Reynoldsburg Reach Final Report by Tricia Moore

Reynoldsburg Reach Public Input Summary Report July 1, 2008

Prepared for: The Administration of Reynoldsburg City Schools Prepared by: ACP Visioning+Planning

July 1, 2008 Mr. Steve Dackin Superintendent Reynoldsburg City Schools 7244 E. Main Street Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068

Dear Superintendent Dackin: Thank you for the opportunity to assist with Reynoldsburg Reach. We are proud to have been associated with an effort that had such a genuine commitment to inclusive public participation. As you know, in March 2008, we began to collaborate with you and your staff team on a community outreach initiative that offered staff, students and diverse community members an unprecedented opportunity to have input on the future of education in their community. Reynoldsburg Reach invited the community to share their ideas and preferences on proposed scenarios for a new high school and a new elementary school facility. Reynoldsburg Reach consisted of 30 meetings in 69 days and attracted over 750 participants who contributed thousands of ideas. To document the process, we have prepared the following report that summarizes the Reynoldsburg Reach process, provides a detailed analysis of the results, and identifies key findings. We trust the results presented in this report will assist you in preparing recommendations on the most appropriate scenarios for the new schools and renovations to six existing school buildings. On behalf of the ACP Team, I wish you, the Board of Education, and the Reynoldsburg Schools community the best with your deliberations.

Sincerely,

Jamie A. Greene, aia aicp Principal

ACP Visioning+Planning, Ltd. 444 South Front Street Columbus, Ohio, 43215 t. (614) 586-1500 f. (614) 586-1515 www.acp-planning.com

acknowledgements Reynoldsburg Reach would not have been possible without the efforts of Reynoldsburg City School staff and community members who graciously volunteered their time and substantial energies. Volunteers conducted research that helped determine and define the school design scenarios, attended training and led small-group activities during meetings, and assisted with the data-entry. Moody Nolan Architects provided graphic design and paid for the printing of visual aides used during the assemblies. The firm also has agreed to reimburse Reynoldsburg City Schools the consulting costs associated with Reynoldsburg Reach and this report. Community Volunteers Sharon Bobo Cathy Bregar Ryan Brzezinski Carah Casler Mark Clark Barth Cotner Kathy Dougherty David Early Judy Eck Connie Fatseus Clint Fetty Doug Gillum Sandy Guinto Durby Harrell Julie Hartman Jackie Hudack Jeanette Kuder Dee McGlothlin Rochelle McKean Karen Manross Corrine Marion Janelle Morrison Mike Murray

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Toni Nijssen Gregg Oberlander Pam Paris Dave Reidel Wendy Rettke Francis Rogers Dean Sabetta Mary Kay Sato Michele Slonaker Ann Sperry Debra Strickling Pam Swope Beth Thompson Thomie Timmons Evelyn Tolliver David Venturini Matthew Wagner Linda Winters Britney Woolford Paul Yarger

Project Leader Dan Hoffman Project Coordinator Tricia Moore Staff Sharon Bobo Cathy Bregar Kathy Dougherty Judy Eck Connie Fatseas Debby Fleming Doug Gillum Michelle Klingler Dee McGlothlin Janelle Morrison Toni Nijssen Pam Paris Francis Rogers Michele Slonaker Debbie Smith Debra Strickling Pam Swope

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

contents Introduction Overview

Key Findings Public Involvement Meeting Design

5 5

Who Attended the Meetings Key Questions Answered

SWOT Analysis

Scenario Preferences

High School Scenarios Elementary School Scenarios

Appendix A. SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 1 B. SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 2 C. SWOT Responses: High School Scenario 3 D. SWOT Responses: Elementary School Scenario 1 E. SWOT Responses: Elementary School Scenario 2 F. Exit Questionnaire Open Ended Responses G. Publicity Material H. Frequently Asked Questions

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

24 32

43 87 129 173 189 215 231 241

iii

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Introduction

1. Introduction

Overview Near the end of 2007 a campaign began for a bond issue to fund the third and final phase of Reynoldsburg Scho0ls’ 2001 Master Facilities Plan. The bond, presented to voters in March 2008, would bring $56 million and be matched by $56 million in state funds to pay for a second high school, a new elementary school and renovate six existing buildings, which would relieve capacity issues and accommodate future growth. As the bond campaign got underway, the Board of Education heard strong objections to building a second high school. Ideas emerged for reconfiguring the schools to avoid splitting the district. Considering those objections, the district leadership questioned whether the existing facilities plan would be relevant by the time the new schools opened. The administration also wondered if this might be an opportunity to consider recent innovations in school design. The board decided to reexamine the district’s building plans, but was unwilling to give up the significant state matching

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

funds offered through the bond. So they asked the Reynoldsburg community to take a leap of faith: “approve the bond issue and we will come back and ask for input on how to use it.” Voters demonstrated their confidence in the board by approving the bond, and responsively, the administration devised Reynoldsburg Reach to uphold the board’s promise. The Reynoldsburg Reach initiative offered citizens a rare opportunity to guide the planning of future school facilities. The effort engaged students, staff and diverse community members in a process designed to reveal the extent and nature of objections to a second high school and identify a preferred concept for the additional high school and elementary school facilities. The outcome of the process will be a clear recommendation for the programming of both schools that will inform a decision by the Board of Education. The Board of Education’s decision will influence the architectural design of the planned high school and elementary school buildings, as well as the renovations of

Members of the Board of Education supported the Reynoldsburg Reach effort to seek the community’s input on how best to use the bond money for school facility improvements.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

six other schools. The new buildings are scheduled to open in 2010, and the renovations are to be completed the following year. This report describes the Reynoldsburg Reach process and presents an analysis of public input. It describes the public meeting format, summarizes participants’ values and concerns regarding the future of education in Reynoldsburg, and identifies preferences among the scenarios. This report serves as a guide to inform Superintendent Steve Dackin in his recommendation to the Board of Education, anticipated to be presented in July 2008. Key Questions At the heart of Reynoldsburg Reach are two key decisions that will guide all plans for Reynoldsburg’s new school facilities. To inform these decisions, participants were asked two key questions: “Should Reynoldsburg be a one high school town, or a two high school town?” and, “Should Reynoldsburg offer schools of choice at the elementary or high school levels?” One High School or Two Becoming a two high school town could change Reynoldsburg’s character. The implications vary depending on the relationship between the existing Reynoldsburg High School and the new facility. This issue largely involves names and index reference numbers (IRNs), the number assigned to high schools for sanctioned athletic and music competition. If the Board of Education assigns one IRN to both high school campuses, Reynoldsburg High School would operate on two campuses. It would maintain one set of varsity sports teams, one marching band, one competitive vocal music program, one competitive orchestra, etc. Other students organizations and clubs, such as

foreign language clubs, could be duplicated as desired. If the board of education assigns two IRNs, there would be two separate schools and extra-curricular programs. Each high school would have its own name, mascot and football team. Schools of Choice Besides simply accommodating growth, Reynoldsburg City Schools considered the possibility that the new facilities could offer educational choices that don’t currently exist in the district. Participants were asked to consider whether students and parents should have the opportunity to select a specialized program of study or school to attend. The decisions will have implications for curriculum and attendance boundaries. At the elementary school level, the decision to create a school of choice—or magnet school—would mean that the school district would be divided geographically among five neighborhood schools with every child in the district eligible to attend a school of choice with a specialized curriculum. Most school districts with magnet schools use a lottery system if too many students want to attend the magnet school. At the high school level, attendance for the two campuses could be determined by geography or by student/parent choice of academic programs. All central Ohio school districts with more than one high school have drawn attendance boundaries to determine which school students attend. Equity and balance in student demographics would be important factors in determining where the attendance lines would be drawn. The alternative would allow students/parents to choose which school to attend based on distinct academic programs offered at each school.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Introduction

Design Scenarios Beyond answering the two key questions, Reynoldsburg Reach participants evaluated several school design concepts and registered their preferences among them. Reynoldsburg City Schools presented three options for the new high school and two for the new elementary school facility. School officials anticipated and were prepared to consider additional or hybrid scenarios that emerged from the process. For additional information on the scenarios described below, please refer to the Frequently Asked Questions in the Appendix. High School Scenarios The first high school scenario is based on assumptions made in the 2001 Master Facilities Plan, while the other two were put forward by the community and the district administration as alternatives to the traditional two-high-school model. Scenario 1: Two Comprehensive High Schools Two comprehensive high schools implies two names, two mascots and two identities. Academic and extra-curricular offerings would be duplicated. Attendance would be determined by geographic boundaries, which would be drawn with an emphasis on equity between student bodies. Examples of this model can be found throughout central Ohio, in Pickerington, Westerville, Worthington, Dublin and Hilliard. Scenario 2: 9-10/11-12 Scenario 2 is a proposal put forward by members of the community during the bond issue campaign and has been embraced by some educators within the district. The Reynoldsburg High School identity would be preserved by dividing the high school between two campuses, with 9th

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

and 10th graders housed in one campus and 11th and 12th graders housed in the other. One caveat is that the site of the new high school is approximately five miles from the existing Reynoldsburg High School. Example schools have internal structures that separate younger students from older students, but none operate with two separate campuses. The few example schools with physical separation of freshmen and sophomores from juniors and seniors employ an “upper middle school” and “early college” model. The upper middle school is geared toward core coursework and state graduation test preparation, while juniors and seniors earn college credit for their coursework. To pay tuition to a partnering college or university for their students, the schools operating under this model depend on grants that have been available only to urban school districts. Scenario 3: Small Schools Under One Roof The Small Schools Under One Roof model has been put forward for consideration by the Reynoldsburg City Schools administration. This model, which is being sponsored across the country by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and others, allows students and their parents to choose programs based on academic focus or instructional style. All programs include comprehensive, standards-based content to prepare students for standardized tests and life after high school The two campuses would house three small, autonomous schools for a total of six. Each small school would have about 400 students, a staff of teachers and a leader or principal. Each would have its own distinct identity or instructional theme. Examples of curricular themes include sciencecentered, humanities, language immersion, arts, business and leadership. Other small

These diagrams illustrate the three high school scenarios. From top to bottom: Two Comprehensive High Schools, 9-10/11-12, and Small Schools Under One Roof.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

schools are organized around instructional methods, such as project-based schools in which students demonstrate mastery of skills through interdisciplinary projects. This model could operate under the umbrella of Reynoldsburg High School with one IRN number, sharing varsity sports and competitive music programs, or the two campuses could each have their own IRN numbers, with distinct identities and extra-curricular programs. Elementary School Scenarios For the new elementary school facility, Reynoldsburg City Schools offered citizens with a choice between two scenarios. Scenario 1: Sixth Elementary A neighborhood school would offer programs and instruction similar to the district’s current elementary schools. Attendance would be determined by geographic boundaries, which would be redrawn district-wide in order to disperse K-4 students equitably among the six elementary schools. This illustration represents the two elementary school scenarios. Participants were asked to consider an additional neighborhood school or a school of choice.

