regional forecast indicates that the racial and ethnic diversity will continue to increase in schools and the workforce.5 Esri 2014 population data shows that the areas with the highest density of school-age children (ages 5-17) were in neighborhoods in the northwest and central areas of the city, including Folwell, Jordan, Willard-Hay, Ventura Village, Phillips West, Midtown Phillips, East Phillips, Central, Whittier, Powderhorn Park, and Bryant (see Map 3).

As Minneapolis’ population rises, there is a parallel increase in need for high-quality school options across the city. Improved school performance and employment opportunities often can enhance growth in the student-age population. For example, in a recent IFF school study in St. Louis, the data revealed an upsurge in enrollment in public schools for the first time in decades. The neighborhoods with largest concentrations of school-age children align closely with highest-need areas. As illustrated in Map 3, there is notable density of 5- to 17-year-olds in the central and northwest areas of the city. Although the highest-need and mid-need study areas differ in demographics and school-readiness indicators (see Chart 2), they have similar proportions of school-age children; study areas ranked 1-11 have 37 percent of the student population, while study areas ranked 12-23 have 35 percent.

3 Metropolitan Council. Population Growth Across the Region: The Twin Cities in 2013. July 2014. 4 Metropolitan Council. Steady growth and big changes ahead: The Regional Forecast to 2040. April 2015. 5 Metropolitan Council. Steady growth and big changes ahead:The Regional Forecast to 2040. April 2015.

22 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 3 Density of School-Age Children in Minneapolis, 2014

Density of School-Age Children in Minneapolis in 2014

Shingle Creek

Children Ages 5-17 Per Square Mile n < 350 n 351-700 n 701-1,050 n 1,051-2,000 n 2,001 < n Study Area n Park

Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

Victory m Ca

Waite Park

Columbia Park

den

Webber - Camden

r ust Ind ial

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

#

Audubon Park McKinley Holland

Hawthorne

Windom Park

Bottineau Jordan

#

Willard - Hay

#

#

Sheridan

Logan Park

St. Anthony West

St. Anthony East

Northeast Park

Mid - City Industrial

Beltrami

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

#

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

§ ¦ ¨ 394

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Loring Park

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

#

# Ventura Village

Phillips West

Whittier

Lowry Hill East

Midtown Phillips

East Phillips

# ECCO

CARAG

Lyndale

Longfellow

Central

Cooper

Powderhorn Park

West Calhoun

#

Corcoran

#

# #

East Harriet

Study Area 7

Howe

Bancroft

Bryant

Standish

King Field Linden Hills

#

#

Regina Northrop

Ericsson

Lynnhurst

Study Area 12

Study Area 10

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32 Study Area 33

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

Hiawatha

Each study area is comprised of neighborhood clusters. Individual neighborhoods are labeled on the main map, and the inset map labels the study area numbers. Map Takeaways The densest areas of children overlap with the highest-need areas in the central east and northwest sections of the city. In comparison to the least dense sections of the city, fewer highperforming schools are near the areas with greater numbers of children.

Minnehaha Tangletown

Keewaydin Hale

Page

#

# Wenonah

Windom Armatage

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Field Fulton

#

Study Area 5

Seward

#

East Isles

Cedar Isles - Dean

Study Area 4

Map Reading Hints The colors on the map represent the density of children ages 5-17 by census tract.

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

Study Area 3

Prospect Park East River Road

Cedar Riverside

Lowry Hill

Study Area 2

Downtown West

Bryn - Mawr

# #

Study Area 1

Kenny

§ ¦ ¨

Morris Park

Diamond Lake

35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: Single Yearscore Ageare data 2014.from 2013theMinnesota Department *Schools that do Esri, not have an MMR excluded supply and demand analysis.of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data.

Source: Esri, Single Year Age data 2014. 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data. IFF conducts independent research that enables nonprofit organizations, foundations, and government agencies to make informed decisions about resource allocation and policy initiatives. Please see www.iff.org/research for more information.

23 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Demographics and School Readiness In comparison to other Midwestern cities in which IFF has conducted school-needs assessments, Minneapolis’ 11 highest-need areas have a disproportionately high concentration of children living in poverty, higher rates of residence change, and lower rates of adult educational attainment. In addition, many of the highest-need areas have a high density of children with limited English language proficiency. Chart 2 and Maps 4, 5, and 6 present an analysis of these four demographic indicators, from the U.S. Census Bureau 2009-2013 American Community Survey, which strongly impact school readiness and academic success among children. When comparing the highest-need areas against the mid- to low-need study areas, the top 11 study areas had higher percentage levels across each demographic category. The Highest-Need Area Profiles section, presented at the end of this report, provides nuanced demographic data to guide neighborhood-level planning. Adult Educational Attainment As indicated in Chart 2, the children in study areas ranked 1-11 had higher rates of adults with less than a bachelor's degree than the citywide average. The proportion of adults with less than a bachelor's degree in the highest-need areas was 15 percentage points above children citywide. Residence Change The rate of children who change residence are greater in the highest-need areas in comparison to children citywide. Twenty-six percent of children changed residence in the top 11 study areas—seven percentage points higher than the citywide mean of 19 percent. Children Living in Households with Incomes Below 185 Percent of the Federal Poverty Level There is significant overlap between the neighborhoods with high densities of low-income children and the study areas ranked as mid- and highest-need for quality seats. Map 4 reveals that children living in households with 6 2009-2013 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey. 7 According to the 2012 U.S. Census, Minnesota’s Eastern African born represented 61 percent of its African-born population, and included a Somali-born population of 21,000. Thus, the other language category largely represents a Somali and East African language dominant population in Minneapolis.

24 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

incomes below 185 percent of the FPL are predominantly concentrated in the northwest and central neighborhoods, and radiate out toward the east. In examining poverty for the highest-need areas, the proportion of children who live below 185 percent of the FPL are more than 10 percentage points higher than the citywide mean (see Chart 2). Children Who Speak English Less Than Very Well In the highest-need areas, 14 percent of children spoke English less than very well—four percentage points higher than the citywide mean of 10 percent (see Chart 2). Citywide, 10 percent (4,979 children) speak a language other than English and speak English less than very well. While slight in comparison to the number of students who are English dominant, Map 5 shows that the neighborhoods located south of downtown and in the northwest have a notable number of students dominant in Spanish, or Asian and Pacific Island languages. Of the children who are not English dominant, 45 percent (2,261 children) speak Spanish, 31 percent (1,522 children) speak Asian and Pacific Island languages, and 22 percent (1,092 children) speak other languages.6 In the northwest and central east study areas, the number and percentage of children who speak English less than very well increased between 2005 and 2013 (see Maps 6 and 7). In particular, speakers of Asian and Pacific Island languages, Spanish and other languages7 grew between one to eight percentage points. The number of children dominant in Asian and Pacific Island languages increased citywide from 1,235 to 1,522 between 2005 and 2013. This is notable in the northwest and central study areas of East Phillips and Midtown Phillips, Jordan and Webber-Camden, where a higher concentration of Asian and Pacific Islanders live. East Phillips and Midtown Phillips—ranked as the first highest-need area—had the greatest increase over time in children who speak Asian and Pacific Island languages: Eight percentage points (154 children).


Rank 1-11 (Highest-Need Areas)

n Rank 1-11 (Highest-Need Areas) n Rank 12-23 (Mid-Need Areas) Rank 12-23 (Mid-Need Areas) n Rank 24-35 (Low-Need Areas) n n Citywide

Chart. 2 Demographics and School Readiness 69%

Rank 24-35 (Low-Need Areas)

59%

Citywide

54%

44%

41%

17%

Individuals 25 years or older with less than a bachelor’s degree

31%

29%

26% 13%

19%

9%

Children ages 5-17 who have changed residence in the past year

In examining Spanish-dominant children, the overall number citywide decreased from 2,702 to 2,261 between 2005 and 2013. However, the central and southeast study areas experienced growth in this language group. Howe and Hiawatha increased by five percentage points (69 children) and Central—ranked fifth highest-need area—increased by two percentage points (71 children). Lastly, the number of children who are dominant speakers of other languages increased citywide from 998 to 1,092 between 2005 and 2013. This language category shows growth in study areas concentrated in the north, central west, and south. Most notably, East Isles-Lowry Hill, Downtown-Elliot Park, and Lyndale expanded by two to five percentage points (186 children total). The geographic distribution and growth of various languages point to opportunities to incorporate strategies that focus on English language learners, particularly in the highest-need areas. Furthermore, Minneapolis regional forecasts support the importance of planning for increasing ethnic diversity in schools.

19%

14% 6%

10%

Children ages 5-17 who speak another language and speak English less than very well Language Categories Hints The U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey used in this study provides language data on speakers of languages other than English and their English-speaking ability. The Census Bureau groups 382 commonly spoken languages into more manageable categories. The language categories available in this dataset include Asian and Pacific Island languages, Indo-European, Spanish, and other languages. Other languages includes a broad range of languages, such as Semitic, Afro-Asiatic, encompassing Somali and East African languages, Nilo-Saharan, and Niger-Congo languages. For the list of the 382 individual language codes, go to: https://www.census.gov/hhes/ socdemo/language/about/

25 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Children ages 5-17 below 185 percent of the FPL


Map 4 School-Age Children in Minneapolis Below 185 Percent of the Federal Poverty Level Shingle Creek

Percentage of Children (6-17) Under 185% FPL n 0% - 20% n 20.1% - 40% n 40.1% - 60% n 60.1% - 80% n 80.1% - 100% n Study Area n Park

Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

Victory

Waite Park

m Ca

Columbia Park

den

Webber - Camden

r ust Ind ial

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

McKinley

Holland

Hawthorne

Windom Park

Bottineau Jordan

#

Willard - Hay

#

#

#

Audubon Park

Sheridan

Logan Park

St. Anthony West

St. Anthony East

Northeast Park

Mid - City Industrial

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Beltrami

Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

#

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

§ ¦ ¨

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Loring Park

East Isles

Cedar Riverside

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

#

Lowry Hill East

Phillips West

Whittier Cedar Isles - Dean

# Ventura Village

Seward

#

Midtown Phillips East Phillips

# Cooper ECCO

CARAG

Lyndale

Central

Powderhorn Park Longfellow

West Calhoun

#

Corcoran

#

#

Howe

#

East Harriet

Bryant

Bancroft

Standish

King Field Linden Hills

#

#

Regina

Ericsson

Northrop

Hiawatha

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

#

Tangletown

Minnehaha Keewaydin Hale

Page

#

# Wenonah

Windom Armatage

Kenny

§ ¦ ¨

Morris Park

35W

Diamond Lake

*Private schools do not have an MMR score and are therefore excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: US Census, American Community Survey 2009-13. 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data.

26 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Study Area 4 Study Area 7

Study Area 5

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Study Area 12

Study Area 10

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32 Study Area 33

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

Map Reading Hints The colors on the map represent the percentage of children ages 5-17 living below 185 percent of the FPL by census tract.

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

Study Area 3

Prospect Park East River Road

Bryn - Mawr

Lowry Hill

Study Area 2

Downtown West

394

# #

Study Area 1

Each study area is comprised of neighborhood clusters. Individual neighborhoods are labeled on the main map, and the inset map labels the study area numbers. Map Takeaways The largest pockets of poverty are in the northwest, south, and eastern sections of the city. Several study areas have varying percentages of children living below 185 percent of the federal poverty level.


Map 5 Children in Minneapolis and English Language Proficiency English Language Ability of Children Ages 5-17 by Study Area n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n Study Area n Children who speak other languages and speak English less than very well

Map Reading Hints The pie charts are sized by the number of children ages 5-17, and the size and color of the map slices indicate the proportion of children by their language group. The study area colors on the map identify the rank of each study area based on its service gap.

n Children who speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages and speak English less than very well

Map Takeaways While the majority of Minneapolis children speak English very well, the neighborhoods located in the south and northwest of the city n Children who speak have a considerable number of Indo European languages individuals who speak Spanish or and speak English less Asian and Pacific Island languages than very well and do not speak English well. n Children who speak Pockets of students who speak Spanish and speak English other languages, including East less than very well African, are found in the northeast, south of downtown, and the n Children who speak central west. English very well

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

94

Number of children in study area by English language ability l 600

§ ¦ ¨ 394

l

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

l

800

l 1,500

l

1,000

2,000

Language Categories Hints The U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey used in this study provides language data on speakers of languages other than English and their English-speaking ability. The Census Bureau groups 382 commonly spoken languages into more manageable categories. The language categories available in this dataset include Asian and Pacific Island languages, Indo-European, Spanish, and other languages. The other category includes a broad range of languages: Semitic; Afro-Asiatic, encompassing Somali and East African languages; Nilo-Saharan; and Niger-Congo languages, among others. For the list of the 382 individual language codes, go to: https://www.census.gov/hhes/ socdemo/language/about/.

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Map reading note: Pie charts are sized by the number of children in each Study Area. Source: US Census, American Community Survey, Age by Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for Populatino Five Years and Over, 2009-2013; 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data.

27 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 6 Children in Minneapolis and English Language Proficiency (comparison) 2005-2009 Non-native English Speaking Children Who Speak English Less Than Very Well

n Children who speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages and speak English less than very well n Children who speak other languages and speak English less than very well n Children who speak Spanish and speak English less than very well

Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Study Area 4 Study Area 7

§ ¦ ¨ 94

l

l 200

394

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

l

Study Area 12

Study Area 10

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32 Study Area 33

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

100

l 300 500

§ ¦ ¨

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

n Children who speak Indo European languages and speak English less than very well Number of children who speak English less than very well l <10 l 10 l 50

Study Area 5

Map Reading Hints Maps 6 and 7 show a comparison over time of children who speak languages other than English and do not speak English well. The pie charts are sized by the number of children ages 5-17, and the size and color of the map slices indicate the proportion of children by their language group, excluding children who speak English very well. Map Takeaways In the northwest and central east study areas, the number and percentage of children who speak English less than very well increased between 2005 and 2013. In particular, speakers of Asian and Pacific Island languages, Spanish and other languages grew between one to eight percentage points.

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Source: US Census, American Community Survey data, Age by Language Spoken at Home By Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 years and Over, 2005-2009 and 2009-2013.

28 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 7 Children in Minneapolis and English Language Proficiency (comparison) 2009-2013

n Children who speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages and speak English less than very well n Children who speak other languages and speak English less than very well n Children who speak Spanish and speak English less than very well n Children who speak Indo European languages and speak English less than very well Number of children who speak English less than very well l <10 l 10 l 50

§ ¦ ¨ 94

l

l 200

§ ¦ ¨

100

l 300 500

394

l

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

29 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Study Area 4 Study Area 7

Study Area 5

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Study Area 12

Study Area 10

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32 Study Area 33

Study Area 35 Study Area 34

Study Area 31


Schools Serving Low-Income Students Chart 3 compares the percent of children above and below 185 percent of the FPL, based on school-level data, for each school type. Sixty-four percent of students in traditional district schools and 86 percent of students in charter schools reported household incomes below 185 percent of the FPL. In examining the percentage of students below 185 percent of the FPL being served by high-performing MPS schools, Chart 3 indicates that Reward and Celebration Eligible MPS schools are serving a small proportion of low-income children: only 9 percent were attending highperforming schools, while nearly 40 percent were attending lowest-performing schools. However, high-performing charter schools served a higher percentage of students below 185 percent of the FPL: 35 percent attended Reward or Celebration Eligible schools, while 33 percent attended low- and lowest-performing charter schools.

school that is largely accessed by low-income students from the same neighborhood (see Map 13). In considering the overlap between lowest-performing schools and concentrations of low-income children citywide, Patrick Henry provides a prominent model for schools to improve access to quality education in the highest-need areas. Chart 3. Schools Serving Low-Income Students n n n n n n

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority

11%

24% 6% 3% 17% 18% 1% 6%

In examining schools with over 80 percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, the study found one traditional district school and 11 charter schools that were high performing in 2013-14 (see Table 5). Patrick Henry, a Reward school situated in the 10th highest-need area, is a key example of a successful high

24%

3%

7%

49%

51%

15%

16% 13%

Below 185% FPL

7% 3% 2% 1% 1%

15%

1% 5% 1%

Above 185% FPL

Below 185% FPL

Above 185% FPL

Below 185% FPL

Other

District Schools

Above 185% FPL

Charter Schools

Table 5. High-Performing Schools with Over 80 Percent of Students Receiving Free or Reduced Lunch (Below 185 Percent of the FPL) School Name

School Type

Area

Grade Span

Total Enrollment

Percent Students Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch

MMR Designation

Hiawatha College Prep*

Charter, Higher Education Institution

Aurora Middle School

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 28

5-7

202

98%

Reward

Study Area 25

5-8

129

87%

Friendship Academy of the Arts

Reward

District, Charter

Study Area 24

K-6

127

92%

Reward

Global Academy

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 6

K-8

427

92%

Reward

Patrick Henry Senior High

Traditional District

Study Area 3

9-12

1,104

90%

Reward

Hiawatha Leadership Academyâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Morris Park

Charter, Higher Education Institution

Study Area 31

K-4

385

97%

Celebration Eligible

KIPP North Star Academy

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 14

5-8

199

94%

Celebration Eligible

Minneapolis Academy Charter School

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 31

5-8

143

93%

Reward

Minnesota Transitions Middle

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 25

6-8

85

96%

Celebration Eligible

New Millenium Academy Charter School

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 7

K-8

435

85%

Celebration Eligible

Noble Academy

Charter, Nonprofit

Study Area 2

K-8

476

82%

Celebration Eligible

Twin Cities International Elementary

Charter, Higher Education Institution

Study Area 14

K-4

593

96%

Celebration Eligible

*Formerly Adelante College Preparatory Academy

30 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Grade Division Analysis

In support of developing differentiated strategies that address the unique academic, demographic, and schoolreadiness factors in the highest-need areas, this section presents an analysis of service gap and commute patterns for grade divisions K-5, 6-8, and 9-12. The grade division maps and tables summarize the detailed data on traditional district and charter schools that underlie the top 11 highest-need areas map and the profile maps for study areas ranked 1-11. A close examination of the following pages will indicate whether the highest-need areas require additional high-performing seats in grades K-5, 6-8, or 9-12.