Scenario 2: Choice Elementary An elementary school of choice, or magnet school, would be designed around a central theme or instructional style. Attendance would be determined by student/parent choice, and students would come from throughout the district. Attendance boundaries at the remaining elementary schools would be drawn geographically, giving students/parents a choice between their “neighborhood school” and a magnet school. This possibility could include a second school of choice at one of the existing elementary schools, leaving four neighborhood schools in the district.

Key Findings 1. Participants express strong neighborhood and community values and fear that these school decisions could have a negative effect on the character of Reynoldsburg. One of the most recurring themes throughout the Reynoldsburg Reach process was concern about potential inequalities or the perception of such, and the threat of dividing the community. It is clear that participants are looking for balance between providing opportunities and challenges for students versus minimizing potential community divisions by ensuring fairness and equality. To some degree, there is already division concerning the relative importance of these values. 2. One high school identity is better than two. Over half of participants prefer one high school identity over two, with a majority of those expressing strong support for one high school. Over half again say that two high school identities is undesirable, with a majority of those expressing a strong opinion. Only about a quarter of participants express a preference for two high school identities and view one high school as undesirable. A significant portion of participants were undecided or do not hold strong opinions. However, the Two 9-12 High Schools scenario received the lowest support with 21 percent overall. Two high school identities is widely believed to be divisive and lead to inequalities. Many people believe that there could be unhealthy rivalries, socioeconomic disparities, weaker extracurricular programs and fewer academic challenges students need to be competitive. In addition to those community and student-minded concerns, this scenario would likely be more costly overall due to duplication of programs.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Introduction

3. Participants like the idea of schools and academic programs of choice, but are unsure that the benefits outweigh the potential threats. The idea of programs of choice and schools of choice is clearly desirable. However, the scenarios that offer choice are not as highly supported as might be inferred from that desirability. Participants believe that making education more personalized would benefit most students, but they believe that a lottery system to determine attendance could be divisive since some students may not be granted their choice. Despite acknowledging the benefits, some participants would rather not have the opportunity to choose than face being denied attendance. Also there is concern about rivalries or stigmas between different groups of students if choice programs existed in Reynoldsburg. 4. Academic choice may be more supported at the high school level than at the elementary school level. Participants are more likely to agree on the benefits that academic choices can offer to older students. Based on their comments, they are more supportive of offering focused programs to high school students. Many believe that elementary students are too young for focused curricula and benefit more from broad exposure to ideas and teaching methods. Other participants feel that even many high school students are not ready for academic choices, particularly those in 9th and 10th grades. There is more support for offering choices for focused learning to upperclassmen.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

5. The most preferred high school scenario is unclear, but two 9-12 high schools is least preferred. Participants show the lowest support for two 9-12 high schools, with just over 20 percent. The remaining preferences are divided between Small Schools Under One Roof and the 9-10/11-12 Scenario. 6. A hybrid between High School Scenarios 2 and 3 should be considered. Though no hybrid scenario was proposed to participants, many identified an option to blend Scenarios 2 and 3. A notable number of participants (about 4 percent) stated that a hybrid would be better than any of the proposed scenarios that they were asked to choose between. Since support was almost balanced between Scenarios 2 and 3, offering an option that combines the two might be more popular. The most commonly discussed hybrid is a 9-10 school focused on core curricula in a traditional format, then a 11-12 school that employs the small schools concept to offer choice and specialization. 7. Although a clear majority say they would send their child to a magnet school if the option existed, most people do not express a desire to have one in Reynoldsburg. Participants may believe that a magnet school would offer a better education and, if one existed, they would want their children to take advantage of the opportunity. But they could be turned off by the likelihood of creating divisions within the community. Comments suggest that a magnet school might be perceived as elitist or make neighborhood schools seem inferior. Also the lottery system would mean that some students might be denied attendance.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

8. Between the two elementary school scenarios, the overall preference is almost balanced, but students and community participants have very different preferences. Over half of participants (55 percent) prefer to add another neighborhood school than to offer an elementary school of choice. However, with 45 percent overall in support of the choice school, it might be a worthwhile investment. Participants disagree on whether changes to attendance boundaries or adding a magnet school has more potential to be divisive. However, many acknowledge that, due to the planned closing of Graham Road Elementary School, redistricting will occur regardless of which scenario is chosen. Community meeting participants are more strongly supportive of an additional neighborhood school, while a similar percentage of student participants would rather introduce an elementary of choice.

9. The absence of specialized programs, or academic choice at the middle school and junior high levels is a significant concern regarding choice in elementary school. Many participants mention the lack of follow-up programs to specialized elementary schools in later grade levels as a weakness. If related choice programs were available in middle school and junior high for students of elementary magnet schools, the elementary school of choice scenario might receive more support. 10. Participants have additional concerns and ideas for the future of Reynoldsburg Schools. Several participants express concern over the closing of Graham Road school and want to know how this event relates to Reynoldsburg Reach. They question where students will attend and teachers will practice, and how this will affect redistricting. Some participants offered other alternatives to the proposals not mentioned above. A few proposed the idea of a 9th grade campus and a 10-12 grade campus, as existed in the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history. Also, there is significant interest in offering all-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten. Some suggestions offer that as an idea to utilize the Graham Road facility.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Introduction

Public Involvement The Reynoldsburg Reach process involved 30 meetings in 69 days. All of these meetings adhered to the same program. Fourteen were held for school staff at each of the district’s schools and at other district facilities. Another five were held for randomly-selected groups of high school, junior high and middle school students in the district. The remaining eleven were community meetings that were held at each school location. The community meetings were open to all Reynoldsburg citizens and other interested parties. The locations and dates of each community meeting are shown in the box on the right side of this page. Preparation Enticing citizens to attend public meetings is challenging. Competing interests, busy lifestyles and the complexity of issues make attracting citizen participation difficult. People are often unfamiliar with public involvement opportunities, frequently associating them with “public hearings” in which there is little or no opportunity for dialog. To inform the public about the importance of Reynoldsburg Reach and the participatory nature of the public meetings, the District Administration developed a comprehensive outreach effort. The outreach effort was extensive and ensured that participation was a choice for most Reynoldsburg residents. The outreach methods included: Website: Developed a special section of the school district website for Reynoldsburg Reach that featured stories and announcements. The website was updated throughout the process and was viewed more than 400,000 times in May.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Phone Calls: Used an automated caller to contact every parent in the district on the day before the community meeting scheduled at their neighborhood school. Letters: Sent letters from Superintendent Steve Dackin home with elementary and middle school students the week before the community meeting at their school. The superintendent also wrote letters to students who were invited to participate in student-focus groups. Email: Sent letters from Assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman to all staff prior to their staff meetings. News Stories: Articles about the process were published in each of the local newspapers early in the process. School Newsletters: Published announcements in school newsletters in April and May. Posters: Displayed posters at schools, the administration office, City Hall and local businesses. Displayed additional information at City Hall and Reynoldsburg Police Department. Community Presentations: Presented information about Reynoldsburg Reach during meetings of Reynoldsburg City Council, the Reynoldsburg Area Chamber of Commerce, and the ReynoldsburgPickerington Rotary. In addition to outreach, a significant amount of preparation was undertaken to recruit and train volunteer facilitators who would run the small group work sessions during the meetings.