Each grade division (K-5, 6-8, and 9-12) has a service gap and commute analysis map. The service gap analysis maps (Maps 8, 10, and 12) present study area rankings based on supply and demand calculations. For each of these maps, the study areas are color-coded to indicate their rank (highest, mid, and low need for quality seats), and the shape and color of the school points indicate the school type and the MMR designation. The adjoining tables supplement the map with detailed data on demand, service gap, and service level of each study area.

There are 99 K-12 district and charter schools with MMR scores serving grades K-12 in Minneapolis. In 2013-14, attending MPS and charter schools were approximately 42,000 students, of which 54 percent (22,646 students) were in grades K-5, 22 percent (9,220 students) were in grades 6-8, and 24 percent (10,067 students) were in grades 9-12. To increase access to high-performing schools, Minneapolis needs nearly 31,000 additional high-performing seats: 15,821 for grades K-5, 6,360 for grades 6-8, and 8,637 for grades 9-12.

The commute maps (Maps 9, 11, and 13) illustrate from where students are traveling to attend high-performing district schools. Each map has high-performing district and charter schools sized by the number of students attending the school, and the color and size of the district school pie slices reflect the proportion of students traveling from the attendance area in which they live. Although a comparable number of Reward and Celebration Eligible district and charter schools serve grades K-12, this study only includes commute data from MPS attendance areas to MPS neighborhood and magnet schools. Due to the lack of availability of student-level data, this study does not present a comparison between the commute patterns from the charter schools.

The Grade Division Analysis section invites a careful examination of each study areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s level of need for high-quality seats in grades K-5, 6-8, and 9-12.

31 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Map 8 Service Gap, Traditional District and Charter Schools, Grades K-5 in 2013 Study Area Rankings for Grades K-5 n 1-11 (Highest Need) n 12-23 n 24-35 n Study Areas n Park

Rank based on 2013-14 Service Gaps Shingle Creek Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

Victory

Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Study Area 4 Study Area 7

Columbia Park Ca en md

Webber - Camden

Waite Park

Ind

5

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

ustr ial

Marshall Terrace Cleveland Folwell

#

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Jordan

Bottineau

3

#

Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

#

#

4

11

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

St. Anthony West

94

Near - North

94

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Mid - City Industrial

Marcy Holmes

Study Area 12

Study Area 14

Study Area 15

Study Area 16 Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32

Como

§ ¦ ¨

Study Area 10

Study Area 13

Study Area 33

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

St. Anthony East

Beltrami

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Study Area 5

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Prospect Park East River Road

Bryn - Mawr Loring Park

Lowry Hill

#

Cedar Riverside

#

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

1

# East Isles

8

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Ventura Village

#

Seward Midtown Phillips

2

Phillips West

Whittier

W Lake St ECCO West Calhoun

CARAG

Map Reading Hints The map identifies each study area’s rank based on its K-5 service gap. The bold white ranking numbers indicate the 11 top-ranking study areas in order of need for high-performing K-5 seats. The school point shapes and color indicate the school type and MMR designation.

Elliot Park

# #

King Field

Bryant

9

Bancroft

The accompanying service gap table lists the study areas by their service gap rank. For each study area, it provides the demand count, service gap, and service level, which is the percentage of children being served by high-performing schools.

Cooper Longfellow

Corcoran

6

# East Harriet

E Lake St

Powderhorn Park

Central

Lyndale

7

East Phillips

Howe

10 Standish

Linden Hills Regina

#

Northrop

Hiawatha

#

Ericsson

Field

Lynnhurst

Fulton

Keewaydin Tangletown

#

Minnehaha Page

#

#

Kenny Windom Armatage

Hale

§ ¦ ¨

Wenonah

Diamond Lake

Morris Park

35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data.

32 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Map Takeaways There are 65 schools serving grades K-5 citywide. Of these schools, 21 are high performing, 14 are mid performing, three are low performing, and 27 are lowest performing. High-quality schools are predominantly located in low-need K-5 study areas. Only three out of 21 high-performing schools are located in the high-need K-5 study areas.


K-5 Service Gap There are 65 schools serving grades K-5 in Minneapolis. Twenty-one schools have a Reward and Celebration Eligible MMR designation; nine are district schools and 12 are charters, as indicated in Table 6. Thirteen of the high-performing K-5 schools are located in south Minneapolis. The remaining eight high-quality schools are interspersed across large sections of the north and central Minneapolis. Eighteen of the Reward and Celebration Eligible schools predominantly provide seats to neighborhoods in the low-need study areas, while only three high-performing schools are located in the highest-need areas. As illustrated in Map 8, the dearth of Reward and Celebration Eligible seats supplied to the highest-need neighborhoods underscores the need for increasing children’s access to quality schools in these areas. Over half of the city’s Focus and Priority schools are concentrated in the top 11 K-5 study areas, while the remainder are located throughout the city in both mid- and low-need study areas. The 17 Continuous Improvement and No Designation schools are primarily found in the mid-need study areas, which are fewer in number compared to the high-performing or underperforming MMR designation groups. Map 9 illustrates the K-8 attendance boundaries from which MPS students traveled to access high-performing K-5 MPS schools in 2013-14. Of the K-5 MPS students who attended high-performing MPS schools and were living in district attendance boundaries, over 70 percent stayed within their attendance area. MPS students who traveled beyond their attendance area to access highperforming MPS schools primarily stayed within the same zone. For example, the majority of MPS students attending Burroughs Community School live in the Burroughs

attendance area. The MPS students who traveled from beyond the Burroughs attendance area came from attendance areas in zone 3 (purple zone). The same travel pattern within each zone was repeated in the other high-performing K-5 MPS schools. Thus, high-performing K-5 MPS schools predominantly serve children within or adjacent to the attendance boundary in which the school is located. Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grades K-5 K-5 Need Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Study Area Study Area 19 Study Area 20 Study Area 7 Study Area 11 Study Area 3 Study Area 22 Study Area 25 Study Area 18 Study Area 23 Study Area 24 Study Area 12 Study Area 8 Study Area 4 Study Area 2 Study Area 1 Study Area 29 Study Area 21 Study Area 6 Study Area 15 Study Area 5 Study Area 13 Study Area 26 Study Area 9 Study Area 35 Study Area 17 Study Area 32 Study Area 33 Study Area 30 Study Area 14 Study Area 28 Study Area 34 Study Area 16 Study Area 31 Study Area 27 Study Area 10

K-5 Demand 1,069 1,059 937 872 917 826 824 721 711 676 629 615 592 563 556 551 495 705 638 842 458 568 614 706 471 485 536 541 510 606 560 505 729 390 169

K-5 Service Gap -997 -992 -848 -777 -750 -736 -660 -635 -610 -534 -509 -491 -484 -482 -443 -429 -419 -412 -411 -403 -387 -367 -355 -340 -285 -284 -282 -277 -267 -244 -235 -223 -197 -35 -21

K-5 Service Level 7% 6% 9% 11% 18% 11% 20% 12% 14% 21% 19% 20% 18% 14% 20% 22% 15% 42% 36% 52% 15% 35% 42% 52% 40% 42% 47% 49% 48% 60% 58% 56% 73% 91% 88%

Table 6. Number of Schools Serving Students in Grades K-5 by School Type

Traditional District District, Magnet/Citywide District, Other Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Higher Education Institution Total

Reward

Celebration Eligible

No Designation

Continuous Improvement

Focus

Priority

Total

2 1 0 5 1 9

4 1 1 4 2 12

5 4 0 3 2 14

1 0 0 2 0 3

6 5 0 2 0 13

6 3 0 5 0 14

24 14 1 21 5 65

33 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 9 Student Commute Patterns to High-Performing Schools, Grades K-5 MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades K-5

K-5 Commute Analysis

Lind-Loring

21

Commute to High-Performing District Schools l Traditional District K-8 Attendance Boundary (Green areas) Zone 1 (Orange areas) Zone 2 (Purple areas) Zone 1 ...... ...... ...... (Dotted) Non-residential Students

19

Lind-Loring 15

Waite Park

Laney-Johnson

14

20

Laney-Johnson Pillsbury Bethune

Bryn Mawr

Pratt

Kenwood

Other High-Performing Schools (without commute data) l Reward l Celebration Eligible District, Other © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter

18

Pillsbury

Bethune

Waite Park

Sullivan

Jefferson Andersen

Lyndale

Green Northrop

Hiawatha

Lake Harriet Burroughs

Hale-Field Lake Nokomis

Kenny

Bryn Mawr

5

11

Pratt

Kenwood

Map Reading Hints The pie charts on the map are highperforming district schools, and the squares are high-performing charter schools. They are sized by the number of children enrolled in grades K-5. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students who enrolled from each attendance area.

Sullivan 3

Jefferson

Andersen Lyndale Green

Hiawatha 7

1

Lake Harriet 12

Northrop 17

4

Burroughs

2

6

Hale-Field 8

10

16

13

Lake Nokomis 9

Kenny

*Commute data presented by school only available for traditional district MPS schools with an attendance boundary. Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools “Where Students Live” reports.

34 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

The green, purple, and orange area colors represent MPS attendance areas with color variation within each zone. The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas. Map Takeaways Of the K-5 students who attended high-performing MPS schools and lived in MPS attendance boundaries, over 70 percent stayed within their attendance area for school. Students who traveled beyond their attendance area to a high-performing MPS school primarily stayed within the same zone.


Student Commute Patterns to Reward and Celebration Eligible Schools, Grades K-5 Map Symbol Number

School Type

School Name

Grade Span

K–5 Enrollment

1

NPO/HEI Charter

Hiawatha College Prep*

5–7

81

2

District

3

NPO/HEI Charter

Armatage Montessori

PK–5

614

Aurora Middle School

5–8

4

32

District

Burroughs Community

K–5

793

5

District, Other

Fair School Downtown

K–12

211

6

District

Field Community

5–8

127

7

District, Charter

Friendship Academy of the Arts

K–6

117

8

District

Hale Elementary

K–4

624

9

NPO/HEI Charter

Hiawatha Leadership Academy–Morris Park

K–4

385

10

District

Kenny Elementary

K–5

418

11

NPO/HEI Charter

KIPP North Star Academy

5–8

39

12

District

Lake Harriet Upper School

4–8

285

13

NPO/HEI Charter

Minneapolis Academy Charter School

5–8

22

14

NPO/HEI Charter

New Millenium Academy Charter

K–8

323

15

NPO/HE Charter

Noble Academy

K–8

357

16

District

Northrop Elementary

PK–5

462

17

NPO/HEI Charter

Southside Family Charte School

K–8

75

18

NPO/HEI Charter

Twin Cities International Elementary

19

District

Waite Park Community

20

NPO/HEI Charter

21

NPO/HEI Charter

K–4

593

PK–5

424

Yinghua Academy

K–8

507

Global Academy

K–8

292

*Formerly Adelante College Preparatory Academy

35 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 10 Service Gap, Traditional District and Charter Schools, Grades 6-8 in 2013 Rank based on 2013-14 Service Gaps

Study Area Rankings for Grades 6-8 n 1-11 (Highest Need) n 12-23 n 24-35 n Study Areas n Park

Shingle Creek Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

Victory

Study Area 1 Study Area 2 Study Area 3 Study Area 4 Study Area 7

Columbia Park Ca

Webber - Camden

en md

5

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

Waite Park

Ind ustr ial

11

Cleveland Folwell

Marshall Terrace

#

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Jordan

Bottineau

2

#

Hawthorne

#

#

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

9

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Mid - City Industrial

94

94

Nicollet Island East Bank

Marcy Holmes

#

North Loop

§ ¦ ¨

University of Minnesota

# #

Loring Park

Study Area 18

Study Area 19 Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

Map Reading Hints The map identifies each study area’s rank based on its grades 6-8 service gap. The bold white ranking numbers indicate the 11 top-ranking study areas in order of need for high-performing grades 6-8 seats. The school point shapes and color indicate the school type and MMR designation.

Elliot Park Cedar Riverside

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

3#

East Isles Whittier

#

W Lake St ECCO

6 #

7

E Lake St Cooper Longfellow

Corcoran

#8

# East Harriet

East Phillips

Powderhorn Park

Central Lyndale

Seward Midtown Phillips

1

Phillips West

Lowry Hill East

#

Ventura Village

#

CARAG

Study Area 15

Prospect Park East River Road

Bryn - Mawr

West Calhoun

Study Area 14 Study Area 16

394

Downtown East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Study Area 10

Study Area 13

Como

Downtown West

Lowry Hill

Study Area 12

Study Area 33

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Beltrami

Study Area 6

Study Area 8 Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Willard - Hay

4

Windom Park

Study Area 5

Bryant

Bancroft

10

#

The accompanying service gap table lists the study areas by their service gap rank. For each study area, it provides the demand count, service gap, and service level, which is the percentage of children being served by high-performing schools.

#

Map Takeaways There are 49 schools serving grades 6-8 citywide. Of these schools, 15 are high performing, 11 are mid performing, two are low performing, and 21 are lowest performing. Only three out of 15 highperforming schools are located in the high-need 6-8 areas.

Howe

Standish

King Field Linden Hills Regina

#

Northrop

Hiawatha

Ericsson

Field

Lynnhurst

Fulton

#

Keewaydin

Tangletown

Minnehaha Page

#

§ ¦ ¨

Hale

#

35W

Kenny Windom

Wenonah

Diamond Lake

Morris Park

Armatage

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data.

36 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


6-8 Service Gap There are 49 district and charter schools serving grades 6-8 in Minneapolis; 15 are high performing. Among the Reward and Celebration Eligible schools, four are district schools and 11 are charter schools, as indicated in Table 7. Only three out of the 11 highest-need areas for grades 6-8 have a top-performing school located within neighborhood boundaries. Eleven of the 15 Reward and Celebration Eligible schools serving grades 6-8 are located in low-need study areas across the central and southwest parts of the city. Similar to K-5 student commute patterns, Map 11 illustrates that the majority of students in grades 6-8 who commuted beyond their school attendance boundary attended a high-performing school within the same zone. Of the total MPS students in grades 6-8 who attended high-performing MPS schools and lived in district attendance boundaries, 50 percent were students who stayed within their attendance boundary. Most of the high-performing MPS 6-8 schools serve students from the same zone, but Burroughs and Hale-Field present a slight exception, as a small number of students commuted from zone 2. Lastly, although there were fewer Reward and Celebration Eligible district schools in comparison to the charter schools, the district schools enrolled more students overall.

Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grades 6-8 6-8 Need Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 32 33 34 35

Study Area Study Area 20 Study Area 7 Study Area 19 Study Area 11 Study Area 3 Study Area 22 Study Area 25 Study Area 23 Study Area 12 Study Area 24 Study Area 4 Study Area 31 Study Area 15 Study Area 18 Study Area 8 Study Area 6 Study Area 5 Study Area 2 Study Area 26 Study Area 1 Study Area 29 Study Area 13 Study Area 35 Study Area 9 Study Area 21 Study Area 30 Study Area 27 Study Area 14 Study Area 16 Study Area 34 Study Area 28 Study Area 17 Study Area 33 Study Area 32 Study Area 10

6-8 Demand 428 384 393 378 367 357 343 287 255 278 232 398 251 233 219 235 278 208 252 211 242 185 331 183 175 249 324 162 214 249 296 175 218 177 53

6-8 Service Gap -396 -362 -357 -353 -325 -302 -265 -235 -224 -216 -206 -199 -195 -193 -192 -187 -185 -182 -179 -178 -172 -165 -134 -132 -130 -109 -105 -84 -71 -69 -67 -65 -57 -43 -27

6-8 Service Level 8% 6% 9% 7% 12% 15% 23% 18% 12% 22% 11% 50% 22% 17% 13% 20% 33% 13% 29% 16% 29% 11% 60% 28% 26% 56% 67% 48% 67% 72% 77% 63% 74% 75% 48%

Table 7. Number of Schools Serving Students in Grades 6-8

Traditional District District, Magnet/Citywide District, Other District, Special Program Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Higher Education Institution Total

Reward

Celebration Eligible

No Designation

Continuous Improvement

Focus

Priority

Total

2 0 0 0 6 1 9

2 0 0 0 4 0 6

1 4 0 1 3 2 11

1 0 0 0 1 0 2

3 3 0 2 4 0 12

3 2 0 0 4 0 9

12 9 0 3 22 3 49

37 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Map 11 Student Commute Patterns to High-Performing Schools, Grades 6-8 MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades 6-8

6-8 Commute Analysis 6

Lind-Loring

6

Commute to High-Performing District Schools l Traditional District K-8 Attendance Boundary (Green areas) Zone 1 (Orange areas) Zone 2 (Purple areas) Zone 1 ...... ...... ...... (Dotted) Non-residential Students

Lind-Loring 12

Waite Park

Laney-Johnson

15

11

Other High-Performing Schools (without commute data) l Reward l Celebration Eligible District, Other © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter

Pillsbury

Bethune

Waite Park

Laney-Johnson

Pillsbury

Bethune

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

394

Bryn Mawr

Pratt

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Kenwood

Sullivan

Jefferson

Andersen

Lyndale

Green Northrop

Hiawatha

Lake Harriet Burroughs

Hale-Field

§ ¦ ¨

Lake Nokomis

35W

Kenny

7

Bryn Mawr

Pratt

Kenwood

Sullivan Jefferson

3

Andersen Lyndale

Green

Hiawatha Northrop

1

Lake Harriet Burroughs

4 9

Hale-Field

Lake Nokomis

2

Kenny

*Commute data presented by school only available for traditional district MPS schools with an attendance boundary Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools "Where Students Live" reports.

38 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

The green, purple, and orange area colors represent MPS attendance areas with color variation within each zone. The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas.

5

14 13

8

10

Map Reading Hints The school points are all high-performing schools, and their shape indicates their school type. The points are sized by the number of children enrolled in grades 6-8. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students enrolled from each attendance area.

Map Takeaways Map 11 illustrates that the majority of students in grades 6-8 who commuted beyond their school attendance boundary still attended a high-performing school within the same zone. Most of the highperforming MPS 6-8 schools served students from the same zone, but Burroughs and Hale-Field present a slight exception, as a small number of students commuted from zone 2.


Student Commute Patterns to Reward and Celebration Eligible Schools, Grades 6-8 Map Symbol Number

School Type

School Name

Grade Span

6-8 Enrollment

1

NPO/HEI Charter

2

District

Hiawatha College Prep*

5–7

121

Anthony Middle

6–8

771

3 4

NPO/HEI Charter

Aurora Middle School

5–8

97

District

Field Community

5–8

389

5

District, Charter

Friendship Academy of the Arts

K–6

10

6

NPO/HEI Charter

Global Academy

K–8

135

7

NPO/HEI Charter

KIPP North Star Academy

5–8

160

8

District

Lake Harriet Upper School

4–8

355

9

NPO/HEI Charter

Minneapolis Academy Charter School

5–8

121

10

NPO/HEI Charter

Minnesota Transitions Middle

6–8

85

11

NPO/HEI Charter

New Millenium Academy Charter School

K–8

112

12

NPO/HEI Charter

Noble Academy

K–8

119

13

District

Ramsey Middle

6–7

399

14

NPO/HEI Charter

Southside Family Charter School

K–8

34

15

NPO/HEI Charter

Yinghua Academy

K–8

57

*Formerly Adelante College Preparatory Academy

39 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 12 Service Gap, Traditional District and Charter Schools, Grades 9-12 in 2013 Study Area Rankings for Grades 9-12 n 1-11 (Highest Need) n 12-23 n 24-35 n Study Areas n Park

Rank based on 2013-14 Service Gaps Shingle Creek Lind - Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

md Ind ustr

Waite Park

ial Marshall Terrace Cleveland Folwell

Audubon Park

McKinley Holland Bottineau

Windom Park

Jordan Logan Park

Hawthorne

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

School Type l Traditional District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent District, Other

Mid - City Industrial

Beltrami

Near - North

6 § ¦ ¨ 94

§ ¦ ¨ 94

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Marcy Holmes

Nicollet Island East Bank

#

North Loop

Como

394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East Bryn - Mawr

# # Lowry Hill

Loring Park

3#

Ventura Village

§ ¦ ¨

East Isles

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Whittier

4

Phillips West

#

W Lake St

7

Lyndale

5

East Phillips

E Lake St

Powderhorn Park

Central CARAG

Seward Midtown Phillips

35W

ECCO West Calhoun

Study Area 13 Study Area 14

9

East Harriet

Cooper

Study Area 18

Bryant

Study Area 20

Study Area 17 Study Study Study Area 21 Area 22 Area 23

Study Area 27

Study Area 28

Study Area 29

Study Area 25

Study Area 24

Study Area 26

Study Area 30 Study Area 32

Study Area 35

Study Area 31

Study Area 34

10

The accompanying service gap table lists the study areas by their service gap rank. For each study area, it provides the demand count, service gap, and service level, which is the percentage of children being served by high-performing schools.

Howe

Standish King Field

Study Area 19

#

Longfellow

Corcoran

Study Area 15

Study Area 16

Map Reading Hints The map identifies the rank of each neighborhood based on its grades 9-12 service gap. The bold white ranking numbers indicate the 11 top-ranking study areas of need for high-performing 9-12 seats. The school point shapes and color indicate the school type and MMR designation.

Cedar Riverside

Kenwood

Study Area 10

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Study Area 6

Study Area 8

Study Area 12

Study Area 33

§ ¦ ¨

Study Area 5

Study Area 9

Study Area 11

Northeast Park

Sheridan

Willard - Hay

1

Study Area 4 Study Area 7

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority l No MMR Score*

en

Webber - Camden

Study Area 3

Columbia Park

Ca

Victory

Study Area 1 Study Area 2

Bancroft

Linden Hills Hiawatha

8

Regina

Lynnhurst

Fulton

Northrop

Field Keewaydin

Tangletown Page

Kenny Armatage

Ericsson

Windom

11 § ¦ ¨

2

Hale

Minnehaha

Wenonah

Diamond Lake

Morris Park

35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis. Source: 2013 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) audited enrollment data; 2014 MDE school performance data; 2013-14 school directory data.

40 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Map Takeaways There are 28 district and charter schools serving grades 9-12 citywide. Of these schools, only two are high performing, five are mid performing, two are low performing, and 19 are lowest performing. The majority of Focus and Priority schools are clustered toward the central and northwest parts of the city.


9-12 Service Gap Twenty-eight district and charter schools serve grades 9-12 in Minneapolis; 20 are district schools and eight are charter schools. As seen in Table 8, two of the high schools are designated as Reward or Celebration Eligible: one traditional district school (Patrick Henry High School) and one district other school (Fair School Downtown). Patrick Henry High School is located in the far northwest corner of the city, while Fair School Downtown is situated in the Downtown West neighborhood near the city center. Citywide, Minneapolis has a dearth of high-performing high schools. As illustrated in Map 12, 19 out of 28 high schools are designated as Focus or Priority, nine of which are concentrated south of the downtown area. As Map 13 demonstrates, there is only one high-quality MPS high school for which commute data was available in 2013-14: Patrick Henry High School. Of the students who attended Patrick Henry, 71 percent (784 students) lived in the Henry attendance boundary; 18 percent (198 students) who commuted outside of their attendance boundary to attend Patrick Henry High School traveled from the neighboring North boundary. For MPS schools serving grades 9-12, high-performing schools are more likely to be accessed by students living in or near the school attendance boundary.

Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grades 9-12 9-12 Need Rank 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 16 17 17 18 18 18 18 20 20 21 21 22 22 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 28 29 29 30 30 30 30 32 32 33 33 34 34 35 35

Study 9-12 Area Demand Study Area Study 11Area 11 491 491 Study Area Study 31Area 31 420 420 Study Area Study 19Area 19 423 423 Study Area Study 20Area 20 413 413 Study Area Study 25Area 25 383 383 Study Area Study 12Area 12 408 408 Study Area Study 22Area 22 361 361 Study Area Study 27Area 27 357 357 Study Area Study 23Area 23 341 341 Study Area Study 24Area 24 337 337 Study Area Study 35Area 35 326 326 Study Area Study 7 Area 7352 352 Study Area Study 16Area 16 387 387 Study Area Study 28Area 28 287 287 Study Area Study 29Area 29 273 273 Study Area Study 30Area 30 267 267 Study Area Study 34Area 34 262 262 Study Area Study 15Area 15 333 333 Study Area Study 26Area 26 263 263 Study Area Study 18Area 18 245 245 Study Area Study 33Area 33 231 231 Study Area Study 17Area 17 247 247 Study Area Study 32Area 32 228 228 Study Area Study 14Area 14 337 337 Study Area Study 13Area 13 244 244 Study Area Study 6 Area 6245 245 Study Area Study 21Area 21 167 167 Study Area Study 8 Area 8213 213 Study Area Study 3 Area 3258 258 Study Area Study 9 Area 9213 213 Study Area Study 4 Area 4194 194 Study Area Study 5 Area 5231 231 Study Area Study 2 Area 2151 151 Study Area Study 1 Area 1138 138 Study Area Study 10Area 10 43 43

9-12 Service Gap -442 -442 -410 -410 -408 -408 -406 -406 -372 -372 -367 -367 -357 -357 -348 -348 -337 -337 -331 -331 -320 -320 -293 -293 -281 -281 -278 -278 -270 -270 -261 -261 -258 -258 -254 -254 -254 -254 -228 -228 -228 -228 -226 -226 -224 -224 -223 -223 -214 -214 -175 -175 -164 -164 -156 -156 -145 -145 -129 -129 -125 -125 -76 -76 -71 -71 -19 -19 14 14

9-12 9-12 Service Service Level Level 10% 10% 2% 2% 4% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 10% 10% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 17% 17% 27% 27% 3% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 24% 24% 3% 3% 7% 7% 1% 1% 9% 9% 2% 2% 34% 34% 12% 12% 29% 29% 2% 2% 27% 27% 44% 44% 39% 39% 36% 36% 67% 67% 53% 53% 86% 86% 133% 133%

Table 8. Number of Schools Serving Students in Grades 9-12

Traditional District District, Magnet/Citywide District, Other District, Special Program Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Higher Education Institution Total

Reward

Celebration Eligible

No Designation

Continuous Improvement

Focus

Priority

Total

1 0 0 0 0 0 1

0 0 1 0 0 0 1

4 0 0 1 0 0 5

0 0 1 1 0 0 2

2 0 0 8 4 3 17

1 0 0 0 1 0 2

8 0 2 10 5 3 28

41 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Map 13 Student Commute Patterns to High-Performing Schools, Grades 9-12 9-12 Commute Analysis

MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades 9-12 Commute to High-Performing District Schools l Traditional District 9-12 Attendance Boundary (Green areas) Zone 1 (Orange areas) Zone 2 (Purple areas) Zone 1 ...... ...... ...... (Dotted) Non-residential Students

1

Henry Edison

Other High-Performing Schools (without commute data) l Celebration Eligible District, Other

North

Henry

Edison

North

Southwest South

Washburn

Roosevelt

2

Southwest South

Map Reading Hints The school points are all high-performing schools, and their shape indicates their school type. The points are sized by the number of children enrolled in grades 9-12. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students attending from each attendance area. The green, purple, and orange area colors represent MPS attendance areas with color variation within each zone.

Washburn

Roosevelt

*Commute data presented by school only available for traditional district MPS schools with an attendance boundary Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools "Where Students Live" reports.

42 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined

The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas. Map Takeaways There is only one traditional highperforming MPS high school. The large majority of children who attended Patrick Henry High School were from the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attendance area. Highperforming schools that served grades 9-12 were more likely to be accessed by students living in or near the school attendance boundary.


Student Commute Patterns to Reward and Celebration Eligible Schools, Grades 9-12 Map Symbol Number

School Type

School Name

1

District

2

District, Other

Student Commute Patterns in MPS Attendance Areas To examine school-choice patterns within MPS, the mapping analysis in this section focuses on the proportion of MPS students who stayed within or traveled beyond their attendance area and the quality of the school they attended. The data demonstrates that in traveling outside of their attendance areas, a considerable amount of families are actively searching for but are not accessing opportunities to enroll their children in high-performing schools. Maps 14, 15, and 16 reveal that of the 51 percent of children (16,574 students) who commuted beyond their attendance area to attend MPS schools, only 18 percent

Grade Span

9–12 Enrollment

Patrick Henry Senior High

9–12

1,109

Fair School Downtown

K–12

286

(2,943 students) accessed high-performing district schools. Additionally, 51 percent of students who traveled out of their attendance area attended MPS schools designated as Focus or Priority. Due to the small supply of Reward or Celebration Eligible schools citywide, MPS students who remained in their attendance area did not fare much better in accessing a quality school, as only 24 percent attended a high-performing school. There was an exception to this pattern for the students residing in the southwest area of the city, which has a larger concentration of high-performing MPS schools in comparison to other parts of the city.

43 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Map 14 MMR Designation of MPS Schools Attended by Children in Each Attendance Area, Grades K-5 MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades K-5 School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority

Lind-Loring

Waite Park

n Attendance Areas n Park

Lind-Loring Waite Park

Laney-Johnson Pillsbury Bethune

Bryn Mawr

Pratt

Kenwood

Sullivan

Jefferson Andersen

Laney-Johnson

Lyndale

Pillsbury

Green Northrop

Hiawatha

Lake Harriet Burroughs

Bethune

§ ¦ ¨ 94

Hale-Field Lake Nokomis

Kenny

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Pratt Map Reading Hints The pie charts are sized by the number of MPS students who lived in that attendance area. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students who traveled from that attendance area to MPS schools, and the quality of school they attended.

Bryn Mawr Sullivan

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Jefferson Andersen

Kenwood

Green

Hiawatha Northrop

Map Takeaways Despite commute options, the majority of K-5 MPS students attended lowestperforming schools. Of the students who commuted beyond their attendance area, 66 percent (5,795 students) traveled to Priority and Focus schools. Only 12 percent (1,080 students) who commuted out of their attendance area attended a high-performing school.

Lake Harriet Lyndale

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Hale-Field Burroughs Lake Nokomis Kenny

Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools "Where Students Live" reports.

44 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

The main map identifies the K-8 MPS attendance areas and zones. The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas.


In 2013-14, of the 5,795 K-5 students who commuted beyond their attendance area, the majority (66 percent) traveled to lowest-performing schools. Despite the option to commute to quality schools, only 12 percent (1,080 students) who traveled outside of their attendance area accessed a high-performing school, as demonstrated in Map 14 and Chart 4.

Chart 4. Student Commute Patterns to MPS Schools by Performance of School Attending, Grades K-5

1,007

705 1,660

Approximately 50 percent of the K-5 students who attended MPS schools stayed in the attendance area in which they live, while the remaining 50 percent commuted out of their attendance area. Of the students staying in their attendance area, 44 percent (3,945 students) attended a Focus or Priority school and 30 percent (2,667 students) attended a high-performing school. Regardless of commute, the majority of MPS K-5 students attended lowest-performing schools. Fifty-five percent attended MPS schools with a Focus or Priority MMR designation, 22 percent attended MPS No Designation schools, and 21 percent attended MPS schools with a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR designation.