Community Meeting Dates and Locations Thursday, April 17 Waggoner Road Middle School Tuesday, April 22 Herbert Mills Elementary School Wednesday, April 23 Waggoner Road Junior High Tuesday, April 29 Graham Road Elementary School Thursday, May 1 Hannah J. Ashton Elementary School Tuesday, May 6 Rose Hill Elementary School Thursday, May 8 Baldwin Road Junior High Tuesday, May 13 Taylor Road Elementary School Thursday, May 15 Slate Ridge Elementary School Thursday, May 22 French Run Elementary School Thursday, May 29 Reynoldsburg High School

All community meetings were held 7 – 9 p.m.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Meeting Design The meetings involved two main parts: assembly and small group work. The assembly prepared participants for the small group activity by providing an overview of the Reynoldsburg Reach background, intent, school design considerations and scenarios. The small group work engaged participants in an interactive activity to obtain their input on the scenarios and assess their preferences. Assembly Superintendent Steve Dackin opened the meeting by welcoming participants and explaining the background and purpose of Reynoldsburg Reach. A description of the participant materials and small group activity followed. Then assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman explained the three high school and two elementary school scenarios in detail and answered questions for clarification. Small Groups After the assembly, participants broke into preassigned groups of five to eight. Each group was lead by a trained facilitator. The facilitator began with introductions and then explained the primary exercise, known as a SWOT analysis. The SWOT analysis, a widely used strategic plan-

ning tool, asked participants to consider and discuss the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of each design scenario. The facilitator instructed participants to independently make notes on their SWOT worksheet before asking them to share their thoughts with the group. The facilitator recorded each participant’s ideas on flipchart paper until all of the group’s ideas were recorded. Once all of the group’s Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats for each scenario were recorded, participants had an opportunity to weigh-in and select the scenarios they preferred. The facilitator asked each person to write their most preferred scenario for the new high school on a Post-It® Note and their preference for the new elementary school on a second PostIt®. The facilitator collected the Post-Its® and affixed them on the appropriate sheet of flipchart paper so the group could see the results. Each group’s tally of preferences was recorded. The final activity was a short exit questionnaire that each participant was asked to complete independently. The intent of the exit questionnaire was to document attendance, identify participant demographics, solicit feedback about the process, and obtain additional input on several questions about the scenarios.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Who Attended the Meetings

2. Who Attended the Meetings

Overview

Demographics

This chapter describes who participated in Reynoldsburg Reach and why. It compares characteristics between the three groups of participants—students, staff, and members of the community—and is based on meeting attendance sheets and responses from exit questionnaires. The participation data is general as it reflects only those who returned exit questionnaires. Also, since not all respondents answered every question, there may be variation in total responses among different topics. The following statistics are presented to illustrate the characteristics of those who participated. In total, 759 people attended the 30 Reynoldsburg Reach meetings. Table 2.1 summarizes the attendance by group and meeting type. These numbers reflect only the people that registered at the meetings, and do not include facilitators or citizens who didn’t sign the attendance sheets. Table 2.1 also reports the total number of exit questionnaires collected from each group.

Exit questionnaires provide insight into demographic characteristics of participants. The following analysis compares the collective characteristics of participants who submitted an exit questionnaire to those of the city’s residents according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Gender Overall, there was significantly greater participation by females than males (Table 2.2, page 12). However that bias is largely attributed to the proportionally high number of female staff of Reynoldsburg Schools. The female bias at the community meetings was moderate. The student participants, a randomly-selected group, showed an almost balanced proportion of males and females. Table 2.1 Participation Group

Participants

Exit Questionnaires Received

Exit Questionnaire Response Rate

Community

282

37%

237

38%

84%

Staff

347

46%

266

42%

77%

Students

130

17%

123

20%

95%

TOTAL

759

626

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Age According to the U.S. Census, 25 percent of Reynoldsburg’s population is under the age of 20. Since much of that cohort is too young to participate, the age analysis looks only at those aged 20 or older. Table 2.3 shows the age of participants at the staff meetings and community meetings. Among community meeting participants, 82 percent are between the ages of 35 and 54. Over half are between the ages of 35 and 44. That observation is consistent with the fact that this age group is most likely to have children in or approaching high school. Those aged 20-34 are underrepresented, as are those aged over 65. The former are among the hardest demographics to attract. They often face higher demands from jobs, young families and post-secondary education, and tend to be less civically active. Table 2.2 Gender Gender

Community Participants

Staff Participants

Student All Reynoldsburg Participants Participants Population

Male

42%

18%

51%

34%

48%

Female

58%

82%

49%

66%

52%

Response Count

236

249

122

608

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

Table 2.3 Age Age

Community Participants

Staff Participants

Combined Participants*

Reynoldsburg Population**

20-24

25-34

31%

20%

22%

35-44

51%

22%

35%

25%

45-54

31%

28%

29%

22%

55-64

16%

10%

65-74

75 or older

Response Count

219

249

469

* These figures do not include student participants since they were all under age 20. ** These figures represent only those aged 20 or older. ‘ Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

Among the staff participants, 82 percent were between the ages of 25 and 54. The staff consists of a higher percentage of younger people within that range with 33 percent between the ages of 25 and 34. Comparatively, that group only makes up 22 percent of Reynoldsburg’s population over the age of 20. Race Table 2.4 summarizes the race of participants. Among community meeting participants, the racial makeup is reflective of the city’s population. Staff are much less raciallydiverse, while student participants are more racially diverse than the overall population. However the 2007-2008 Reynoldsburg School’s enrollment demographics indicate that the current school-age population is more diverse than the entire city. This data could also indicate that the demographic makeup of the community has changed susbstantially since the 2000 Census. Income Based on participants’ reported household income on the exit questionnaires, there is a strong bias toward the middle and upper income brackets (See Table 2.5). Among community participants, 81 percent reported an income greater than $60,000, while the Census states that only 40 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens are within that group. Additionally, 31 percent report earning more than $100,000, while only 11 percent of the city’s residents could make that claim according to Census data. Among lower and moderate income groups, 40 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens are believed to have a household income less than $40,000, while only 9 percent of participants report to belong in that group. Staff participants claim significantly higher income levels than the population.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Who Attended the Meetings

Half state a household income greater than $80,000, while 32 percent, the largest group, say their household income was over $100,000. Educational Attainment According to the 2000 U.S. Census, 90 percent of Reynoldsburg residents over age

25 have a high school diploma or higher, and 27 percent have a Bachelorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s degree or higher. As Table 2.6 shows, participants of the community meetings had significantly higher levels of educational attainment. Student participants were removed from this analysis since all had less than a high school diploma.

Table 2.4 Race Race

Community Participants

Staff Participants

Student Participants

All Participants

Reynoldsburg Population

2007-2008 Reynoldsburg Enrollment

Black/African-American

14%

41%

14%

10%

28%

Asian

White/Caucasian

82%

95%

50%

80%

81%

60%

Hispanic or Latino

Other

Response Count

233

247

597

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census; Ohio Department of Education

Table 2.5 Income Household Income

Community Participants

Staff Participants

Combined Participants*

Reynoldsburg Population

Less than $20,000

18%

$20,000 to $39,999

20%

$40,000 to $59,999

11%

16%

13%

21%

$60,000 to $79,999

25%

20%

22%

15%

$80,000 to $100,000

25%

26%

14%

More than $100,000

31%

29%

32%

11%

Response Count

208

234

414

Educational Attainment

Community Participants

Staff Participants

Combined Participants*

Reynoldsburg Population over age 25

Less than a HS diploma

10%

High school diploma

13%

10%

32%

Some college

22%

14%

31%

College graduate

33%

18%

26%

19%

Post-graduate study

28%

68%

47%

Response Count

230

244

474

* These figures do not include student participants Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

Table 2.6 Educational Attainment

* These figures do not include student participants Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools; U.S. Census

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Among community meeting participants, 61 percent have at least a Bachelor’s degree, and 28 percent report having completed some post-graduate study. Comparatively, most staff (over two-thirds) have some post-graduate study, compared to only 8 percent of Reynoldsburg citizens. Other Participant Information Several questions were included on the exit questionnaire to gather information on how participants heard about the meetings and whether they were comfortable with the meeting format. Complete responses to open-ended questions can be found in the Appendix. How did you hear about this meeting? Reynoldsburg City School’s extensive outreach effort was responsible for bringing many participants to the community meetings. The exit questionnaires indicate that community meeting participants heard about the meetings through a variety of sources. Many heard through word-ofmouth communication from friends, relatives, and colleagues. Others received information via email or the Internet. Several print sources were also cited, including Table 2.7. How community participants heard about the meetings. Sources Mentioned

Number of mentions

Percent of all sources mentioned

Newspaper

28%

Flyer/Letter from School

22%

Word of mouth

18%

Phone Message

16%

Internet/Email

Another school meeting

CHAMSber of Commerce

newspaper articles, letters from schools and mailings. Additionally, many respondents mentioned that they heard about the meetings through two or three sources. These open-ended responses were categorized and ranked according to the number of times the methods were mentioned (see Table 2.7). Input on the meeting format Participants indicated that they were extremely comfortable participating in the small group exercise during the meeting. Of those who responded, 99 percent of all participants indicated “yes” when asked, “were you comfortable working with your small group?” In terms of meeting length, while most respondents found the meetings to be “about right,” some said that the meetings were too long, while a small number indicated that they were not long enough. Was the meeting too long, too short, or about right? Too Long 15% Too Short 4% About Right 81% Reasons for attending The exit questionnaire asked participants, “What interest or concerns caused you to attend the meeting?” Most responses were general and stated interest in their children’s education, having input and being informed. Other common responses concerned the following themes (strongest themes appear first): • High school facilities • Potential effects on the community • Financial implications of scenarios • Preference for a specific scenario

Source: Reynoldsburg City Schools

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Key Questions Answered

3. Key Questions Answered

Overview To obtain additional insight about participant preferences regarding the two key questions, the exit questionnaire asked six questions that relate specifically to school design considerations. These scenario questions were added to the questionnaire after the third staff meeting. All community meeting participants were presented these questions, but participants at the first three staff meetings wereÂ not. Therefore the responses represent a smaller sample than the other exit questionnaire items. The first four questions asked participants to rate desirability on a scale of one to five. A rating of one, is least desirable, and a rating of five, most desirable. Those questions were:

competitive athletic and music programs (e.g. two high school football teams instead of one)? The other two questions allowed for openended responses. They were: 5. Would you send your child to a magnet school if the focus aligned with your childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interests? 6. Which of the high school options is least favorable to you?