375

1,843 37

2,093 167

3,737

2,059

1,886 Stays in Attendance Area

n n n n n n

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority

Focus

Priority

5% 7% 30% 54% 4% 6% 60% 59% 82% 39% 18% 25% 29% 84% 55% 45% 8% 4% 16% 15%

65% 81% 62% 26% 10% 17% 2% 4% 5% 3% 3% 3% 9% 4% 1% 35% 1% 0% 1% 1%

2,058 Commutes Out of Attendance Area

Percent of District Students by Attendance Area and Performance of MPS School Attending, Grades K-5

K-8 A endance Area Lind-Loring Laney-Johnson Bethune Bryn Mawr Waite Park Pillsbury Pra Sullivan Andersen Northrop Hiawatha Lake Nokomis Kenwood JeďŹ&#x20AC;erson Lyndale Green Lake Harriet Burroughs Kenny Hale-Field

Grades Reward K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5 K-5

0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% 2% 2% 2% 34% 5% 5% 0% 1% 10% 5% 4% 80% 4% 14%

Celebra!on Eligible 1% 1% 1% 3% 54% 6% 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 8% 5% 2% 12% 6% 80% 10% 75% 63%

No Designa!on 28% 10% 7% 16% 32% 71% 36% 34% 11% 20% 52% 59% 56% 10% 21% 8% 7% 6% 4% 8%

Con!nuous Improvement 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

45 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Map 15 MMR Designation of MPS Schools Attended by Children in Each Attendance Area, Grades 6-8 MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades 6-8 School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority

Lind-Loring

Waite Park

n Attendance Areas n Park

Lind-Loring Waite Park

Laney-Johnson

Pillsbury

Bethune

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

394

Bryn Mawr

Pratt

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Kenwood

Sullivan

Jefferson

Andersen

Laney-Johnson Lyndale

Green Northrop

Pillsbury

Hiawatha

Lake Harriet Burroughs

Bethune

Hale-Field

§ ¦ ¨

Lake Nokomis

35W

§ ¦ § ¨ ¦ ¨

Kenny

94

394

Pratt

Bryn Mawr

Map Reading Hints The pie charts are sized by the number of MPS students who lived in that attendance area. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students who traveled from that attendance area to MPS schools, and the quality of school they attended.

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Jefferson

Sullivan Andersen

Kenwood

Northrop Lake Harriet

Hiawatha

Green Lyndale

Burroughs

Hale-Field

Lake Nokomis Kenny

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools ”Where Students Live” reports.

46 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

The main map identifies the K-8 MPS attendance areas and zones. The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas. Map Takeaways Forty-four percent of grades 6-8 MPS students attended underperforming schools. Of the students who commuted beyond their attendance area, 46 percent (1,927 students) attended an underperforming school, while 23 percent (952 students) commuted to a high-performing school. Of the students who stayed in their attendance area, 40 percent (1,118 students) attended lowest-performing schools, while 34 percent (962 students) attended high-performing schools.


Similar to the K-5 commute, Map 15 and Chart 5 indicates that a significant proportion of MPS grades 6-8 students were unable to access quality schools, despite their effort to commute beyond their attendance area. In 2013-14, 60 percent (4,192 students) in grades 6-8 traveled outside of their attendance area, of which less than 25 percent accessed high-performing schools. Meanwhile, 46 percent (1,927 students) commuted to lowest-performing schools. Forty percent (2,793 students) in grades 6-8 stayed in the attendance area in which they live. Of the students who remained in their MPS school boundary, 40 percent (1,118 students) attended Focus or Priority schools, and 34 percent (962 students) attended high-performing schools.

Chart 5. Student Commute Patterns to MPS Schools by Performance of School Attending, Grades 6-8

604 348

1,105 556 406

208

579

As illustrated on Map 15, the majority of MPS grades 6-8 students attended underperforming schools. Between both categories of students who commuted from or stayed in their attendance area, 44 percent in grades 6-8 attended an MPS school with a Focus or Priority MMR designation, 24 percent attended MPS No Designation schools, and 27 percent attended MPS schools with a Reward or Celebration Eligible designation.

134

1,582 n n n n n n

642 476 Stays in Attendance Area

345

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority

Commutes Out of Attendance Area

Percent of District Students by Attendance Area and Performance of MPS School Attending, Grades 6-8

K-8 A endance Area Lind-Loring Laney-Johnson Bethune Bryn Mawr Waite Park Pillsbury Pra Sullivan Andersen Northrop Hiawatha Lake Nokomis Kenwood JeďŹ&#x20AC;erson Lyndale Green Lake Harriet Burroughs Kenny Hale-Field

Grades Reward 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8 6-8

0% 1% 1% 3% 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 6% 2% 7% 50% 22% 24% 13% 14% 30% 76% 77%

Celebra!on Eligible 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% 7% 6% 35% 12% 82% 53% 8% 9%

No Designa!on 5% 5% 6% 19% 20% 33% 100% 51% 28% 71% 86% 81% 15% 13% 23% 9% 3% 15% 3% 8%

Con!nuous Improvement 37% 21% 4% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

47 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined

Focus

Priority

35% 31% 57% 65% 75% 63% 0% 43% 65% 17% 10% 9% 20% 56% 15% 33% 1% 2% 13% 6%

22% 42% 30% 10% 2% 3% 0% 6% 5% 3% 1% 1% 5% 3% 3% 34% 0% 0% 0% 0%


Map 16 MMR Designation of MPS Schools Attended by Children in Each Attendance Area, Grades 9-12 MPS Attendance Areas and IFF Study Area Rankings Grades 9-12 Henry

Henry

Edison

School MMR Designation l Reward l Celebration Eligible l No Designation l Continuous Improvement l Focus l Priority n Attendance Areas n Park

Edison

North

Southwest South

North

Washburn

Roosevelt

¦ ¨ § ¦ § ¨ 94

394

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Southwest

South

Map Reading Hints The pie charts are sized by the number of MPS students who lived in that attendance area. The colors and size of the pie slices indicate the number of students who traveled from that attendance area to MPS schools, and the quality of school they attended. The main map identifies the K-8 MPS attendance areas and zones. The inset map identifies the study area ranks that fall within the MPS attendance areas.

Washburn

Roosevelt

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Source: 2014 Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) school performance data; 2013-14 MDE school directory data; 2013-14 Minneapolis Public Schools ”Where Students Live” reports.

48 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Map Takeaways Seventy-two percent of grades 9-12 MPS students attended No Designation schools. Of the total MPS students who attended No Designation schools, 38 percent commuted out of their attendance area and 62 percent stayed in the attendance area in which they live.


In contrast to the K-5 and 6-8 commute maps, Map 16 and Chart 6 highlight that the majority of 9-12 MPS students commuted to schools without an MMR designation. In 2013-14, 40 percent (3,071 students) in grades 9-12 commuted out of their attendance area, while 60 percent (4,615 students) stayed within their attendance area. Of the students who traveled beyond the attendance area in which they live, the largest proportion commuted to No Designation schools: 67 percent (2,061 students). Meanwhile, 22 percent (685 students) commuted to lowest-performing schools, while 11 percent commuted to high-performing schools (325 students). Of the students who stayed in their attendance area, 9 percent (397 students) attended a Focus or Priority school and 17 percent (784 students) attended a high-performing school. Overall, 72 percent of MPS students in grades 9-12 attended a school without an MMR designation, while 14 percent attended failing schools and the remaining 14 percent attended high-performing schools.

Chart 6. Student Commute Patterns to MPS Schools by Performance of School Attending, Grades 9-12

784

325 3,434 2,061

302 95 Stays in Attendance Area

n n n n

531 154

Reward No Designation Focus Priority

Commutes Out of Attendance Area

Percent of District Students by Attendance Area and Performance of MPS School Attending, Grades 9-12

9-12 A endance Area Edison Henry North Roosevelt South Southwest Washburn

Grades Reward 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12 9-12

14% 55% 33% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Celebra!on Eligible 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

No Designa!on 81% 31% 46% 54% 81% 94% 93%

Con!nuous Improvement 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

49 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined

Focus

Priority

3% 5% 5% 45% 18% 5% 6%

2% 9% 16% 0% 0% 1% 0%


Top 11 Highest-Need Area Profiles

In ranking Minneapolis’ 35 study areas, the study found that 48 percent of the service gap is concentrated in 11 study areas—the highest-need areas. These study areas need approximately 14,767 seats in Reward or Celebration Eligible schools. Addressing the service gaps in the highest-need areas can transform the educational landscape in Minneapolis. To facilitate planning based on the distinct attributes of each study area, this section includes a series of maps, charts, and tables that detail service gaps, demographics, and school performance for each of the highest-need areas. Although each highest-need area has unique community and demographic characteristics, there are similar patterns across these 11 geographies. The majority of schools located in the highest-need areas are designated as Focus or Priority—71 percent (27 schools). The five Reward and Celebration Eligible schools that supply quality seats to the highest-need areas—located in Jordan, Longfellow, and Webber-Camden neighborhoods—have estimated utilization rates over 95 percent. Additionally, in comparison to citywide averages, the top 11 study areas have considerably higher percentages of children facing school-readiness challenges, including poverty, residence change, poor English language ability, and lack of adult educational attainment. An analysis of student commute patterns from the MPS attendance areas that overlap the highest-need areas reveals low percentages of students attending high-performing MPS schools. The highest-need areas clustered in the northwest corridor are bordered by MPS K-8 attendance areas Lind-Loring,

50 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Laney-Johnson, Bethune, Bryn Mawr, and Pillsbury, and the Henry and North 9-12 attendance boundaries. Based on commute patterns from these K-8 attendance areas, only 2 percent of students are attending high-performing MPS schools. Conversely, the MPS 9-12 attendance areas show almost 50 percent of MPS students attending a high-performing school: Patrick Henry High School. The highest-need areas clustered in central Minneapolis are bordered by MPS K-8 attendance areasâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Pratt, Sullivan, Andersen, Northrop, Hiawatha, Kenwood, Jefferson, Lyndale, and Green in addition to the 9-12 attendance boundaries of Washburn, Southwest, South, and Roosevelt. These district attendance areas indicate similar student commutes as in the northwest: 66 percent and 43 percent of MPS students in grades K-5 and 6-8, respectively, travel to underperforming schools, while 85 percent of MPS students in grades 9-12 travel to a mid-performing school: South High School. The data on the following pages provides demographic and school data to inform differentiated strategies in the highest-need areas. As the top 11 study areas reveal an overall lack of Reward and Celebration Eligible schools, these detailed profiles can be used to develop neighborhood-level education improvement plans that examine underperforming (low and lowest performing) schools. The maps also display schools located within one mile of each highest-need area. This allows stakeholders to consider investing resources to elevate the performance of No Designation schools that are in close proximity to the focus study areas.

51 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Minneapolis' Highest-NeedArea Rank 1: Highest-Need 1 Study Area 20

Schools Serving Study Area 20

East Phillips and Midtown Phillips

Shingle Creek

n East Phillips & Midtown Phillips n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation

Cam

Victory

l l l l

Columbia Park

den

Webber Camden

ia ustr Ind

Waite Park

l Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

School Type

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Loring Park

Cedar Riverside

Lowry Hill Steven's Square Loring Heights Kenwood

#

East Isles

Whittier

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

§ ¦ # ¨ 35W

CARAG

# Ventura Village

East Phillips

Phillips West

# Lyndale

Seward

Midtown Phillips

ECCO

West Calhoun

Central

Powderhorn Park

Corcoran

King Field

Bryant

Cooper

Longfellow

# East Harriet

Howe

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Hiawatha

Regina

Field Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Wenonah Armatage

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

52 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n East Phillips & Midtown Phillips n n n n

Ericsson Northrop

Fulton

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

n n

Minnehaha

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving East Phillips and Midtown Phillips 41 11

12

31

7 8

23

2

Jefferson

# 14 4th Ave S

24

33

E 24th St

6

E 26th St

28th Ave

E 22nd St

39

35

East Phillips and Midtown Phillips

#9

Sullivan 3

20 25

5

30

24

Andersen

17 32

21

31st Ave S

# 13

#

19

18

38 1

4

E 28th St

28 26

27 10

34 E 34th St

19th Ave S

42

15

20th Ave S

40

35W

11th Ave S

37

#36

§ ¦ ¨

Bloomington Ave S

29

22

16

Data for Schools Serving East Phillips and Midtown Phillips Map School School Type School Name Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 District, Special Program American Indian OIC 2 Tradional District Andersen Community 3 District, Magnet/Citywide Anishabe Academy 4 Tradional District Anne Sullivan Communicaons 5 Non-district sponsored charter Arc4H Academy 6 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon Augsburg Fairview Academy 7 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Charter School 8 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Middle School 9 District, Magnet/Citywide Bancro Elementary** 10 District, Special Program Broadway Arts & Technology 11 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon Cedar Riverside Community School 12 District, Special Program Challenge Academy 13 Independent, General City of Lakes Waldorf School 14 Independent, General Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Twin Cies 15 District, Magnet/Citywide Folwell Arts Magnet** 16 District, Charter Friendship Academy of the Arts 17 Tradional District Green Central Park Academy 18 Charter, Nonprofit Hennepin Elementary 19 Independent, General Hope Academy 20 Charter, Nonprofit Leadership Academy 21 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon Lincoln Internaonal School 22 District, Special Program Loring-Nicollet High School 23 District, Special Program Merc 24 Charter, Nonprofit Metro Schools Charter 25 District, Special Program Minnesota Transions Alp 26 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transions Charter 27 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transions Middle 28 District, Special Program MPS D/Hh 29 District, Special Program MPS Metro C 30 Charter, Nonprofit MTS High School 31 District, Special Program Nawayee Center School 32 Independent, General Risen Christ Catholic School 33 District, Magnet/Citywide Seward Montessori 34 Tradional District South Senior High 35 District, Special Program Transion Plus Services 36 Independent, General Trinity First Lutheran School 37 District, Special Program Urban League Academy High School 38 District, Special Program VOA Opportunity High School 39 Charter, Nonprofit Bdote Learning Center 40 Charter, Nonprofit Metropolitan Educaon for Future Employment 41 Charter, Nonprofit Mill City High School 42 Charter, Nonprofit Teal Elementary Academy for Learning

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch No Performance Ranking 9-12 40 38 90% Focus PK-8 1,128 1,130 99% Priority PK-8 363 341 96% Focus PK-8 736 621 91% No Performance Ranking K-3 64 64 Focus 9-12 169 169 92% Connuous Improvement K-4 203 302 95% Reward 5-8 129 129 87% Focus PK-5 534 470 88% Focus 8-12 99 116 95% No Designaon K-8 161 161 98% No Performance Ranking 11-12 3 3 No Performance Ranking K-8 205 240 No Performance Ranking 9-12 223 319 Focus K-8 902 944 86% Reward K-6 127 116 92% Priority PK-8 558 557 95% No Performance Ranking K-3 218 218 97% No Performance Ranking K-12 352 356 Priority K-8 243 353 98% Focus 9-12 142 142 97% Focus 10-12 45 49 65% No Performance Ranking 9-12 62 60 89% Focus 5-12 356 356 98% No Performance Ranking 12-12 174 354 Priority K-5 118 118 97% Celebraon Eligible 6-8 85 85 96% No Performance Ranking K-7 11 22 82% No Performance Ranking 7-12 15 18 85% Focus 9-12 210 291 96% No Performance Ranking 7-12 43 45 No Performance Ranking K-8 307 453 No Designaon K-8 849 866 53% No Designaon 9-12 1,754 1,864 55% No Performance Ranking 12-12 292 318 80% No Performance Ranking K-8 84 84 Focus 6-12 76 71 89% Focus 10-12 48 73 95% No Performance Ranking K-4 N/A N/A N/A N/A 6-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A 9-12 N/A N/A N/A N/A K-5 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 21% 6% 33% 8% 59% 49% 35% 34% 32% 71% 16% 61% 38% 18% 5% 54% 15% 35% 39% 12% 49% 20% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 18% 7% 25% 30% 29% 23% 37% 21% 31% 25% 47% 12% 46% 22% 12% 11% 45% 10% 16% 22% 22% 23% 54% 45% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

53 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 1 | East Phillips and Midtown Phillips | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, East Phillips and Midtown Phillips have 1,900 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 80 percent (1,519 students) attend district schools, while 20 percent (381 students) attend charter schools.

School Performance In 2013-14, 39 schools within a one-mile radius were serving East Phillips and Midtown Phillips. Twenty-two out of 39 schools served grades K-5, while 21 served grades 6-8 and 18 served grades 9-12.*

l

Children in East Phillips and Midtown Phillips have rates of poverty, residence change, and low adult educational attainment that are 10 to 25 percentage points higher than citywide averages.

l

l

This study area has a significant number of children who are dominant in languages other than English: 27 percent overall, 13 percent of which are Spanish dominant. Also, this study area had the greatest increase over time in children who speak Asian and Pacific Island languages: Eight percentage points (154 children) (see Maps 6 and 7).

Of the 22 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, two were mid performing, 10 were underperforming, and eight had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: one was mid performing, six were underperforming, and one had no performance ranking. l 10 were charter schools: two were high performing, one was mid performing, four were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Four were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 21 schools serving grades 6-8: l Three were high performing, two were mid performing, nine were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l 11 were district schools: one was mid performing, seven were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Six were charter schools: three were high performing, one was mid performing, and two were underperforming. l Four were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 18 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was mid performing, eight were underperforming, and nine had no performance ranking. l 12 were district schools: one was mid performing, four were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l Four were charter schools, all of which were underperforming. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,794, meaning that 94 percent of seats in schools serving East Phillips and Midtown Phillips are in underperforming schools. Only 6 percent are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 992 are in grades K-5—ranked second based on K-5 service gaps. n 396 are in grades 6-8—ranked first based on 6-8 service gaps. n 406 are in grades 9-12—ranked fourth based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

54 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


MPS Student Commute East Phillips and Midtown Phillips is situated between the Sullivan, Anderson, and Jefferson MPS K-8 attendance areas, and the South and Southwest MPS 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

3,484 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 2 percent (76 students) attended high-performing schools. l 17 percent (581 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 81 percent (2,827 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,293 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 10 percent (130 students) attended high-performing schools. l 29 percent (379 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 61 percent (784 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,809 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (11 students) attended high-performing schools. l 88 percent (2,476 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 11 percent (322 students) attended underperforming schools.

55 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


nneapolis' Highest-Need Rank 2: Study Highest-Need Area 2 Area 19

ent Commute to MPS Schools

Phillips West and Ventura Village

Shingle Creek

n Phillips West and Ventura Village n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation

den Cam

Victory Webber Camden

l l l l

Columbia Park

l

ia ustr Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

Loring Park

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park Cedar Riverside

Lowry Hill

#

Steven's Square Loring Heights 35W

§ ¦ ¨

Kenwood

#

#

East Isles

Whittier

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Phillips West

CARAG

Ventura Village

Lyndale

Central

Seward

Midtown Phillips East Phillips

#

ECCO

West Calhoun

Powderhorn Park

Corcoran

King Field

Bryant

Bancroft

Cooper

Longfellow

# East Harriet

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

School Type

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Howe

Standish

Linden Hills Hiawatha

Regina

Ericsson Northrop

Field Lynnhurst

Fulton

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Phillips West and Ventura Village n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

56 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Phillips West and Ventura Village

§ ¦ ¨

32

13 ve in A

ep

12

11

§ ¦ ¨

7

8

§ ¦ ¨

94

W 25th St

10th Ave S

Stevens Ave S

30

6

18 5

2 39

24

Andersen

Sullivan 26 22

17 23

31

11th Ave S

Green

E Franklin Ave

E 24th St

E 26th St

#10

20

36

#

Phillips West

4th Ave S W 35th St

1

Ventura Village 27

4

21

Pleasant Ave S

38

#

37

#34

35W

25 19 35 42 15 16 40 9 E 24th St

Jefferson W 26th St

41

Kenwood

33

3

14

29

#28

19th Ave S

nn

He

Data for Schools Serving Phillips West and Ventura Village Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42

School Name

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Percent Percent Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Pass MCA Pass MCA Reduced Lunch Math Reading

District, Special Program American Indian OIC No Performance Ranking 9-12 Tradi onal District Andersen Community Focus PK-8 Non-district sponsored charter Arc4H Academy No Performance Ranking K-3 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Augsburg Fairview Academy Focus 9-12 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Charter School Con nuous Improvement K-4 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Middle School Reward 5-8 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Cedar Riverside Community School No Designa on K-8 District, Special Program Challenge Academy No Performance Ranking 11-12 Independent, General City of Lakes Waldorf School No Performance Ranking K-8 Independent, General Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Twin Ci es No Performance Ranking 9-12 Charter, Nonprofit Downtown Campus No Performance Ranking 9-12 District, Magnet/Citywide Emerson Spanish Immersion Focus PK-5 District, Magnet/Citywide Fair School Downtown Celebra on Eligible K-12 Tradi onal District Green Central Park Elementary Priority PK-8 Charter, Nonprofit Hennepin Elementary School No Performance Ranking K-3 Independent, General Hope Academy No Performance Ranking K-12 Charter, Nonprofit Leadership Academy Priority K-8 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Lincoln Interna onal School Focus 9-12 District, Special Program Loring-Nicollet High School Focus 10-12 Tradi onal District Lyndale Elementary Focus PK-5 District, Special Program Merc No Performance Ranking 9-12 Charter, Nonprofit Metro Schools Charter Focus 5-12 District, Special Program Minnesota Transi ons Alp No Performance Ranking 12-12 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Middle Celebra on Eligible 6-8 District, Special Program MPS Metro C No Performance Ranking 7-12 Charter, Nonprofit MTS High School Focus 9-12 District, Special Program Nawayee Center School No Performance Ranking 7-12 Independent, General Risen Christ Catholic School No Performance Ranking K-8 Charter, Nonprofit Sabathani Campus Focus 9-12 District, Magnet/Citywide Seward Montessori No Designa on K-8 Tradi onal District South Senior High No Designa on 9-12 District, Special Program Stadium View No Performance Ranking 6-12 District, Special Program Transi on Plus Services No Performance Ranking 12-12 Independent, General Trinity First Lutheran School No Performance Ranking K-8 District, Special Program Urban League Academy High Focus 6-12 District, Special Program Voa Opportunity HS Focus 10-12 District, Special Program Voa Phoenix - Salt HS Focus 10-12 District, Magnet/Citywide Whi!er Interna onal Focus K-5 Charter, Nonprofit Bdote Learning Center No Performance Ranking K-4 Charter, Nonprofit Metropolitan Educa on for Future Employment N/A 6-12 Charter, Nonprofit Mill City High School N/A 9-12 Charter, Nonprofit Teal Elementary Academy for Learning N/A K-5

40 1,128 64 169 203 129 161 3 205 223 56 528 497 558 218 352 243 142 45 568 62 356 174 85 15 210 43 307 42 849 1,754 47 292 84 76 48 109 650 N/A N/A N/A N/A

57 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

38 1,130 64 169 302 129 161 3 240 319 57 471 528 557 218 356 353 142 49 487 60 356 354 85 18 291 45 453 69 866 1,864 42 318 84 71 73 124 609 N/A N/A N/A N/A

90% 99% 92% 95% 87% 98% 93% 79% 51% 95% 97% 98% 97% 65% 76% 89% 98% 96% 85% 96% 95% 53% 55% 93% 80% 89% 95% 85% 67% N/A N/A N/A N/A

21%

18%

8% 59% 49% 34%

30% 29% 23% 37% 31%

51% 40% 16%

31% 61% 12%

61%

46%

38%

22%

18% 5%

12% 11%

9% 55% 15% -

50% 39% 10% 16% -

39%

22%

-

-

12%

23%

49% 20% 5% 51% -

54% 45% 43% -


Highest-Need Area 2 | Phillips West and Ventura Village | cont.

Demographics According to demand estimates, Phillips West and Ventura Village have 1,885 students in grades K-12. Based on this estimation: l Approximately 80 percent (1,512 students) attend district schools, while 20 percent (373 students) attend charter schools.

l

l

Children in this study area have rates of poverty, residence change, and adults with less than a bachelor’s degree that are nine to 27 percentage points higher than the ranking group averages.

l

The 11 percent of children who are dominant in a language other than English is only slightly above the citywide average. However, the concentration of children who are Spanishdominant is the third highest when compared against the other top 11 study areas.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap is estimated at 1,761, meaning that 93 percent of seats in schools serving Phillips West and Ventura Village are in underperforming schools and 7 percent are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 997 are in grades K-5—ranked first based on K-5 service gaps. n 357 are in grades 6-8—ranked third based on 6-8 service gaps. n 407 are in grades 9-12—ranked third based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

58 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, there were 39 schools within a one-mile radius serving Phillips West and Ventura Village. Nineteen out of 39 schools served grades K-5, while 17 served grades 6-8 and 22 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 19 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, two were mid performing, eight were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l Seven were district schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, and five were underperforming. l Eight were charter schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, three were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Four were independent schools and did not have a performance ranking.

l

Of the 17 schools serving grades 6-8: l Three were high performing, two were mid performing, five were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, three were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Five were charter schools: two were high performing, one was mid performing, and two were underperforming. l Four were independent schools: none had a performance ranking.

l

Of the 22 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was high performing, one was mid performing, nine were underperforming, and 11 had no performance ranking. l 14 were district schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, four were underperforming, and eight had no performance ranking. l Six were charter schools: Four were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.


MPS Student Commute Phillips West and Ventura Village are situated between Sullivan, Anderson, Kenwood, Jefferson, and Green K-8 MPS attendance areas, and South and Southwest 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

5,077 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 4 percent (211 students) attended high-performing schools. l 20 percent (1,028 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 76 percent (3,838 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,922 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 19 percent (359 students) attended high-performing schools. l 23 percent (450 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 58 percent (1,113 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,809 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (11 students) attended high-performing schools. l 88 (2,476 students) percent attended mid-performing schools l 11 percent (322 students) attended underperforming schools.

59 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 3 Willard-Hay

Shingle Creek

n Willard-Hay n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation C am

Victory

l l l l

Columbia Park

den

Webber Camden

ia ustr Ind

Waite Park

l Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

McKinley

l l l l

Audubon Park

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

#

#

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North 94

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Mid - City Industrial

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Como Marcy Holmes

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Loring Park

Cedar Riverside

Lowry Hill Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Ventura Village Seward

East Isles Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

School Type

l District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

Beltrami

94

Whittier

Midtown Phillips Phillips West

East Phillips Longfellow

ECCO

West Calhoun

CARAG

Lyndale

Central

Powderhorn Park

Cooper

Corcoran

Howe East Harriet

King Field

Bryant

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Hiawatha

Regina

Ericsson Northrop

Field Lynnhurst

Fulton

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Wenonah Armatage

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Kenny

Windom

Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR sore are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

60 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Minnehaha

Morris Park

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Willard-Hay n n n n

n n

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


30th Ave N

9 15

27th Ave N

25

Irving Ave N

19

Laney-Johnson

#

3 7 20

Humboldt Ave N

17

Bethune

Glenwood Ave

26th Ave N

21

12

5th Ave N

14

2 16 16th Ave N

Morgan Ave N

Penn Ave N

24

WillardHay

Upton Ave S

18

Colfax Ave N

10

Girard Ave N Fremont Ave N

Morgan Ave N

Schools Serving Willard-Way

6

§ ¦ ¨

#22 13

94

11

4

8

23

3r

d

St

N

§ ¦ ¨ 94

§ ¦ ¨ 394

1 Bryn Mawr 5

Data for Schools Serving Willard-Way Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 District, Magnet/Citywide 2 Independent, General 3 Charter, Nonprofit 4 Tradional District 5 Tradional District 6 Tradional District 7 District, Special Program 8 Charter, Nonprofit 9 District, Magnet/Citywide 10 Tradional District 11 District, Charter 12 District, Charter 13 Charter Higher Educaon Instuon 14 Tradional District 15 Charter, Nonprofit 16 Tradional District 17 Tradional District 18 District, Charter 19 District, Special Program 20 District, Special Program 21 District, Special Program 22 Independent, General 23 Charter Higher Educaon Instuon 24 Charter, Nonprofit 25 Charter, Nonprofit

School Name

Anwan Middle Ascension Elementary School Best Academy Bethune Community Bryn Mawr Community Hall Internaonal Harrison Educaon Center Harvest Prep School-Seed Academy Hmong Internaonal Academy Lucy Cra Laney Community Mastery School Minneapolis College Preparatory MN Internaonal Middle Charter Nellie Stone Johnson Elementary** New Millenium Academy Charter North Academy Of Arts & Communicaon North Senior High Pierre Bo!neau Plymouth Youth Center River Bend Educaonal Center Span High The Emerging Li"le Linguists Academy Twin Cies Internaonal Elementary Unity Campus Freedom Academy

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch Focus 6-8 641 592 82% No Performance Ranking K-8 300 320 No Designaon K-8 497 526 92% Priority PK-5 359 351 99% Focus PK-5 454 415 82% Priority PK-5 452 398 88% No Performance Ranking 9-12 66 68 95% No Designaon K-6 369 461 94% Priority PK-8 539 427 90% Priority PK-8 677 622 99% No Performance Ranking K-3 199 178 90% Connuous Improvement 9-10 90 69 No Designaon 5-8 403 403 97% Priority PK-8 807 721 96% Celebraon Eligible K-8 435 458 85% Focus 9-10 154 109 92% Priority 9-12 99 259 91% No Performance Ranking K-4 111 97 68% Focus 9-12 168 151 96% No Performance Ranking 1-11 105 80 97% No Performance Ranking 9-12 98 98 82% No Performance Ranking K-5 29 29 Celebraon Eligible K-4 593 599 96% Focus 9-12 100 126 97% N/A K-3 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 32% 49% 54% 17% 35% 29% 69% 23% 13% 60% 20% 59% 2% 2% 59% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 28% 36% 38% 10% 22% 25% 8% 48% 16% 9% 35% 43% 16% 25% 23% 8% 23% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

61 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 3 | Willard-Hay | cont.

Demographics According to demand estimates, Willard-Hay has 1,741 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 74 percent (1,293 students) attend district schools, while 26 percent (447 students) attend charter schools.

l

l

Across the top 11 study areas, Willard-Hay has the secondhighest rate of children living below 185 percent of the FPL: 58 percent.

l

The rates of adults with less than a bachelor’s degree and children who changed residence are 11 to 23 percentage points higher than the citywide means.

l

7 percent of children in Willard-Hay are dominant in Asian and Pacific Island languages. This number is higher than the other language groups besides English represented in this study area.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap is estimated at 1,572, meaning that 90 percent of seats in schools serving Willard-Hay are in underperforming schools and 10 percent (168 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 777 are in grades K-5—ranked fourth based on K-5 service gaps. n 353 are in grades 6-8—ranked fourth based on 6-8 service gaps. n 442 are in grades 9-12—ranked first based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

62 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 24 schools within a one-mile radius were serving Willard-Hay. Sixteen out of 24 schools served grades K-5, while 10 served grades 6-8 and eight served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 16 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, three were mid performing, six were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Seven were district schools: six were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Seven were charter schools: two were high performing, three were mid performing, and two had no performance ranking. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 10 schools serving grades 6-8: l One was high performing, three were mid performing, four were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: four were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Four were charter schools: one was high performing and three were mid performing. l One was an independent school and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the eight schools serving grades 9-12: l Five were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Six were district schools: three were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Two were charter schools and both were underperforming.


MPS Student Commute Willard-Hay is situated between Bethune, Bryn Mawr and Laney-Johnson K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Henry and North 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

3,322 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 2 percent (53 students) attended high-performing schools. l 10 percent (334 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 88 percent (2,935 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,358 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 2 percent (28 students) attended high-performing schools. l 7 percent (95 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 91 percent (1,235 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,020 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l 48 percent (982 students) attended high-performing schools. l 36 percent (721 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 16 percent (317 students) attended underperforming schools.