During the small group activity, participants completed an exit questionnaire and provided additional input on school design considerations

How desirable is.... 1. The ability to choose among specialized academic programs? 2. Having choice of which school to attend? 3. One high school identity with a single set of competitive athletic and music programs? 4. Two high school identities with separate

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

One High School or Two?

Community meeting participants generally do not favor a two high school town.

Based on the exit questionnaire responses alone, two comprehensive high schools with unique identities appears to be the least favorable option for participants. While it appears that a majority supports one-high school identity over two, significant support for the latter option also exists. There was also a significant percentage of neutral responses, which indicates that many participants were undecided. Overall, 54 percent of respondents indicated that one high school is desirable while 36 percent rated it as very desirable. Comparatively, only 24 percent said one high school identity is undesirable, less than half of whom rated it as very undesirable. Expressing these results another way, while slightly more than half expressed a positive view of a one-high school town, the remaining responses were either neutral or negative toward the idea. Meanwhile, when the question of one high school or two was phrased differently, responses were similar but had fewer neutral ratings. About a quarter of all respondents (26 percent) indicated that two high school identities was desirable with 16 percent rating it as very desirable. Likewise, a majority, 60 percent, of all respondents indicated that two high school identities was undesirable, with 37 percent rating it as very undesirable. When participants rated which high school scenario is least favorable, results were mixed but lend some support to the one high school option. The single most undesirable scenario is the two comprehensive 9-12 high schools, which received half of all responses. The other half of responses were divided between scenarios two and three, with the former (9-10/11-12) rated slightly less favorably.

What the community prefer Participants at the community meetings expressed fewer neutral ratings. This group more strongly favors a one high school identity than do staff and student participants. 58 percent said one high school was desirable, with 46 percent rating it very desirable. Community meeting participants generally do not favor a two high school town. 64 percent of those who responded rated that option as undesirable, with almost half (47 percent) of all respondents saying it is very undesirable. Likewise, 48 percent say two 9-12 high schools is the least favorable scenario. However, two high schools is favored by a minority of community participants. About a quarter said that option is desirable. What staff prefer Staff participants also prefer the one high school option, though their preference is not as strong as the community participants. Just over half said one high school is desirable and 62 percent said that two high schools is undesirable. But fewer staff expressed opinions at the extremes of the scale compared to the community. This group also had a significant number of neutral responses (about 20 percent). On their scenario preferences, they expressed the least opposition to the small schools idea. What students prefer Student participants were more divided, but still modestly support one high school over two. 49 percent say that one high school is desirable but only 20 percent say it is undesirable. However, 39 percent rated two high schools as desirable whereas 43 percent said it is undesirable. Between 20 and 30 percent did not express strong preferences. Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; least favorable scenario matches the preferences expressed by community participants, with two 9-12 schools option being least favorable.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Key Questions Answered

How desirable is a one-high school identity with a single set of competitive athletic and music programs?

36%

11%

HowHow desirable is the ability choose desirable is the to choose How desirable is ability theto ability to choose which school to attend? which school to attend? which school to attend? Community Students Community Students very desirable very undesirable Community StudentsStaffStaffStaff Tot How desirable How desirable desirable is the is the ability is ability theto ability choose to choose to choose Undesirable 1 How 5% 0% Undesirable 1 1 5% 5% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% Undesirable 13% which which school which school to school attend? to attend? to attend? 2 2 2 15%15%15% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Community Staff Student one HS Community Community Students StudentsStaffStaffStaff Tot 3 3Community 32%32%Students comm staff students comm staffstaff students Responses Responses 3 32% 16%16%16% 32%32%32% comm studentsidentity Undesirable Responses Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 5% 5% 5% 21% 0% 0% 0% 30% 3% 3% 3% (200 total) (149 total) 4 18% (107 total) 4 4 18%18% 21%21% 30%30% How desirable is the ability to choose 2 2 2 15% 15% 15% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% How How desirable desirable is the is ability the ability to choose to choose Desirable 5 30% 58% 28% Desirable 5 5 30%30% 58%58% 28%28% Desirable 3 3 3 which 32% 32% 32%to 16% 16% 16% 100% 32%32%32% school attend? comm comm comm staffstaff students students students which which school school to100% attend? to100% attend? 9% staff Total 100% 25% TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% 10% 35% one HS 100% 100% 14% 46% 4 4Community 4 Community 18%18%Students 18%Students 21% 21%21% 30%Staff 30%30% StaffStaff Tot Community Students 10% identity Undesirable Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 30% 30% 58% 58% 58% 28% 1 How 5% 0% 3%28% Undesirable Undesirable 1desirable 1desirable 5% 0% 0% 3%28% 3% How is30% a one-high school identity 11% is a5% one-high school identity How desirable is a one-high school identity 17% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 15% 6% 6% 2Total 2 competitive 15% 6% 6%and 6% 6% withwith a Total single of athletic and music programs? 18% a2 single set of athletic and music program with aset single setcompetitive of15% competitive athletic music prog 3 3Community 32%32%Students 16%16%16% 32%32%32% comm staffstaffstaff27% students 3 Community 32%Students comm comm students students StaffStaff Tot Community Students Staff 16% How How desirable How desirable desirable is a is one-high a is one-high a one-high school school identity school identity identity 22% 4 18% 21%10%21% 30% Undesirable 1 4 13%18% 14% Undesirable 1 4 13%18% 10%30% Undesirable 1 13% 10%21% 10% 10%30% 10% 22% 31% 12% with with a single with a2 aset set of of set competitive of30% competitive athletic athletic athletic and58% and music and music programs? music program prog Desirable 5single 30% 58%10% 28% Desirable Desirable 5single 5 competitive 9% 2 9%30% 17%28% 2 9% 10%58% 10% 17%28% 17% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff Tot Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3 16% 31% 21% 3 3 16%16% 31%31% 21%21% Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 13%13%13% 14% 10%10%10% 28% 10%10%10% 4 14% 4 4 14%14% 14%14% 28%28% How desirable is a one-high school identity 2 2 2desirable 9% 9% 10% 10% 17%17% 17% desirable is a9% is one-high a 10% one-high school school identity identity Desirable 5 How 48% Desirable 5 How 48% Desirable 5 48% 35%35%35% 24%24%24% 3single 3 competitive 16% 16% 31%31% 21% 21% 21% withwith a Total single of athletic and31% music programs? with a3 single aset set of set competitive of16% competitive athletic athletic and and music music program prog How desirable is two high school identities with separate 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 4 4Community 4 Community 14%14%Students 14%Students 14% 14%14% 28%Staff 28%28% StaffStaff Tot Community Students competitive athletic and music programs? 16%10% Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 48% 48% 48% 35% 35% 35% 24%10% 24%10% 24% Undesirable 1 How 13% 10% Undesirable Undesirable 1desirable 1desirable 10% 10% How is13% two high school identities is13% two high school identities How desirable is two high school identities Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 9% 10% 17% 2Total 2 competitive 9% 9%athletic 10% 10% 17% 17% withTotal separate competitive athletic and music programs? with separate and music programs? with separate competitive athletic and music progra 40 40 40 3 3Community 16%16%Students 31%31%31% 21%21%21% 3 Community 16%Students Tot Community StudentsStaffStaffStaff How desirable How desirable desirable is14% two is two high is two high school high school identities school identities identities 4 14% 14% 28% 4 14% 28% very desirable very undesirable Undesirable 1 How 51% 24% 31% Undesirable 1 4 51%14% 24%14% 31%28% Undesirable 1 51% 24% 31% with with separate separate competitive competitive athletic athletic athletic andand music and music programs? music programs? 35 Desirable 5with 48% 35% 24% 35 Desirable Desirable 5 separate 5 competitive two HS 35 48% 24%progra 24% 40 40 40 2 16% 2 16%48% 19%35% 32% 2 16% 19%35% 19% 32% 32% 10% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff Tot Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% identities 3 10% 18% 16% 3 10% 18% 16% 3 10% 18% 16% comm staff students comm staff students comm staff students Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 51% 51%51% 16% 24%24%24% 10% 31%31%31% 30 4 6% 30 4 6% 16% 10% 30 4 6% 16% 10% 35 35 35How desirable is16% two high school identities 2 2 2desirable 16% 19% 19% 19% 32% 32%32% desirable is16% two is two high high school school identities identities Desirable 5 How 18% Desirable 5 How 18% Community Staff Desirable 5 18% 23%23%23% 12%12%12% Student two HS 3 3 3 10% 10% 10% 18% 18% 18% 16% 16% 16% with separate competitive athletic and music programs? withTotal with separate separate competitive competitive athletic and and music music programs? progra comm comm comm staff staffstaff students students studentsidentities40 Responses Responses Total 100% 100% 100% Responses 100% 100% 100% Total 100%athletic 100% 100% 25 25 25 30 40 30 40 304 4Community 4 Community 6% 6%Students 6%Students 16% 16%16% 10%Staff 10%10% StaffStaff Tot (199 total) (145 total) Community Students (107 total) 23% Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 18% 18% 18% 23% 23% 23% 12%31% 12% 12% Undesirable 1of the 51% 24% 31% Undesirable Undesirable 1high 1 school 51% 51% 24% 24% 31% Which of the options is LEAST favorable to you? Which high school options is LEAST favorable to yot Which of the high school options is LEAST favorable 35 10% 23% two HS 35 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20 16% 19% 32% 20% 20 2 100% 16% 16%Students 19% 19% 32% 32% 20 Students Staff Tot 25 35 25 Total 252Total2Community Community Staff Community Students Staff 3High 10% 18%48%18% 16% 3High 3 High comm staffstaffstaff8% students 53%10% comm comm students studentsidentities OneOne 53%10% 51%16% One 53% 48%18% 48% 51%16% 51% Which Which of Which the of the high of high the school high school options school options options is LEAST is16% LEAST is16% favorable LEAST favorable favorable to 10% you? to yot 37% 30 4 6% 10% 24% 30 30 4 4 6% 6% 10% 9-10 / 11-12 25%25%25% 16% 26% 34% 9-10 / 11-12 26% 34% 15 19% 6% 9-10 / 11-12 26% 34% 15 15 20 20 20 Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff Tot Desirable 5 18% 23% 12% 16% Desirable Desirable 5 5 18% 18% 23% 23% 12% 12% Small Schools 22% 26% 15% 33% Small Schools 22% 26% 15% Small Schools 22% 26% 15% 9% OneOne High One High High 53% 53% 53% 48% 48% 48% 51% 51% 51% Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total 25 TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% 100% 25 25 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 14% 10 19% 10 47% 9-10 9-10 / 11-12 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 25%25%25% 26% 26%26% 34%34%34% 10 17% 15 15 15 29% 18% Small Small Schools Small Schools Schools 22% 22% 22% 26% 26% 15% 15% Which of the high school options is LEAST favorable to 15% you? Which Which of the of high the high school school options options LEAST LEAST favorable favorable to yot Would you send your child to26% ais magnet school? Would you send your child to ais magnet school? Would you send your child to a magnet school? 20 20 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Students Staff Tot Community Community Students Students Staff Staff 5 20 5 Total Community Students Staff 5TotalCommunity Community Students Staff 10 10 10 Community Students Staff Tot OneOne High 53% 48% 51% One High High 53% 53% 48% 48% 51% 51% No No No 20%20%20% 12%12%12% 12%12%12% Would Would you Would you send you send your send your child your child to26% child ato magnet a to magnet a magnet school? school? school? 9-10 / 11-12 25% 34% 9-10 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 25% 26% 15 15 15 Unsure 18% 3% Unsure 18%25% 3%26% 9%34% Unsure 18% 3% 9%34% 9% 0 0 0 5 5 5 Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff Tot Small Schools 22% 26% 15% Small Small Schools Schools 22% 22% 26% 26% 15% 15% YesYes Yes 62%62%62% 85%85%85% 79%79%79% Which of the high school options is LEAST favorable to you? No No No 20% 20% 20% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 10 10 Unsure 22% 3% 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% 0 Unsure 0 10 0 Unsure 18%18%18% comm staff students least comm staff students Yes Yes Yes 62% 62% 62% 85% 85% 85% 79% 79% 79% Would you send your child to a magnet school? comm staff students Would Would you send your your child child to a to magnet a magnet school? school? Tally ofyou Participant Preferences Tally ofsend Participant Preferences Tally of Participant Preferences 5 Total Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 5 5 preferred HS Community Students Staff Tot Community Community Students Students Staff Staff Community Students StaffStaffStaff Total (1) Two 9-12 (3) Small Schools (2) 9-10/11-12 Community Students Total Community Students T No No No 20%23% 12%25% 12%18% 20% 20% 12% 12% 12% 12% Two High Schools 23% 25% 18% Two High Schools Two High Schools 23% 25% 18% comm comm comm staffstaffstaff students students students Tally Tally of42% Tally Participant of18% Participant of18% Participant Preferences Preferences Preferences Unsure 18% 3% 9%31% least Unsure 3% 3% 31% 9%31% 9% 9-109-10 / 11-12 46% /011-12 42%42% 46% 0/ 11-12 0 Unsure 9-10 46% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff StaffStaff Total TotalT YesYes 62%30% 85%29% 79%49% Yes 62% 62% 85% 85% 79% 79% preferred HS Small Schools 30% 29% 49% Small Schools Small Schools 30% 29% 49% TwoTwo High Two High Schools High Schools Schools 23% 23% 23% 100% 25% 25% 25% 100% 18% 18% 18% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Hybrids 5% 0% Hybrids 5% 0% 3% Hybrids TotalTotal 5% 0% 3% 3% Community Staff Student 9-10 9-10 / 11-12 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 42% 42% 42% 46% 46% 46% 31% 31% 31% Neigh. Elementary 65% 36% 52% Neigh. Elementary 65% 36% 52% Neigh. Elementary 65% 36% 52% Responses Responses comm staff students Responses comm comm staffstaff students studentsleast 27% Small Small Schools Small Schools Schools Tally 30% 30% 30% 29% 29% 29% 49% 49%49% of35% Participant Preferences Tally of35% Participant of35% Participant Preferences Preferences Choice Elementary 64% (199 total) (139 total) Choice Elementary 64% (87 total) Choice Elementary Tally 64% 48%48%48% preferred HS Hybrids Hybrids Hybrids 5% 5% 5% Students 0% 0% 0% Staff 3% 3% 3% T Community Students StaffStaff Total Community Community Students Total Neigh. Elementary Neigh. Elementary Elementary 65% 65% 36% 36% 52% 52% TwoNeigh. High Schools 23%65% 25%36% 18%52% Two Two High High Schools Schools 23% 23% 25% 25% 18% 18% 16% 26% 26% Choice Elementary Choice Elementary Elementary 35% 9-10Choice / 11-12 42%35% 46%64% 31%48% 9-10 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 42%35% 42% 64% 46%64% 46% 48% 31%48% 31% Small Schools 30%30%30% 29%29%29% 49%49%49% Small Small Schools Schools 30% Hybrids 5% 5% 5% 0% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% Hybrids Hybrids Elementary 65%65%65% 36%36%36% 52%52%52% 26% 26%Neigh. Neigh. Neigh. Elementary Elementary Choice Elementary 35%35%35% 64%64%64% 48%48%48% Choice Choice Elementary Elementary 48% 48% 54%