63 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 4 Jordan

Shingle Creek

n Jordan n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation den Cam

Victory Webber Camden

l l l l

Columbia Park

l

ia ustr Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau

Jordan Hawthorne

#

# Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Willard - Hay

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

School Type

l District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

94

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Como Marcy Holmes

§ ¦ ¨ 394

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Downtown West Bryn - Mawr

Lowry Hill

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Loring Park Steven's Square Loring Heights

Cedar Riverside

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Kenwood

Ventura Village Seward

East Isles Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Midtown Phillips

Whittier

Phillips West

East Phillips Longfellow

ECCO West Calhoun

Cooper

Central CARAG

Lyndale

Corcoran Powderhorn Park

East Harriet

Bryant

Bancroft

Howe

Standish

King Field

Linden Hills

Hiawatha

Regina

Ericsson Northrop

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Minnehaha

Hale

35W

Armatage

Wenonah

Windom Diamond Lake

*Schools that do not have an MMR sore are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

64 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n n n n

n n

§ ¦ ¨ Kenny

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Jordan

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Jordan 15

5

Laney-Johnson 4

30th Ave N

13

30th Ave N

9

27th Ave N

Jordan

14 James Ave N

Golden Valley Rd

16th Ave N

19

Irving Ave N

Penn Ave N

10

20 16 17

18th Ave N

1

11

#

#

3 Aldrich Ave N

12

Bethune 7

18

8

2 6

§ ¦ ¨ 94

Data for Schools Serving Jordan Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Independent, General Tradi onal District Tradi onal District District, Magnet/Citywide Tradi onal District District, Charter District, Charter Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Tradi onal District Charter, Nonprofit Tradi onal District Tradi onal District District, Charter District, Special Program Charter, Nonprofit District, Special Program Independent, General Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Nonprofit

School Name

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Percent Percent Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Pass MCA Pass MCA Reduced Lunch Math Reading

Ascension Elementary School Bethune Community Hall Interna onal Hmong Interna onal Academy Lucy Cra! Laney Community Mastery School Minneapolis College Preparatory MN Interna onal Middle Charter Nellie Stone Johnson Elementary** New Millenium Academy Charter North Academy Of Arts & Communica on North Senior High Pierre Bo"neau Plymouth Youth Center Sojourner Truth Academy Span High The Emerging Li#le Linguists Academy Twin Ci es Interna onal Elementary Unity Campus Freedom Academy

No Performance Ranking Priority Priority Priority Priority No Performance Ranking Con nuous Improvement No Designa on Priority Celebra on Eligible Focus Priority No Performance Ranking Focus Priority No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Celebra on Eligible Focus N/A

K-8 PK-5 PK-5 PK-8 PK-8 K-3 9-10 5-8 PK-8 K-8 9-10 9-12 K-4 9-12 K-8 9-12 K-5 K-4 9-12 K-3

300 359 452 539 677 199 90 403 807 435 154 99 111 168 422 98 29 593 100 N/A

320 351 398 427 622 178 69 403 721 458 109 259 97 151 422 98 29 599 126 N/A

99% 88% 90% 99% 90% 94% 96% 85% 92% 91% 68% 96% 98% 98% 96% 97% N/A

49% 17% 29% 23% 13% 20% 2% 2% 24% 59% -

36% 10% 25% 16% 9% 43% 16% 23% 8% 23% 23% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

65 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 4 | Jordan | cont.

Demographics According to demand estimates, Jordan has 1,673 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 71 percent (1,196 students) attend district schools, while 29 percent (477 students) attend charter schools.

l

l

This study area has the highest rate of adults with less than a bachelor’s degree (88 percent) and the second-highest rate of children in poverty (56 percent) when compared to all other study areas across the city.

l

8 percent of children in Jordan are dominant in Asian and Pacific Island languages—considerably higher than the other language groups.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap is estimated at 1,503, meaning that 90 percent of seats in schools serving Jordan are in underperforming schools and 10 percent (170 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 848 are in grades K-5—ranked third based on K-5 service gaps. n 362 are in grades 6-8—ranked second based on 6-8 service gaps. n 293 are in grades 9-12— ranked 12th based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

66 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 19 schools within a one-mile radius were serving Jordan. Thirteen out of 19 schools served grades K-5, while seven served grades 6-8 and six served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 13 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, one was mid performing, six were underperforming, and four had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools, all of which were underperforming. l Six were charter schools: two were high performing, one was mid performing, one was underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the seven schools serving grades 6-8: l One was high performing, one was mid performing, four were underperforming, and one had no performance ranking. l Three were district schools, all of which were underperforming. l Three were charter schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, and one was underperforming. l One was an independent school and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the six schools serving grades 9-12: l Five schools were underperforming and one school had no performance ranking. l Four were district schools: three were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Two were charter schools, both of which were underperforming.


MPS Student Commute Jordan is situated between Bethune, Bryn Mawr and Laney-Johnson K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Henry and North 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

2,912 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 1 percent (34 students) attended high-performing schools. l 9 percent (268 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 90 percent (2,610 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,192 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 2 percent (19 students) attended high-performing schools. l 5 percent (64 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 93 percent (1,109 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,020 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l 48 percent (982 students) attended high-performing schools. l 36 percent (721 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 16 percent (317 students) attended underperforming schools.

67 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 5 Central

Shingle Creek

n Central n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation Cam

Victory

l l l l

Columbia Park

den

Webber Camden

ial

ustr

Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

School Type

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

94

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

Loring Park

Cedar Riverside

§ ¦ ¨ #

#

East Isles Lowry Hill East

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights 35W

Kenwood

Cedar Isles - Dean

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Lowry Hill

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

Ventura Village Midtown Phillips

Whittier

Phillips West

#

Seward

East Phillips Longfellow

ECCO

West Calhoun

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Central

CARAG

Powderhorn Park

Cooper

Corcoran

Lyndale

#

# #

East Harriet

Bryant

King Field

Bancroft

Howe

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Northrop

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Field Lynnhurst

Fulton

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

§ ¦ ¨

Hale

Minnehaha

Kenny

Windom

Wenonah

Diamond Lake

*Schools that do not have an MMR sore are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

68 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n n n n

n n

35W

Armatage

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Central

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Central 28

4

E 26th St

#

Central

W 45th St

19th Ave S

18

#

Green

21

24

5

9

20th Ave S

#

22 3

19 17

20

10

Portland Ave S

Garfield Ave S

#1

Pleasant Ave S

W 38th St

Lyndale

Andersen

26

8

Northrop

E 42nd St

17th Ave S

1st Ave S

13

2

E 28th St

7

14

16

Bloomington Ave S

Jefferson

#

12

13th Ave S

25

35W

10th Ave S

W 26th St

#6

§ ¦ ¨ 11

11th Ave S

Grand Ave

27 15

Nicollet Ave

W 24th St

Stevens Ave S

23

W 22nd St

Data for Schools Serving Central Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon 2 Tradional District 3 Non-district sponsored charter 4 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon 5 District, Magnet/Citywide 6 Independent, General 7 Independent, General 8 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon 9 District, Magnet/Citywide 10 Tradional District 11 Charter, Nonprofit 12 Independent, General 13 Independent, General 14 Tradional District 15 District, Special Program 16 District, Special Program 17 Independent, General 18 Independent, General 19 Charter, Nonprofit 20 Tradional District 21 Charter, Nonprofit 22 District, Special Program 23 District, Special Program 24 Charter, Nonprofit 25 District, Magnet/Citywide 26 Charter, Nonprofit 27 Charter, Nonprofit 28 Charter, Nonprofit

School Name

MMR Designa on

Hiawatha College Prep^ Andersen Community Arc4H Academy Augsburg Fairview Academy Bancro Elementary** City of Lakes Waldorf School Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Twin Cies El Colegio Charter School Folwell Arts Magnet** Green Central Park Elementary Hennepin Elementary School Hope Academy Lake Country School Lyndale Elementary Merc Nawayee Center School Pilgrim Lutheran School Risen Christ Catholic School Sabathani Campus South Senior High Southside Family Charter School Transion Plus Services Urban League Academy High Watershed High School Whi!er Internaonal Bdote Learning Center Metropolitan Educaon for Future Employment Teal Elementary Academy for Learning

Reward Focus No Performance Ranking Focus Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus Focus Priority No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus No Designaon Reward No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking N/A N/A

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch 5-7 202 202 98% PK-8 1,128 1,130 99% K-3 64 64 9-12 169 169 92% PK-5 534 470 88% K-8 205 240 9-12 223 319 9-12 79 90 91% K-8 902 944 86% PK-8 558 557 95% K-3 218 218 97% K-12 352 356 K-8 257 260 PK-5 568 487 76% 9-12 62 60 89% 7-12 43 45 K-8 68 95 K-8 307 453 9-12 42 69 95% 9-12 1,754 1,864 55% K-8 109 109 51% 12-12 292 318 80% 6-12 76 71 89% 9-12 63 96 64% K-5 650 609 67% K-4 N/A N/A N/A 6-12 N/A N/A N/A K-5 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 70% 21% 8% 35% 4% 32% 16% 61% 38% 55% 20% 54% 24% 51% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 45% 18% 30% 29% 21% 13% 25% 12% 46% 22% 39% 10% 45% 63% 50% 43% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body. ^Formerly Adelante College Preparatory Academy. 69 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 5 | Central | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Central has 1,543 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 84 percent (1,300 students) attend district schools, while 16 percent (243 students) attend charter schools l

Central has comparable rates of residence change (21 percent) and children in poverty (41 percent) as in the other top 11 study areas.

l

24 percent of children do not speak English very well and 18 percent are Spanish dominant. This is significantly higher than the other language groups in this study area.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,395, meaning that 90 percent of seats in schools serving Central are in underperforming schools and 10 percent (148 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 736 are in grades K-5—ranked sixth based on K-5 service gaps. n 302 are in grades 6-8—ranked sixth based on 6-8 service gaps. n 357 are in grades 9-12—ranked seventh based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

70 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 26 schools within a one-mile radius of Central were serving grades K-12. Sixteen out of 26 schools served grades K-5, while 12 served grades 6-8 and 11 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 16 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, six were underperforming, and eight had no performance ranking. l Six were district schools, all of which were underperforming. l Five were charter schools: two were high performing and three had no performance ranking. l Five were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 12 schools serving grades 6-8: l Two were high performing, four were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: four were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Two were charter schools: both were high performing. l Five were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 11 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was mid performing, four were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: one was mid performing, one was underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Four were charter schools: three were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.


MPS Student Commute Central is situated between Anderson, Northrop, Jefferson, Lyndale, and Green K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Roosevelt, South, Southwest, and Washburn 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

5,518 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 14 percent (766 students) attended high-performing schools. l 14 percent (759 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 72 percent (3,993 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,125 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 23 percent (488 students) attended high-performing schools. l 29 percent (614 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 48 percent (1,023 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

5,016 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (16 students) attended high-performing schools. l 85 percent (4,273 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 14 percent (727 students) attended underperforming schools.

71 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 6 Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper

Shingle Creek

n Longfellow, Seward and Cooper n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation

Victory

den Cam

Webber Camden

l l l l

Columbia Park Waite Park

Ind ial ustr

Cleveland

Marshall Terrace

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

School Type

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

94

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

394

Downtown West

Loring Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Cedar Riverside 35W

Whittier

ECCO

CARAG

Ventura Village

Seward

Midtown Phillips

Lowry Hill East

West Calhoun

#

§ ¦ ¨ #

Cedar Isles - Dean

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Kenwood East Isles

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Lowry Hill

Como Marcy Holmes

§ ¦ ¨

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Phillips West

Central

Lyndale

East Phillips

Powderhorn Park

Corcoran

Longfellow

Cooper

#

Howe

East Harriet

Bryant

King Field

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Northrop

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Longfellow, Seward and Cooper n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Kenny

Windom

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Diamond Lake

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

72 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper ive

40

35

rsit

yA ve

28

SE

27

10

#16

39

26

7

8

21

5

Seward E 26th St

19

E 28th St

32

31

25

18

11th Ave S

Columbus Ave S

2

E Franklin Ave

36

23

24 3

4 E 29th St

22

17 9

E 31st St

Cooper

13

29

30 15

14 38

#

20

Longfellow 32nd Ave S

E 25th St

17th Ave S

6

37

1

20th Ave S

35W

42nd Ave S

#34

§ ¦ ¨

26th Ave S Co Rd 48

11

SE

Un

Malcolm Ave

33

E 36th St E 37th St E 38th St

12

Data for Schools Serving Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper Map School School Type School Name Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 District, Special Program American Indian OIC 2 Tradi onal District Andersen Community School 3 District, Magnet/Citywide Anishinabe Academy 4 Tradi onal District Anne Sullivan Communica ons 5 Non-district sponsored charter Arc4H Academy 6 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Augsburg Fairview Academy 7 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Charter School 8 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Middle School 9 District, Special Program Broadway Arts & Technology 10 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Cedar Riverside Community School 11 District, Special Program Challenge Academy 12 District, Magnet/Citywide Dowling Elementary 13 District, Magnet/Citywide Folwell Arts Magnet** 14 District, Charter Friendship Academy of The Arts 15 Tradi onal District Hiawatha Community - Howe Campus 16 Independent, General Hope Academy 17 Charter, Nonprofit Leadership Academy 18 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Lincoln Interna onal School 19 Charter, Nonprofit Metro Schools Charter 20 Independent, General Minnehaha Academy Upper 21 District, Special Program Minnesota Transi ons Alp 22 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Charter Elementary 23 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Middle 24 District, Special Program MPS D/Hh 25 Charter, Nonprofit MTS High School 26 District, Special Program Nawayee Center School 27 Tradi onal District Pra! Elementary 28 District, Special Program Ronald Mcdonald House 29 Tradi onal District Roosevelt Senior High 30 District, Magnet/Citywide Sanford Middle 31 District, Magnet/Citywide Seward Montessori 32 Tradi onal District South Senior High 33 District, Special Program Stadium View 34 Independent, General Trinity First Lutheran School 35 Charter, Nonprofit Venture Academy 36 District, Special Program Voa Opportunity High 37 District, Special Program Voa Phoenix - Salt High 38 District, Special Program Wellstone Interna onal High 39 Charter, Nonprofit Bdote Learning Center 40 Charter, Nonprofit Mill City High School

MMR Designa on

No Performance Ranking Focus Priority Focus No Performance Ranking Focus Con nuous Improvement Reward Focus No Designa on No Performance Ranking No Designa on Focus Reward No Designa on No Performance Ranking Priority Focus Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Priority Celebra on Eligible No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking Focus No Designa on No Designa on No Designa on No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus Focus Focus Focus No Performance Ranking N/A

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch 9-12 40 38 90% PK-8 1,128 1,130 99% PK-8 363 341 96% PK-8 736 621 91% K-3 64 64 9-12 169 169 92% K-4 203 302 95% 5-8 129 129 87% 8-12 99 116 95% K-8 161 161 98% 11-12 3 3 K-5 515 496 39% K-8 902 944 86% K-6 127 116 96% 3-5 162 162 97% K-12 352 356 K-8 243 353 92% 9-12 142 142 97% 5-12 356 356 98% 9-12 376 513 12-12 174 354 K-5 118 118 97% 6-8 85 85 96% K-7 11 22 82% 9-12 210 291 96% 7-12 43 45 PK-5 221 202 77% K-8 5 7 9-12 783 857 86% 6-8 782 646 63% K-8 849 866 53% 9-12 1,754 1,864 55% 6-12 47 42 93% K-8 84 84 6-7 118 118 10-12 48 73 95% 10-12 109 124 85% 9-12 276 160 93% K-4 N/A N/A N/A 9-12 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 21% 6% 33% 8% 59% 49% 34% 32% 71% 59% 38% 18% 5% 15% 35% 39% 12% 37% 18% 38% 49% 20% 18% 5% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 18% 7% 25% 30% 29% 23% 37% 31% 25% 47% 50% 22% 12% 11% 16% 22% 22% 23% 34% 27% 45% 54% 45% 19% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

73 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 6 | Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper have 1,550 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 83 percent (1,283 students) attend district schools, while 17 percent (267 students) attend charter schools. l

School Performance In 2013-14, 39 schools within a one-mile radius of Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper were serving grades K-12. Twenty-one out of 39 schools served grades K-5, while 20 served grades 6-8 and 17 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 21 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, four were mid performing, nine were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l 10 were district schools: three were mid performing, five were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Nine were charter schools: two were high performing, one was mid performing, four were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 20 schools serving grades 6-8: l Three were high performing, three were mid performing, eight were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l 11 were district schools: two were mid performing, five were underperforming, and four had no performance ranking. l Seven were charter schools: Three were high performing, one was mid performing, and three were underperforming. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 17 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was mid performing, nine were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l 11 were district schools: one was mid performing, five were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Four were charter schools: all four were underperforming. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

In contrast to the other highest-need areas, Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper have among the lowest rates across the four demographic categories: adults without a bachelor’s degree (52 percent), residence change (12 percent), children in poverty (17 percent), and children who speak English less than very well (9 percent).

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,297, meaning that 84 percent of seats in schools serving Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper are in underperforming schools and 16 percent (253 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 660 are in grades K-5—ranked seventh based on K-5 service gaps. n 265 are in grades 6-8—ranked seventh based on 6-8 service gaps. n 372 are in grades 9-12— ranked fifth based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

74 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


MPS Student Commute Longfellow, Seward, and Cooper are situated between Pratt, Sullivan, Anderson, and Hiawatha K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Roosevelt and South 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

3,088 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 3 percent (96 students) attended high-performing schools. l 29 percent (893 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 68 percent (2,099 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,194 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 2 percent (20 students) attended high-performing schools. l 51 percent (610 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 47 percent (564 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,967 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (3 students) attended high-performing schools. l 72 percent (1,419 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 28 percent (545 students) attended underperforming schools.