one HS identity

50%

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Schools of Choice

The exit questionnaire responses clearly indicate that participants support the ability to choose which schools and specialized academic programs to attend.

The questions about schools and programs of choice are intended to assess general opinions about academic choice and have implications for either high school or elementary school programming. The exit questionnaire responses clearly indicate that participants support the ability to choose which schools and specialized academic programs to attend. However, while opposition to such choice appears to be low, almost a third of respondents indicated a neutral opinion or are undecided on the issue. Most respondents (61 percent) said the ability to choose among specialized academic programs is desirable, while only 10 percent said that it is undesirable. Similarly, 58 percent said the ability to choose which school to attend is desirable while only 13 percent said that it is undesirable. Additionally, there were more votes at the positive extreme of the scale than at the negative end. Over one third of responses indicate these options are very desirable, while just three percent said they are very undesirable. The overall desirability of attending magnet schools is also clear. Nearly three out of four respondents said they would send their child to a magnet school if the option existed. What the community prefer Among the three groups of participants, those at the community meetings showed weaker support for schools and programs of choice. When asked about the desirability of choosing among specialized programs, the three groups showed similar levels of support. However, community meeting respondents were more likely than others to find the idea undesirable. Among this

group, there are fewer neutral responses. On the question of choosing which school to attend, again community meeting participants show more support than opposition, but are less supportive than the other two groups. Fewer than half say that idea is desirable, while 20 percent say it is undesirable and about a third are undecided. Finally, regarding the option of sending their child to a magnet school, the majority of community participants say yes. But they show the lowest supportive response and the highest opposing response among the three groups. What staff prefer Staff show a much stronger preference for academic choice than community participants. Just three percent of respondents say that choosing among specialized programs is undesirable and none say that it is very undesirable. About a third of staff express neutral opinions. All others are supportive. Over half of staff respondents say that choosing a school to attend is desirable and less than ten percent said it is undesirable. Staff are also more likely than community participants to send their children to magnet schools based on their responses. What students prefer Students are more supportive than community participants and similar to staff in their support of choosing among specialized academic programs. But, on the issue of choosing a school to attend, students overwhelmingly say it is desirable. In fact over half say it is very desirable, while six percent said it is undesirable and none rated it as very undesirable. On the issue of sending children to magnet schools, relatively fewer students responded. But of those who did, 85 percent said yes, the highest positive response among the groups.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Key Questions Answered

3% HowHow desirable is the ability choose desirable is35% the to choose How desirable is ability theto ability to choose 7% among specialized programs? among specialized programs? among specialized programs? How desirable is the ability to choose among specialized Community Students Community Students Community StudentsStaffStaffStaff To How desirable How desirable desirable is the is the ability is ability theto ability choose to choose to choose Undesirable 1 How 7% 1% Undesirable 1 1 7% 7% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% programs? Undesirable among among specialized among specialized specialized programs? programs? programs? 2 2 2 11%11%11% 7% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% choice of Community Community Students StudentsStaffStaffStaff To 3 3Community 25%25%Students very desirable very undesirable 3 25% 29%29%29% 34%34%34% programsUndesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 7% 7% 7% 24% 1% 1% 1% 31% 0% 0% 0% 4 22% 4 4 22%22% 24%24% 31%31% How desirable is the ability to choose 2 2 2 11% 11% 11% 7% 7% 7% 3% 3% 3% How How desirable desirable is the is ability the ability to choose to choose Desirable 5 35% 39% 33% Desirable 5 5 35%35% 39%39% 33%33% Desirable Community Staff Student choice of 3 3 among 3 among 25% 25% 25% 29% 29%programs? 29% 100% 34%34%34% specialized programs? among specialized specialized programs? Total 100% 100% Responses Responses Total 100% 100% 100% Responses Total 100% 100% 100% comm staff students comm staffstaff students comm students 4 4Community 4 Community 22%22%Students 22%Students 24% 24%24% 31%Staff 31%31% StaffStaff To Community Students (199 total) (154 total) (108 total) programs Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 35% 35% 35% 39% 39% 39% 33% Undesirable 1 How 7% 1% 0%33% Undesirable Undesirable 1 How 1 How 3% 7% 7%the 1% 0%33% 0% desirable is the ability choose desirable is to1% choose 1% desirable is ability theto ability to choose Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 11% 7% 3% 2Total 2 which 11% 11%to 7% 7% 100% 3% 3% comm comm staffstaffstaff students students students school attend? 7%comm which school to attend? 35% 7% which school to attend? 33% 39% choice of 3 3Community 25%25%Students 29%29%29% 34%34%34% 3 Community 25%Students StaffStaff To 11% Community Students Staff programsUndesirable 41 How How desirable How desirable desirable is the is the ability is24% ability the24% to ability choose to choose to31% choose31% 22% 4 22% 5% 0% Undesirable 1 4 5%22% 0%24% 3% 3% Undesirable 1 5% 0% 3%31% which school which school to school attend? to to attend? Desirable 5 29% 35% 39% 33% 6%33% Desirable Desirable 5 2 5 which 35% 39% 39% 2 15% 6%attend? 2 15%35% 6%26% 15% 6% 6%33% 6% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff To Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3 32% 16% 32% 34% comm staff students 29% 3 3 32%32% 16%16% 32% comm comm staffstaff students students 32% Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 5% 5% 5% 21% 0% 0% 0% 30% 3% 3% 3% 31% 25% 4 18% 4 4 18%18% 21%21% 30%30% 22% desirable is the ability to choose 2 2 2 How 15% 15% 15% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 24% desirable desirable is the is58% ability the58% ability to6% choose to choose Desirable 5 How 30% Desirable 5 How 30%30% Desirable 5 58% 28%28%28% 3 3 3 which 32% 32% 32%to 16% 16% 16% 100% 32%32%32% school attend? which which school school to100% attend? to100% attend? Total 100% TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 4 4Community 4 Community 18%18%Students 18%Students 21% 21%21% 30%Staff 30%30% StaffStaff To Community Students Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 30% Undesirable 1 5 5%30% 0%58% 3%28% Undesirable Undesirable 1 5 1 5%30% 5% 58% 0%58% 0% 28% 3%28% 3% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 15% 6% 6% 2Total 2 100% 15% 15% 100% 6% 6% 100% 6% 6% How desirable is the ability to choose which school 3 3Community 32%32%Students 16%16%16% 32%32%32% 3 Community 32%Students Staff Community Staff Students Staff 3% 35%21%21%21% 30%30%30%To 4 18% to attend? Undesirable 1 4 13%18% Undesirable 1 4 13%18% Undesirable 1 13% 10%10%10% 10%10%10% Desirable 5 2 30% 58%10%58% 28% Desirable Desirable 5 2 5 30% 2 9%30% 9% 17%28% 9% 10%58% 10% 17%28% 17% 10% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff To Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3 16% 21% 3 3 16%16% 31% 31% 21% 31% 21% very desirable very undesirable Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 13%13%13% 14% 10%10%10% 28% 10%10%10% 4 14% 4 4 14%14% 14%14% 28%28% 2 9% 9% 9% 35% 10%10%10% 24% 17%17%17% 5 2 48% choice of Desirable Desirable 5 2 48%48% 35%35% 24%24% Desirable 5 3 3 3 100% 16%16%16% 100% 31%31%31% 100% 21%21%21% Total Total 100% 100% 100% schools Total 100% 100% 100% comm staff students comm staff students comm staff students 4 4Community 4 Community 14%14%Students 14%Students 14% 14%14% 28%Staff 28%28% StaffStaff To Community Students Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 48% 48% 48% 35% 35% 35% 24%10% 24%10% 24% Undesirable 1 How 13% 10% 10% Undesirable Undesirable 1desirable 1desirable 10% 10% How is13% two high school identities Community Staff is13% two high school identities Student choice of How desirable is two high school identities Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 9% 10% 17% Responses Responses 2Total 2 competitive 9% 9%athletic 10% 10% 17% 17% Responses withTotal separate competitive athletic and music programs? with separate and music programs? comm comm comm staff staffstaff students students studentsschools with separate competitive athletic and music progra (201 total) (154 total) 3 3Community 16%16%Students 31%31%31% 21%21%21% (106 total) 3 Community 16%Students To Community StudentsStaffStaffStaff 5% How desirable How desirable desirable is14% two is two high is two high school high school identities school identities identities 4 14% 14% 28% 6% 4 6% 3% Undesirable 1 How 51% Undesirable 1 4 51%14% 24%14% 31%28% Undesirable 1 51% 24%14% 24% 31%28% 31% with with separate separate competitive competitive athletic athletic athletic andand music and music programs? music programs? progra 5with 48% 35% 24% Desirable Desirable 5 separate 5 competitive 48% 2 16% 58% choice of Desirable 28% 30% 2 16%48% 19%35% 32%24% 2 16% 19%35% 19% 32%24% 32% 15% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff To Total 100% 100% 100% Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 3 10% 18% 16% 3 3 10%10% 18%18% 16%16% schools comm staffstaffstaff students comm comm students students 16% Undesirable Undesirable Undesirable 1 1 1 51% 51% 24%24%24% 31%31%31% 4 6%51% 4 4 6% 6% 16%16%16% 10%10%10% How desirable is16% two high school identities 2 2 2desirable 16% 19% 19% 19% 32% 32%32% 32% How desirable is16% two is two high high school school identities Desirable 5 How 18% 12% Desirable 5 28% 18% 12%12% 23%identities Desirable 5 18% 23%23%23% 3with 3 separate 3 competitive 10% 10%athletic 10%athletic 18% 18% 18% 16% 16%progra 16% withTotal separate competitive and music programs? with separate competitive athletic and and music music programs? 30% 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 18% 32% 21% 4 4Community 4 Community 6% 6%Students 6%Students 16% 16%16% 10%Staff 10%10% StaffStaff To Community Students Desirable Desirable Desirable 5 5 5 18% 18% 18% 23% 23% 23% 12%31% 12% 12% Undesirable 1of the 51% 31% Undesirable Undesirable 1high 1 school 51% 51% Which of the options is24% LEAST favorable to 31% you? Which school options is24% LEAST favorable to yot Which of high the high school options is24% LEAST favorable Total Total Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 2 16% 19% 32% 2Community 2 100% 16% 16%Students 19% 19% 32% 32% Students Staff To Community Staff Community Students Staff 3High 10% 18%48%18% 16% 3High 3 OneOne High 53%10% 53%10% 51%16% One 53% 48%18% 48% 51%16% 51% Which Which of Which the of 4 the high of high the school high school options school options is16% LEAST is16% LEAST is favorable LEAST favorable favorable to you? to yot 4 6%25% 10% 4 6%25% 6%options 9-10 / 11-12 25% 26% 9-10 / 11-12 26%16% 34%10% 9-10 / 11-12 26% 34%10% 34% Community Students StaffStaff To Desirable 5 5Community 18%22% 23% 12%Staff Desirable Desirable 5 Community 18%Students 18%Students 23%26% 23% 12%15% 12% Small Schools 22% 26% 15% Small Schools 26% 15% Small Schools 22% OneOne High One HighTotal High 100% 53% 53% 53% 100% 48% 48% 48% 100% 51% 51% 51% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Would you send your child to a magnet school if the focus Total TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 9-109-10 / 11-12 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 25%25%25% 70% 26%26%26% 34%34%34% aligned with your childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest? Small Schools Small Schools Schools 22% 22% 22% 26% 26% 15% 15% Which of the high school options is LEAST favorable to 15% you? comm staffstaffstaff students Which Which of the of high the high school school options options LEAST LEAST favorable favorable to yot comm students Would you send your child to26% ais magnet school? comm studentsmagnet Small Would you send your child to ais magnet school? Would you send your child to a magnet school? Total TotalCommunity Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Students Staff To Community Community Students Students Staff Staff school? Community Students Staff Community Students Staff Community Students Staff To OneOne High No 53% 48% 51% Yes Unsure/Maybe One High High 53% 53% 48% 48% 51% 51% No 20%20%20% 12%12%12% 12%12%12% No No 16% comm comm comm staffstaffstaff students students students Would Would you Would you send you send your send your child your child to26% child ato magnet a to magnet a magnet school? school? school? / 11-12 25% 34% 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 25% 25% 26% magnet 9-109-10 Unsure 18% 3% Unsure 18% 3%26% 9%34% Unsure 18% 3% 9%34% 9% Community Community Community Students Students Students Staff Staff Staff To Small Schools 22% 26% 15% Small Small Schools Schools 22% 22% 26% 26% 15% YesYes Yes 62%62%62% 85%85%85% 79%79%15% school? 79% No No No 20% 20% 20% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% 12% Total 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% Total 100% 100% 100% Community Staff Unsure Unsure Unsure 18%18%18% 3% 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% Student Responses Responses comm staff students Responses comm comm staffstaff students studentsmagnet YesWould Yesyou Yes 62% 62% 62% 85% 85% 85% 79% 79% 79% Would send your child to a magnet school? Would you you sendsend youryour childchild to a to magnet a magnet school? school? (189 total) (129 total) (68 total) Total TotalCommunity Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Students Staff To Community Community Students Students Staff Staff school? No No No 20%20%20% 12%12%12% 12%12%12% 14% 3% 12% 85% 60% 12% 76% Unsure 18%18%18% 3% 3% 3% 9% 9% 9% Unsure Unsure YesYes Yes 62%62%62% 85%85%85% 79%79%79% 22% 12% Total TotalTotal 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 18%

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Participants considered and shared their thoughts about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each school scenario during the small group exercise.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

SWOT Analysis

4. SWOT Analysis

Overview During the small group exercise, participants identified and discussed the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats for each scenario. Facilitators explained that strengths and weaknesses were traits inherent in the concept, which can be assumed to be true or are very likely results. For example, permanence would be a strength of an ink pen. Opportunities and threats were explained to be external to the concept. They are possibilities, but should not be assumed. For example a threat of an ink pen is that it could dry up or clog. The responses to this exercise show overlap between strengths versus opportunities and weaknesses versus threats. But the category in which each idea was recorded is less important than the idea itself. These thoughts, particularly those that appear repeatedly, can help explain why participants express certain preferences. The following analysis considers all of the responses from both the small group flip charts and participant worksheets, then identifies recurring themes among them for each scenario. Figures show the most

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

common SWOT responses for each scenario listed in order of frequency. Complete verbatim responses to this exercise are included in the Appendix. High School Scenarios Overall there were significantly more comments recorded about the each high school scenario than about the two elementary school scenarios. That is consistent with the significant number of participants who stated on their exit questionnaire that they are most concerned about the future high school facility. Another observation is that participants tended to begin the exercise by comparing the scenarios to existing conditions rather than comparing the scenarios to each other. As a result, many comments, particularly those on High School Scenario 1, mention student-teacher ratios and class size. These factors, however, are dependant primarily on operating funds and squarefootage capacity rather than on the chosen scenario.