75 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 7 Powderhorn Park

Shingle Creek

n Powderhorn Park n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation l l l l

Cam

Victory

den

Webber Camden

Columbia Park

ial ustr

Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Folwell

Cleveland

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Logan Park

Sheridan

Northeast Park

Willard - Hay Near - North

§ ¦ ¨

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Beltrami

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

Loring Park Lowry Hill

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park Cedar Riverside

Steven's Square Loring Heights

§ ¦ # ¨ 35W

Kenwood East Isles Whittier

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Ventura Village Midtown Phillips

Phillips West

#

Central ECCO

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

West Calhoun

School Type

Mid - City Industrial

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

Harrison

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

CARAG

Powderhorn Park

Seward

East Phillips

Corcoran

Cooper

Longfellow

Lyndale

# East Harriet

# King Field

Bryant

Howe

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Northrop Ericsson

Hiawatha

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR sore are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

76 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Powderhorn Park

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Powderhorn Park

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

1 14 4

#

22

E 25th St

9

17th Ave S

2

#

30

19th Ave S

E 34th St

E 35th St

11 12

E 38th St

13th Ave S

10 Bloomington Ave S

1st Ave S

Clinton Ave S

11th Ave S

20

#

ve aA

Northrop

E 46th St

E 32nd St

ah

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

7

eh

#

#

24

8

n Min

26 23

27

5

13

E 26th St

15 19

18

Andersen

Powderhorn Park 28

Green

21 16 17 5

6

E 41st St

26th Ave S

94

Standish Ave S

§ ¦ ¨

25

29

Data for Schools Serving Powderhorn Park Map School School Type School Name Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 District, Special Program American Indian OIC 2 Tradi onal District Andersen Community 3 Non-district sponsored charter Arc4H Academy 4 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Augsburg Fairview Academy 5 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Charter School 6 Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Middle School 7 District, Magnet/Citywide Bancro! Elementary 8 District, Special Program Broadway Arts & Technology 9 Independent, General Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Twin Ci es 10 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on El Colegio Charter School 11 District, Magnet/Citywide Folwell Arts Magnet** 12 District, Charter Friendship Academy of The Arts 13 Tradi onal District Green Central Park Elementary 14 Independent, General Hope Academy 15 Charter, Nonprofit Leadership Academy 16 Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Lincoln Interna onal School 17 Charter, Nonprofit Metro Schools Charter 18 District, Special Program Minnesota Transi ons Alp 19 Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Middle 20 District, Special Program MPS Metro SJ 21 Charter, Nonprofit MTS High School 22 District, Special Program Nawayee Center School 23 Independent, General Pilgrim Lutheran 24 Independent, General Risen Christ Catholic School 25 Tradi onal District Roosevelt Senior High 26 Charter, Nonprofit Sabathani Campus 27 Tradi onal District South Senior High 28 District, Special Program Transi on Plus Services 29 District, Special Program Wellstone Interna onal High 30 Charter, Nonprofit Bdote Learning Center

MMR Designa on

No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking Focus Con nuous Improvement Reward Focus Focus No Performance Ranking Focus Focus Reward Priority No Performance Ranking Priority Focus Focus No Performance Ranking Celebra on Eligible No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus Focus No Designa on No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch 9-12 40 38 90% PK-8 1,128 1,130 99% K-3 64 64 9-12 169 169 92% K-4 203 302 95% 5-8 129 129 87% PK-5 534 470 88% 8-12 99 116 95% 9-12 223 319 9-12 79 90 91% K-8 902 944 86% K-6 127 116 92% PK-8 558 557 95% K-12 352 356 K-8 243 353 98% 9-12 142 142 97% 5-12 356 356 98% 12-12 174 354 93% 6-8 85 85 96% 1-11 43 53 95% 9-12 210 291 96% 7-12 43 45 95% K-8 68 95 K-8 307 453 9-12 783 857 86% 9-12 42 69 95% 9-12 1,754 1,864 55% 12-12 292 318 80% 9-12 276 160 93% K-4 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 21% 8% 59% 49% 35% 4% 32% 71% 16% 38% 5% 15% 39% 12% 18% 20% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 18% 30% 29% 23% 37% 21% 13% 25% 47% 12% 22% 11% 16% 22% 23% 27% 45% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

77 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 7 | Powderhorn Park | cont.

Demographics According to demand estimates, Powderhorn Park has 1,339 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 83 percent (1,118 students) attend district schools, while 17 percent (221 students) attend charter schools.

l

l

Powderhorn Park has comparable rates of children in poverty and adults with less than a bachelor’s degree as the other highest-need areas.

l

A small proportion of children changed residence in this study area—12 percent—as compared to the city and the ranking groups.

l

8 percent of children in Powderhorn Park are dominant in Spanish, which is the only language group represented other than English.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,182, meaning that 88 percent of seats in schools serving Powderhorn Park are in underperforming schools and 12 percent (157 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 610 are in grades K-5—ranked ninth based on K-5 service gaps. n 235 are in grades 6-8—ranked eighth based on 6-8 service gaps. n 337 are in grades 9-12—ranked ninth based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

78 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 30 schools within a one-mile radius of Powderhorn Park were serving grades K-12. Fifteen out of 30 schools served grades K-5, while 14 served grades 6-8 and 17 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 15 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, seven were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: four were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Seven were charter schools: two were high performing, three were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Three were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 14 schools serving grades 6-8: l Three were high performing, six were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Six were district schools: four were underperforming and two had no performance ranking. l Five were charter schools: three were high performing and two were underperforming. l Three were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 17 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was mid performing, nine were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l Nine were district schools: one was mid performing, three were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Six were charter schools: all six were underperforming. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.


MPS Student Commute Powderhorn Park is situated between Anderson, Northrop and Green K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Roosevelt, South, Southwest, and Washburn 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

3,298 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 16 percent (525 students) attended high-performing schools. l 13 percent (439 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 71 percent (2,334 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,319 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 11 percent (146 students) attended high-performing schools. l 36 percent (471 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 53 percent (702 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

5,016 students in grades 9-12 attended to MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (16 students) attended high-performing schools. l 85 percent (4,273 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 14 percent (727 students) attended underperforming schools.

79 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 8 Near-North

Shingle Creek

n Near-North n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation Cam

Victory

l l l l

Columbia Park

den

Webber Camden

Ind

Waite Park

ial ustr Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland

Windom Park

Bottineau Jordan

#

Hawthorne

#

# Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨ 94

94

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Willard - Hay

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Beltrami

#

Como Marcy Holmes

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Bryn - Mawr

Downtown West

Loring Park

Lowry Hill Steven's Square Loring Heights

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

§ ¦ ¨

Cedar Riverside

35W

Kenwood

Ventura Village Seward

East Isles Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Whittier

Phillips West

Midtown Phillips

East Phillips Longfellow

Central West Calhoun

School Type

Mid - City Industrial

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

ECCO

CARAG

Lyndale

Powderhorn Park

Cooper

Corcoran

Howe

East Harriet

King Field

Bryant

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Northrop

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

80 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Near-North

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Near-North

Girard Ave N

26th Ave N

24

2

Aldrich Ave N

§ ¦ ¨

17

35W

E

30

4 94

10

#

N

§ ¦ ¨

13

6

e Av

Morgan Ave N

N ve yA rsit

16

n

3

8

to

NearNorth

13th Ave NE

27

ive

15

Dupont Ave

16th Ave N

22

7

19

#29

#

21

Penn Ave N

2nd St NE

32 28

25

#

ng hi as W

12th Ave N

14

31

Un

Thomas Ave N

21st Ave N

18

Fremont Ave

20

5th St NE

11 27th Ave N

State Hwy 47

23

9 26

1

Glenwo

od Ave

§ ¦ ¨ 394

12

5

Data for Schools Serving Near-North Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32

District, Magnet/Citywide Independent, General Charter, Nonprofit Tradional District Tradional District Independent, General Charter, Nonprofit Tradional District District, Special Program Charter, Nonprofit District, Magnet/Citywide Charter, Nonprofit District, Charter District, Special Program District, Charter Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon District, Special Program Tradional District Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Nonprofit Tradional District Tradional District District, Charter District, Special Program Independent, General District, Special Program District, Magnet/Citywide District, Special Program Independent, General Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon Charter, Nonprofit Charter, Nonprofit

School Name

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Percent Pass MCA Percent Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Math Pass MCA Reduced Lunch Reading

Anwan Middle Ascension Elementary School Best Academy Bethune Community Bryn Mawr Community DeLaSalle High School Fraser Academy Hall Internaonal Harrison Educaon Center Harvest Prep School-Seed Academy Hmong Internaonal Academy KIPP North Star Academy Mastery School Menlo Park Academy Minneapolis College Preparatory MN Internaonal Middle Charter MPS Metro HA Nellie Stone Johnson Elementary** New City School New Millenium Academy Charter North Academy of Arts & Communicaon North Senior High Pierre Bo neau Plymouth Youth Center Pope John Paul II Catholic School River Bend Educaonal Center Sheridan Arts Span High The Emerging Li!le Linguists Academy Twin Cies Internaonal Elementary Unity Campus Freedom Academy

Focus No Performance Ranking No Designaon Priority Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Priority No Performance Ranking No Designaon Priority Celebraon Eligible No Performance Ranking Focus Connuous Improvement No Designaon No Performance Ranking Priority No Designaon Celebraon Eligible Focus Priority No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Priority No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Celebraon Eligible Focus N/A

6-8 K-8 K-8 PK-5 PK-5 9-12 K-5 PK-5 9-12 K-6 PK-8 5-8 K-3 10-12 9-10 5-8 1-12 PK-8 K-8 K-8 9-10 9-12 K-4 9-12 K-8 1-11 K-5 9-12 K-5 K-4 9-12 K-3

641 300 497 359 454 1,025 77 452 66 369 539 199 199 71 90 403 43 807 184 435 154 99 111 168 129 105 502 98 29 593 100 N/A

592 320 526 351 415 1,025 86 398 68 461 427 199 178 72 69 403 45 721 184 458 109 259 97 151 141 80 577 98 29 599 126 N/A

82% 92% 99% 82% 42% 88% 95% 94% 90% 94% 90% 78% 94% 97% 93% 96% 35% 85% 92% 91% 68% 96% 97% 94% 94% 96% 97% N/A

32% 49% 54% 17% 35% 29% 69% 23% 30% 60% 6% 20% 59% 2% 2% 31% -

28% 36% 38% 10% 22% 25% 8% 48% 16% 32% 35% 18% 43% 16% 25% 23% 8% 4% 17% 10% -

***MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

81 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 8 | Near-North | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Near-North has 1,291 students in grades K-12. l 73 percent (946 students) attend district schools, while 27 percent (346 students) attend charter schools. l

Across the top 11 study areas, the highest rate of children living below 185 percent of the FPL is in Near-North—59 percent.

l

This study area also has among the highest proportions in two other categories: adults with less than a bachelor’s degree (84 percent), and children who are dominant in Asian and Pacific Island languages (11 percent).

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,101, meaning that 85 percent of seats in schools serving Near-North are in underperforming schools and 15 percent (191 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 509 are in grades K-5—ranked 11th based on K-5 service gaps. n 224 are in grades 6-8—ranked ninth based on 6-8 service gaps. n 366 are in grades 9-12—ranked sixth based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

82 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 31 schools within a one-mile radius of Near-North were serving grades K-12. Twenty-one out of 31 schools served grades K-5, while 13 served grades 6-8 and 11 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 21 schools serving grades K-5: l Three were high performing, four were mid performing, six were underperforming, and eight had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: Six were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l 10 were charter schools: three were high performing, four were mid performing, and three had no performance ranking. l Three were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 13 schools serving grades 6-8: l Two were high performing, four were mid performing, three were underperforming, and four had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: three were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Six were charter schools: two were high performing, and four were mid performing. l Two were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 11 schools serving grades 9-12: l Six were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: four were underperforming and four had no performance ranking. l Two were charter schools, both of which were underperforming. l One was an independent school that had no performance ranking.


MPS Student Commute Near-North is situated between Laney-Johnson, Bethune, Bryn Mawr, and Pillsbury K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Edison, Henry and North 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

4,323 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 3 percent (115 students) attended high-performing schools. l 24 percent (1,043 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 73 percent (3,165 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,653 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l Less than 2 percent (29 students) attended high-performing schools. l 12 percent (191 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 87 percent (1,433 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

2,472 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l 42 percent (1,046 students) attended high-performing schools. l 44 percent (1,088 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 14 percent (338 students) attended underperforming schools.

83 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 9 Corcoran and Standish

Shingle Creek

n Corcoran and Standish n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation

den C am

Victory Webber Camden

l l l l

Columbia Park

ial

ustr

Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

School Type

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

Loring Park Lowry Hill

Cedar Riverside

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

East Isles Whittier

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

ECCO

CARAG

Lyndale

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Kenwood

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

West Calhoun

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

Ventura Village Midtown Phillips

Phillips West

Central

Powderhorn Park

Seward

East Phillips

Corcoran

Longfellow

# East Harriet

King Field

Bryant

Bancroft

Cooper

Howe

Standish

#

Linden Hills Regina

#

Northrop

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Corcoran and Standish n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

84 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Corcoran and Standish

26

18 3 24

16 21

E 31st St

33

10

Corcoran 12

31

E 36th St

4 Rd Co

E 37th St

13

Standish

11

E 43rd St

28

14

Hiawatha

#

E 43rd St

e

25

36 30

v ht A Dig

E 42nd St

8

9

Northrop

42nd Ave S

14th Ave S

29

#

E 29th St

22

35 Andersen 5

4

23

31st Ave S

35W

8

23rd Ave S

§ ¦ ¨

11th Ave S

37

17th Ave S

2

7 17

34

15 44th Ave S

27

32

38th Ave S

6

26th Ave S

1

#

20

19

Data for Schools Serving Corcoran and Standish Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

School Name

District, Special Program American Indian OIC Tradi onal District Andersen Community District, Magnet/Citywide Anishinabe Academy Tradi onal District Anne Sullivan Communica ons Non-district sponsored charter Arc4H Academy Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Augsburg Fairview Academy Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Charter School Charter, Nonprofit Aurora Middle School District, Magnet/Citywide Bancro! Elementary** District, Special Program Broadway Arts & Technology Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on El Colegio Charter School District, Magnet/Citywide Folwell Arts Magnet** District, Charter Friendship Academy of The Arts Tradi onal District Hiawatha Community-Howe Campus Tradi onal District Hiawatha Elementary Charter, Nonprofit Leadership Academy Charter, Higher Educa on Ins tu on Lincoln Interna onal School Charter, Nonprofit Metro Schools Charter Charter, Nonprofit Minneapolis Academy Charter School Independent, General Minnehaha Academy Lower & Middle School District, Special Program Minnesota Transi ons ALP Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Charter Elementary Charter, Nonprofit Minnesota Transi ons Middle District, Special Program MPS D/Hh District, Special Program MPS Metro SJ Charter, Nonprofit MTS High School District, Special Program Nawayee Center School District, Magnet/Citywide Northrop Elementary Independent, General Risen Christ Catholic School Tradi onal District Roosevelt Senior High District, Magnet/Citywide Sanford Middle District, Magnet/Citywide Seward Montessori Tradi onal District South Senior High Independent, General St. Helena District, Special Program Transi on Plus Services District, Special Program Wellstone Interna onal High Charter, Nonprofit Bdote Learning Center

MMR Designa on

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Percent Percent Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Pass MCA Pass MCA Reduced Lunch Math Reading

No Performance Ranking Focus Priority Focus No Performance Ranking Focus Con nuous Improvement Reward Focus Focus Focus Focus Reward No Designa on Con nuous Improvement Priority Focus Focus Reward No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Priority Celebra on Eligible No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking Reward No Performance Ranking Focus No Designa on No Designa on No Designa on No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus N/A

9-12 PK-8 PK-8 PK-8 K-3 9-12 K-4 5-8 PK-5 8-12 9-12 K-8 K-6 3-5 PK-2 K-8 9-12 5-12 5-8 K-8 12-12 K-5 6-8 K-7 1-11 9-12 7-12 PK-5 K-8 9-12 6-8 K-8 9-12 K-8 12-12 9-12 K-4

40 1,128 363 736 64 169 203 129 534 99 79 902 127 162 222 243 142 356 143 443 174 118 85 11 43 210 43 463 307 783 782 849 1,754 154 154 276 N/A

38 1,130 341 621 64 169 302 129 470 116 90 944 116 162 286 353 142 356 160 480 354 118 85 22 53 291 45 415 453 857 646 866 1,864 200 217 160 N/A

90% 99% 96% 91% 92% 95% 87% 88% 95% 91% 86% 92% 55% 98% 97% 98% 93% 93% 97% 96% 82% 95% 96% 95% 49% 86% 63% 53% 55% 80% 93% N/A

21% 6% 33% 8% 59% 49% 35% 4% 32% 71% 59% 83% 18% 5% 15% 57% 35% 39% 12% 75% 18% 38% 49% 20% -

18% 7% 25% 30% 29% 23% 37% 21% 13% 25% 47% 50% 73% 12% 11% 16% 67% 22% 22% 23% 65% 27% 45% 54% 45% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

85 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 9 | Corcoran and Standish | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Corcoran and Standish have 1,291 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 85 percent (1,092 students) attend district schools, while 15 percent (199 students) attend charter schools. l

School Performance In 2013-14, 37 schools within a one-mile radius of Corcoran and Standish were serving grades K-12. Twenty-three out of 37 schools served grades K-5, while 19 served grades 6-8 and 14 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 23 schools serving grades K-5: l Four were high performing, two were mid performing, 10 were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l 11 were district schools: one was high performing, two were mid performing, six were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Nine were charter schools: three were high performing, four were underperforming, and two had no performance ranking. l Three were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 19 schools serving grades 6-8: l Four were high performing, two were mid performing, seven were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l 10 were district schools: two were mid performing, five were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l Six were charter schools: four were high performing and two were underperforming. l Three were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 14 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was mid performing, eight were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Nine were district schools: one was mid performing, three were underperforming, and five had no performance ranking. l Five were charter schools, all of which were underperforming.