Volunteer facilitators recorded participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas on flipchart paper during the small group portion of the meetings.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary ReportApproximate Total Responses: 1250

Strengths

Traditional/Familiar/Proven More extracurricular opportunities Easier transportation Less crowded Smaller classes (better student-teacher ratio) More opportunities (general) Easier to implement Localized/neighborhood schools Healthy competition/rivalry More Participation Develop student/teacher/parent relationships More potential to take advanced classes More individual student attention Improved safety Upperclassmen can mentor Lower cost Equal opportunities Less discipline problems All high school grade levels are together Staying in building longer creates a sense of home/pride Stronger identity/more school spirit More staff Accommodate both gifted and special needs/remedial students More flexible Fewer staffing issues Continuity

Opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 650

More extracurricular opportunities More participation Healthy competition Better parent/teacher/student relationships More opportunities to take courses of interest Draw equitable attendance lines More opportunities to recognize student achievement Improve school spirit/pride More student participation More jobs created More student leadership Choices for those moving into district Could diversify curriculum or offer more choices

FREQUENCY:

High

Moderate

Weaknesses

Approximate Total Responses: 1150

Higher cost (duplication of effort) Divisive Socioeconomic inequality (real or perceived) Unhealthy competition/rivalry Dilute talent pool Nothing new/too traditional Separation from friends Boundary issues (general) Mixing age groups is negative Old/new school stigma Weaker event participation/support Inequality (real or perceived) Separate identities Limits curriculum variation Harder to fill special classes Equity is hard to achieve Requires splitting teachers More teachers needed Less choice Transportation costs for extracurriculars Inequality in teacher quality Divide resources Less specialization Unequal participation Lower quality of extracurriculars

Threats

Approximate Total Responses: 750

Community division Unhealthy rivalry Inequalities (real or perceived) Affect property values Socioeconomic division Violence/gangs Transportation challenges Stacking athletics Lower strength of extracurriculars Lost opportunity to innovate Old/new perceptions Could have unbalanced attendance in future Disparity in teacher experience Racial/social tensions may rise Greater operational costs Separation from friends may hurt student performance Old school being underfunded/funding not matching need Mixing age groups is risky/peer pressure Lower availability of advanced courses Less outside support for extracurriculars Comparisons between schools May limit athletic scholarship opportunities Difficulty finding enough quality teachers

Low

Figure 4.1 High School Scenario 1 (Two 9-12 Schools): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

SWOT Analysis

Scenario 1 (Two 9-12 Schools) Figure 4.1 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for High School Scenario 1. Strengths The most frequently mentioned strength of having two comprehensive 9-12 high schools is that it is familiar and traditional. The concept is understood by parents, teachers, and colleges. It is also more straight-forward to implement. Another very commonly mentioned strength is greater opportunities for students. Two 9-12 schools would mean there would be two sets of State-sanctioned competitive extracurricular activities, which would offer more students the possibility of participating in competitive athletics and music or other school activities. Transportation was also mentioned repeatedly as a strength. With this scenario, attendance would be based on defined boundaries. Since students would generally attend the school closest to home and there would be little travel between the two schools, it is reasonable to assume that fewer bus-miles would be required and student-driven miles would be minimized, reducing overall transportation costs. Finally, many participants stated that important strengths are smaller classes and less overcrowding. But as noted previously, these benefits are not unique to Scenario 1. Weaknesses By far, the most frequently mentioned weaknesses relate to the higher cost of this scenario and how it would affect the social structure and the character of Reynoldsburg. Participants recognize that this scenario would likely be more costly overall, since everything would need to be duplicated,

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

including staff, extracurricular programs and facilities. Another primary concern many participants share is that two 9-12 high schools would be divisive. Boundaries would determine attendance, which would mean that students in some areas of Reynoldsburg would attend the older facility while students in other areas would attend the new one. This change would likely cause separation between friends. Many comments also indicate anticipation that socioeconomic inequality is inevitable. There is also a significant apprehension that two comprehensive high schools would lead to unhealthy competition and rivalries between the two schools. This weakness likely fuels the fear that Scenario 1 would divide the community. Where many say that being traditional is a strength, many others say the fact that Scenario 1 offers “nothing new” is a weakness. Also to counter the strength that this option offers greater extracurricular opportunities, many participants fear that it would lead to less competitive programs because the talent pool would be diluted. Opportunities Aside from these weaknesses, participants also imagined a few potential opportunities within a two high school town. Many mention again the additional extracurricular opportunities, which could result in greater participation and create more well-rounded students. Some also suggest that a two high school town could lead to healthy competition which would benefit both schools.

Two 9-12 schools would mean there would be two sets of extracurricular activities, which would offer more students the possibility of participating in competitive athletics and music or other school activities.

Threats Two of the most commonly mentioned threats—inequalities and unhealthy rivalries—were also mentioned as weaknesses. These two factors relate to the negative

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

theme of divisiveness. Some participants foresee such divisiveness as a potential threat to property values in Reynoldsburg.

Though participants came from diverse backgrounds and held differing opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, they also shared many similar ideas and experiences.

Other Observations and Conclusions Based on the number and nature of responses about high school Scenario 1, a few conjectures can be made. Those who support this option like the simplicity and familiarity of a traditional model. They may be attracted to the idea based on the likelihood of a new facility with attendance boundaries in their area. Of course, many are also attracted to the idea of additional extracurricular opportunities. Finally, supporters are less likely to be sensitive to the notion of divisiveness and socioeconomic inequality, or they are optimistic that equitable attendance boundaries could be drawn. Those who oppose this scenario are more sensitive to the potential divisiveness that could result and its effect on the character of the larger community. This divisiveness could be created by attendance boundaries, it could be socioeconomic inequality or the perception of such, or it could be rivalries and unhealthy competition. They associate many potential threats from that divisiveness such as more violence and greater racial or social tensions. They also fear disparities in funding, teacher experience and external support, or simply missing an opportunity to be innovative.

Scenario 2 (9-10/11-12) Figure 4.2 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for High School Scenario 2. Strengths There are two overarching themes among the most recognized strengths for High School Scenario 2. The first relates to the benefits of separating age groups and the second pertains to school and community identity. The most frequently mentioned strength is that age groups are separated under Scenario 2. Participants generally believe that separating younger students from upperclassmen will improve student performance since curricula can be more age-appropriate. They also suggest it will reduce problems with peer pressure, hazing and bullying. Separating age groups also encourages a more focused curriculum, participants say. The 9-10 school can emphasize core curricula while the 11-12 school could focus on preparation for life after high school. Many also suggest that teachers could loop with classes or focus on a grade level. Regarding school identity, many participants like that this scenario would make Reynoldsburg a one high school town. There would be no attendance boundaries, meaning that students would attend both schools and would all experience the new facility. Several also mention specifically that having one set of extracurricular activities is a strength. Weaknesses Some of the most commonly mentioned weaknesses challenge related strengths. For example, separating age groups between two campuses makes offering accelerated or remedial courses more challenging.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Strengths

Approximate Total Responses: 1250

Age groups are separated One high school Community All students of a grade level are together Brings the community together Reduces hazing/bullying/peer pressure (improves safety) Smaller class sizes Teachers can loop All students get to experience new facility Provides transition into high school Age appropriate instruction Eliminate inequalities Core curriculum in 9-10 11-12 can specialize or focus on post high school options More familiarity between students/teachers Solves overcrowding Teachers can focus on grade level No boundaries to draw One set of extracurriculars Lower cost Does not dilute athletic pool

Opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 550

Focus learning (establish OGT vs. college focus) Separation of age groups creates comfort Easier to track student needs by grade Team teach/looping Wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t divide the community Create a hybrid (traditional 9-10/choice 11-12) Easier transition for students Meet and befriend students from throughout Reynoldsburg Adjust bell times to facilitate transportation Business sponsorships More leadership opportunities for younger students Use technology to overcome distance issue Could still offer specializations in 11-12 Duplicate some extracurriculars to provide more opportunity More diversity

FREQUENCY:

High

Moderate

Weaknesses

SWOT Analysis 1100 Approximate Total Responses:

Transportation logistics/cost How to offer accelerated courses to students in 9-10 Limited extracurricular opportunities Too many transitions (every two years) Fewer mentoring opportunities/lack of role models Distance between campuses How to manage extracurricular opportunities between campuses Some grade levels may be much larger (larger classes) How to handle remedial courses for 11-12 Some kids may have to attend both schools More coordination is required Harder for families with multiple children Not a traditional high school experience Not enough research on this concept Separation from siblings 9-10 would be OGT focused Harder for teachers to work together Limited specialization Restricts upperclass/lowerclass friendships Teachers cannot teach all four grade levels

Threats

Approximate Total Responses: 450

Transportation effort Harder for younger students to take advanced courses Frequent school changes may be difficult for students Extracurricular logistics Missing traditional high school experience (less school spirit) Scheduling conflicts Difficult to manage enrollment fluctuations More expensive if extra facilities are built A change in administration could kill schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s success Fewer role models/friends of other ages Lower attendance at extracurricular events Less extracurricular participation

Low

Figure 4.2 High School Scenario 2 (9-10/11-12): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Participants who support Scenario 2 like that it would keep Reynoldsburg with one high school identity.