Corcoran and Standish have among the lowest rates across the four demographic categories: adults without a bachelor’s degree (57 percent), residence change (9 percent), children in poverty (27 percent), and children who speak English less than very well (4 percent).

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,081, meaning that 84 percent of seats in schools serving Corcoran and Standish are in underperforming schools and 16 percent (210 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 534 are in grades K-5—ranked 10th based on K-5 service gaps. n 216 are in grades 6-8—ranked 10th based on 6-8 service gaps. n 331 are in grades 9-12— ranked 10th based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

86 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


MPS Student Commute Corcoran and Standish are situated in the middle of Andersen, Northrop, and Hiawatha K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Roosevelt and South 9-12 attendance areas. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

3,127 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 15 percent (468 students) attended high-performing schools. l 24 percent (754 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 61 percent (1,905 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,189 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 5 percent (55 students) attended high-performing schools. l 56 percent (666 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 39 percent (468 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,967 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (three students) attended high-performing schools. l 72 percent (1,419 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 28 percent (545 students) attended underperforming schools.

87 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 10 Webber-Camden and Folwell n Webber-Camden and Folwell n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Shingle Creek Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation

Cam

Victory

den

Webber Camden

Ind

Columbia Park

l l l l

ial

ustr

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

School Type

Willard - Hay

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

l District District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

©

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

94

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

Como Marcy Holmes

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Loring Park

Cedar Riverside

Lowry Hill Steven's Square Loring Heights

§ ¦ ¨

Kenwood

35W

Ventura Village Seward

East Isles Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Whittier

Phillips West

Midtown Phillips

East Phillips Longfellow

West Calhoun

ECCO

CARAG

Central

Lyndale

Powderhorn Park

Cooper Corcoran

Howe

East Harriet

King Field

Bryant

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Northrop

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Webber-Camden and Folwell n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Kenny

Windom

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

Diamond Lake

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

88 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Webber-Camden and Folwell 1

10

Dupont Ave N Bryant Ave N

4

44th Ave N

5

40th Ave N

51st Ave N

Fremont Ave N

Lind-Loring

52nd Ave N

2

WebberCamden

9

Emerson Ave N

Penn Ave N

Russell Ave N

13

Folwell 6 30th Ave N

8

27th Ave N

3

34th Ave N

11 7

§ ¦ ¨ 94

16

Fremont Ave N

12

Irving Ave N

15

Laney-Johnson

14

Data for Schools Serving Webber-Camden and Folwell Map School School Type School Name Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 Charter, Nonprofit Bright Water Elementary 2 Tradional District Henry Senior High 3 District, Magnet/Ccitywide Hmong Internaonal Academy 4 Tradional District Jenny Lind Elementary 5 Tradional District Loring Community 6 Tradional District Lucy Cra Laney Community 7 Tradional District Nellie Stone Johnson Elementary** 8 Charter, Nonprofit New Millenium Academy Charter School 9 Charter, Nonprofit Noble Academy 10 Tradional District Olson Middle 11 District, Charter Pierre Bo!neau 12 District, Special Program Plymouth Youth Center 13 Charter, Nonprofit Sojourner Truth Academy 14 District, Special Program Span High 15 Charter, Nonprofit Unity Campus 16 Charter, Nonprofit Freedom Academy

MMR Designa on

Connuous Improvement Reward Priority Priority No Designaon Priority Priority Celebraon Eligible Celebraon Eligible Connuous Improvement No Performance Ranking Focus Priority No Performance Ranking Focus N/A

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch K-6 163 163 33% 9-12 1,104 1,126 90% PK-8 539 427 90% PK-5 547 470 94% PK-5 416 394 65% PK-8 677 622 99% PK-8 807 721 96% K-8 435 458 85% K-8 476 480 82% 6-8 337 336 93% K-4 111 97 68% 9-12 168 151 96% K-8 422 422 98% 9-12 98 98 94% 9-12 100 126 97% K-3 N/A N/A N/A

Percent Pass MCA Math 40% 46% 23% 19% 54% 13% 20% 59% 71% 14% 2% 24% -

Percent Pass MCA Reading 57% 50% 16% 15% 45% 9% 16% 25% 48% 19% 8% 23% -

**MPS Community Partnership Schools have received the district's Community Partnership School designation beginning in 2015-16 school year, allowing school leaders and educators local autonomy and flexibility to serve their student body.

89 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


Highest-Need Area 10 | Webber-Camden and Folwell | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Webber-Camden and Folwell have 1,543 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 69 percent (1,064 students) attend district schools, while 31 percent (479 students) attend charter schools.

School Performance In 2013-14, 15 schools within a one-mile radius of WebberCamden and Folwell were serving grades K-12. Ten out of 15 schools served grades K-5, while six served grades 6-8 and four served grades 9-12.*

l

l

Of the 10 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, one was mid performing, six were underperforming, and one had no performance ranking. l Five were district schools: one was mid performing, and four were underperforming. l Five were charter schools: two were high performing, two were underperforming, and one had no performance ranking.

l

Of the eight schools serving grades 6-8: l Two were high performing, and six were underperforming. l Four were district schools, all of which were underperforming. l Four were charter schools: two were high performing, and two were underperforming.

l

Of the four schools serving grades 9-12: l One was high performing, two were underperforming, and one had no performance ranking. l Three were district schools: one was high performing, one was underperforming, and one had no performance ranking. l One was a charter school and was underperforming.

As compared to citywide means and the other ranking groups, Webber-Camden and Folwell have among the highest proportions across three demographic categories: children who changed residence (36 percent), adults with less than a bachelor’s degree (80 percent), and children who are dominant in Asian and Pacific Island languages (8 percent).

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,220, meaning that 79 percent of seats in schools serving Webber-Camden and Folwell are in underperforming schools and 21 percent (323 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 750 are in grades K-5—ranked fifth based on K-5 service gaps. n 325 are in grades 6-8 – ranked fifth based on 6-8 service gaps. n 145 are in grades 9-12 – ranked 29th based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

90 The Opportunity Gap–Defined


MPS Student Commute Webber-Camden and Folwell are situated in the middle of Lind-Loring and Laney-Johnson K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Henry 9-12 attendance area. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

2,955 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 1 percent (40 students) attended high-performing schools. l 16 percent (474 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 83 percent (2,481 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,173 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 1 percent (12 students) attended high-performing schools. l 5 percent (60 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 94 percent (1,101 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

606 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l 33 percent (198 students) attended high-performing schools. l 46 percent (280 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 21 percent (128 students) attended underperforming schools.

91 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


Highest-Need Area 11 Whittier

Shingle Creek

n Whittier n Adjacent K-8 Attendance Areas n Study Areas

Lind Bohanon

Humboldt Industrial Area

School MMR Designation den Cam

Victory Webber Camden

l l l l

Columbia Park

l

ia ustr Ind

Waite Park

Marshall Terrace Cleveland

Folwell

l l l l

Audubon Park

McKinley

Holland Windom Park Bottineau Jordan

Hawthorne

Northeast Park

Logan Park

Sheridan

Willard - Hay St. Anthony East

St. Anthony West

Near - North

§ ¦ ¨ § ¦ ¨

School Type

l District © District, Charter n NPO/HEI Charter s Independent l MPS Community Partnership School*

Mid - City Industrial Beltrami

94

Como Marcy Holmes

Sumner Glenwood

Harrison

Nicollet Island East Bank

North Loop

94

Reward Celebration Eligible No Designation Continuous Improvement Focus Priority No MMR Score* New Charter Opening 2015

§ ¦ ¨ 394

Downtown West

# #

Loring Park

Kenwood

#

East Isles

§ ¦ # ¨ 35W

Whittier

Cedar Riverside

# Ventura Village Midtown Phillips

Lowry Hill East

Cedar Isles - Dean

Prospect Park East River Road

Elliot Park

Steven's Square Loring Heights

Lowry Hill

University of Minnesota

Downtown East

Bryn - Mawr

Phillips West

Seward

East Phillips

# Lyndale

West Calhoun

ECCO

Central

CARAG

Powderhorn Park

Corcoran

Longfellow

Howe

# East Harriet

King Field

Cooper

Bryant

Bancroft

Standish

Linden Hills Regina

Ericsson

Hiawatha

Northrop

Field Fulton

Lynnhurst

Tangletown Keewaydin Page

Hale

Kenny

Windom Diamond Lake

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

*Schools that do not have an MMR score are excluded from the supply-and-demand analysis.

92 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

n n n n

n n

Wenonah Armatage

Minnehaha

n Rank 1-11 n Rank 12-23 n Rank 24-35 n n Citywide n n Whittier

Morris Park

Spanish Indo-European Asian and Pacific Island Other languages Citywide


Schools Serving Whittier

§ ¦ ¨

§ ¦ ¨

394

94

16

pin

ne

n

# 10 # 15

10

th

St

24

S

31

8 4

7 W Franklin Ave

18

21

26

27 32 W 24th St

Jefferson 20

19

12

13

6

#

§ ¦ ¨ 35W

#

#

2

Whittier Nicollet Ave

28

Lyndale Ave S

14

#5

Pleasant Ave S

W 26th St

30

4th Ave S

Kenwood

22 10th Ave S

He

3

9

e Av

1 E 28th St

29

Andersen 25

11

W 35th St

Green

#17

W 38th St

23

Lyndale

Data for Schools Serving Whittier Map School School Type Symbol Type Number Symbol 1 Tradional District 2 Charter, Higher Educaon Instuon 3 Independent, General 4 District, Special Program 5 Independent, General 6 Independent, General 7 Charter, Nonprofit 8 District, Magnet/Citywide 9 District, Magnet/Citywide 10 Private, General 11 Tradional District 12 Charter, Nonprofit 13 Independent, General 14 Tradional District 15 Tradional District 16 Charter, Nonprofit 17 Independent, General 18 District, Special Program 19 Tradional District 20 District, Special Program 21 District, Special Program 22 District, Special Program 23 Charter, Nonprofit 24 District, Special Program 25 District, Special Program 26 Independent, General 27 District, Special Program 28 District, Magnet/Citywide 29 Charter, Nonprofit 30 Charter, Nonprofit 31 Charter, Nonprofit 32 Charter, Nonprofit

School Name

MMR Designa on

Andersen Community Augsburg Fairview Academy Blake School Challenge Academy City of Lakes Waldorf School Cristo Rey Jesuit High School Twin Cies Downtown Campus Emerson Spanish Immersion Fair School Downtown GAIA Democrac School Green Central Park Elementary Hennepin Elementary School Hope Academy Jefferson Elementary Kenwood Elementary KIPP North Star Academy Lake Country School Loring-Nicollet High School Lyndale Elementary Merc MPS METRO C Nawayee Center School Sabathani Campus Stadium View Transion Plus Services Trinity First Lutheran School Urban League Academy High School Whi!er Internaonal Bdote Learning Center Metropolitan Educaon for Future Employment Mill City High School Teal Elementary Academy for Learning

Focus Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus Celebraon Eligible No Performance Ranking Priority No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus No Designaon Celebraon Eligible No Performance Ranking Focus Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking No Performance Ranking Focus Focus No Performance Ranking N/A N/A N/A

Grades Total Es mated Percent Students Enrolled Enrollment Capacity Receiving Free/ Reduced Lunch PK-8 1,128 1,130 99% 9-12 169 169 92% 9-12 525 520 11-12 3 3 K-8 205 240 9-12 319 319 9-12 56 57 93% PK-5 528 471 79% K-12 497 528 51% K-12 42 42 PK-8 558 557 95% K-3 218 218 97% K-12 352 356 PK-8 721 651 95% K-5 486 434 28% 5-8 199 199 94% K-8 257 260 10-12 45 49 65% PK-5 568 487 76% 9-12 62 60 89% 7-12 15 18 85% 7-12 43 45 95% 9-12 42 69 95% 6-12 47 42 93% 12-12 292 318 80% K-8 84 84 6-12 76 71 89% K-5 650 609 67% K-4 N/A N/A N/A 6-12 N/A N/A N/A 9-12 N/A N/A N/A K-5 N/A N/A N/A

93 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

Percent Pass MCA Math 21% 8% 51% 16%

Percent Pass MCA Reading 18% 29% 31% 12%

61%

46%

38% 17% 63% 30% 9% 55% 51% -

22% 18% 64% 32% 50% 39% 10% 43% -


Highest-Need Area 11 | Whittier | cont.

Demographics l According to demand estimates, Whittier has 1,200 students in grades K-12. l Approximately 82 percent (989 students) attend district schools, while 18 percent (211 students) attend charter schools. l

Whittier has comparable rates of children in poverty, residence change, and adults with less than a bachelor’s degree as the other highest-need areas.

l

24 percent of children do not speak English very well, which is well above the citywide mean of 10 percent. This study area also has among the highest concentration of Spanish-dominant children at 18 percent.

Service Gap and Enrollment Findings l The service gap estimate is 1,057, meaning that 88 percent of seats in schools serving Whittier are in underperforming schools and 12 percent (143 seats) are in schools that have a Reward or Celebration Eligible MMR. l Of the seats that make up this service gap: n 635 are in grades K-5—ranked eighth based on K-5 service gaps. n 193 are in grades 6-8—ranked 14th based on 6-8 service gaps. n 229 are in grades 9-12—ranked 20th based on 9-12 service gaps.

*Number of schools do not add due to schools that cross grade configurations.

94 The Opportunity Gap–Defined

School Performance In 2013-14, 29 schools within a one-mile radius of Whittier were serving grades K-12. Sixteen out of 29 schools served grades K-5, while 14 served grades 6-8 and 16 served grades 9-12.* l

Of the 16 schools serving grades K-5: l Two were high performing, one was mid performing, six were underperforming, and seven had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: one was high performing, one was mid performing, and six were underperforming. l Three were charter schools: one was high performing and two had no performance ranking. l Five were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 14 schools serving grades 6-8: l Two were high performing, four were underperforming, and eight had no performance ranking. l Eight were district schools: one was high performing, four were underperforming, and three had no performance ranking. l One was a charter school and was high performing. l Five were independent schools and had no performance ranking.

l

Of the 16 schools serving grades 9-12: l One was high performing, four were underperforming, and 11 had no performance ranking. l Nine were district schools: one was high performing, two were underperforming, and six had no performance ranking. l Three were charter schools: two were underperforming and one had no performance ranking. l Four were independent schools and had no performance ranking.


MPS Student Commute Whittier is situated in the middle of Andersen, Kenwood, Jefferson, Lyndale, and Green K-8 MPS attendance areas, and Southwest and Washburn 9-12 attendance area. Based on the travel patterns of MPS students from these attendance areas: l

5,117 students in grades K-5 attended MPS schools: l 8 percent (403 students) attended high-performing schools. l 18 percent (916 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 74 percent (3,798 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

1,946 students in grades 6-8 attended MPS schools: l 30 percent (582 students) attended high-performing schools. l 18 percent (357 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 52 percent (1,007 students) attended underperforming schools.

l

3,049 students in grades 9-12 attended MPS schools: l Less than 1 percent (13 students) attended high-performing schools. l 94 percent (2,854 students) attended mid-performing schools. l 6 percent (182 students) attended underperforming schools.

95 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined


96 The Opportunity Gapâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Defined

The Opportunity Gap–Defined  
The Opportunity Gap–Defined