Also, there would be fewer role models or mentors for young students. Further, a one high school town on two separate campuses would lead to more challenging transportation logistics and higher cost. As the two campuses would be five miles apart and all students would attend both during their high school years, there would need to be many more bus routes. Add to this situation the possibility of travel between schools for extracurricular activities or special classes and this scenario would yield very high transportation costs. Finally many participants do not like that this scenario would limit opportunities to participate in extracurricular activities. Opportunities Participants mentioned opportunities related to focused learning. Some reiterate that the younger campus can focus on core curricula and state requirements while the older campus focus on college prep or special training. Some participants also suggest creating a small schools hybrid where 9-10 is more traditional and focused on core curricula while 11-12 is specialized.

Threats There were fewer threats mentioned. Most concerned greater transportation effort and cost. The distance will make extracurricular logistics more challenging and be harder for students to take courses that are only offered at one campus. Another recurring theme is concern that frequent school changes can setback student progress. Currently within the district, students attend two years at a middle school and two years at a junior high before moving on to high school. There is some concern that this two year pattern could be disruptive or weaken school identity and pride. Other Observations and Conclusions Participants who support Scenario 2 like that it would keep Reynoldsburg with one high school identity. They appreciate that there are no boundaries to draw and that all students would experience the new facility. Many supporters also believe that separating age groups would benefit students and create a better environment for learning. They are less concerned with extracurricular opportunities, and the logistical challenges of maintaining one high school on two separate campuses. Those who oppose this scenario probably dislike the one high school model. They would rather see more extracurricular opportunities or believe that the distance between the two campuses would require impractical and unsustainable transportation expenditures.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

SWOT Analysis

Scenario 3 (Small Schools) Figure 4.3 (page 29) shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for High School Scenario 3. This scenario is the most complex and has many variables so participants noted more opportunities and threats than the other high school scenarios. Strengths The commonly mentioned strengths are varied. Most mentioned is that small learning communities would better prepare students for the future. Many comments applaud the simple fact that this scenario offers students choices. Closely related to choice is personalization, which was also mentioned repeatedly. By personalization, participants explained that students could study the topics they are most interested in or focus on their strengths. Having a focussed curriculum is also seen as a strength. When students are allowed to choose and focus on what they are most interested in, they will be more engaged and learn more. Participants also believe that small learning communities will better prepare students for the future. They will also encourage stronger student and teacher relationships, which could be expected to improve student achievement. Many also said that a strength is that there would be no attendance boundaries, which limits the threat of inequalities. Also this scenario could potentially satisfy either the one high school or two high school supporters and could have one or two sets of extracurriculars. Weaknesses Similar to strengths, participants identified a laundry list of weaknesses. Most prevalent among them is the assumed lottery system to determine attendance. Participants

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

express serious concern about what would happen if students couldn’t attend the program they prefer. They speculate that such rejection could reduce a student’s engagement and academic success. Several participants also suggest that students may be too young to make choices about academic programs. They are concerned that students may not make the “right” choice, either to support their interests and abilities or their future aspirations. Many also recognize that students could be separated from friends if they choose a program based on their strengths and interests. There is fear that many students would choose to follow their friends instead. Related to fears about choice is concern about limitations on transferring schools. If a student decides that the program they are in is not appropriate, they may be required to wait until the end of the academic year to change. This situation could reduce a student’s enthusiasm for school, damage their grade point average, or set them behind in preparing for life after high school. High cost was also repeatedly mentioned as a weakness. Participants recognize that, similar to Scenario 2, transportation would be more challenging logistically and more expensive. It will also take much more time and effort to plan and manage, which will mean higher cost to implement and operate. Also, they say it will be more difficult and potentially costly to acquire special resources and teachers for each program. Opportunities Like strengths, the most mentioned opportunities for the Small Schools scenario pertain to better preparation for the future. Participants say that students may be better prepared for college or their career, and more able to compete in a global world. Also similar to strengths, participants expect that the ability to focus on what you

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary ReportApproximate Total Responses: 1050

Strengths

Better preparation for future Students will be more interested/engaged More choice Focused curriculum Personalization creates ownership Smaller class size Encourage stronger student and teacher relationships More likely to get classes you are interested in Students will learn more/improve achievement Small learning communities Improved attendance/discipline Build on student strengths Greater school unity Challenge/rigor Energize staff More innovative Specialization One or two identities/sets of extracurriculars One high school potential No boundaries Brings out best in teachers and students More parent involvement No socioeconomic segregation Equal opportunity Team approach 4 Years at one campus

Opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 650

Better preparation for future More attractive place to live/work (esp. for teachers) Partnerships with outside organizations/internships More flexibility/focus on what you are most interested Advanced study/earn college credit Could have one or two identities/sets of extracurriculars Gain recognition for Reynoldsburg schools Offer more course opportunities Money from Gates Foundation Improved attendance/discipline Increased scholarships Opportunity to innovate Help students get ahead/higher achievement Cross-curriculum collaboration Greater engagement/motivation Make students more adaptable or competitive for today’s world Hybrid option (9-10/11-12) Team teaching High teacher buy-in Could drive changes at other levels (junior high, middle school) Could maintain one high school identity Extracurriculars can help build relationships outside of program Networking between like-minded students Placement could be based on criteria/over lottery FREQUENCY:

High

Moderate

Weaknesses

Approximate Total Responses: 1000

Transportation logistics/cost Lottery system/not getting choice Students may not be ready for choice Difficult to acquire special resources/teachers Higher cost to implement and operate More complicated to understand and implement Limitations on transferring schools Students may follow friends or be split from them Attendance criteria (lottery) may not be fair or balanced Could limit options after high school Getting locked into curriculum May not meet needs of traditional students Annual variations in program interest Testing a new idea on students is risky Can already choose courses by theme More difficult to schedule Too focused Unbalanced demand for schools Students may not be well rounded Hard to identifying student interest/demand Rivalry between schools Less flexibility 9-10/11-12 hybrid might be better

Threats

Approximate Total Responses: 600

Difficult to acquire special resources/teachers Students may be too young to make choice Higher cost Students less disciplined or engaged if they don’t get their choice Transportation issues Knowledge/experience may be underdeveloped in some areas Divisive Preliminary planning may be done poorly Demand for programs may change Choices may be made for wrong reasons Community may be tired of trying new things Harder to produce well-rounded students Get locked into program you don’t want Inter-school rivalries May be too much transferring between schools Could affect community identity Students may not discover talents if experiences are not broad Concept failing/changing if leadership changes Testing implications Students may follow friends or be split from them Will there be mobility between programs Not enough research to show concept’s effectiveness

Low

Figure 4.3 High School Scenario 3 (Small Schools): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

SWOT Analysis

are most interested could lead to greater motivation and engagement from students, and parents. Also many speculate that teachers would show the same benefits if allowed to practice in a more specialized environment. Another widely recognized opportunity is that a more progressive form of high school could bring positive recognition to Reynoldsburg Schools and potentially make the city a more attractive place to live. This extra attention could attract more talented teachers, further improving the district. Such a trend could also raise property values. Several participants also suggest that a hybrid option should be considered. The most commonly discussed hybrid would be a combination of Scenarios 2 and 3. There would be a 9-10 school focused on core curricula in a traditional format, then a 11-12 school that employs the small schools concept to offer choice and specialization. Threats The most commonly identified threats speak either to the challenges with implementing and managing this scenario or that it might not be beneficial to all students. One common concern is that specialized programs may produce students that are less well-rounded. Critics say that student knowledge or experience could be underdeveloped in some areas. That could limit future opportunities. Another concern is that students could get locked into a program they do not want to be in—either because they did not get their choice, or because they made a poor choice. The other major concern is the relative difficulty of planning, implementing, and managing the Small Schools scenario. For example, the district could face challenges finding the right teachers or other resourc-

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

es. Also, this scenario might struggle if the district leadership were to change. Some participants also see this scenario as potentially divisive. Certain schools could be perceived as better or worse, which could lead to negative stigmas among different groups of students. Other Observations and Conclusions Participants generally like the ability to choose schools and curricula that match a student’s personal interests. They also like that this concept could maintain one high school identity, or offer two with more extracurricular opportunities. They also see benefits for teachers and the larger community. On the other hand, they share many concerns. The biggest concern shared by both critics and supporters is the lottery system of attendance. They fear what would happen to students who do not get their choice. They also acknowledge that some students may not be ready for specialization and may choose for wrong reasons or regret their choice.

Several participants also suggest that a hybrid option should be considered.

Assistant Superintendent Dan Hoffman explains the possibilities of Small Schools Under One Roof and answers participants’ questions during the assembly portion of the meetings.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Elementary School Scenarios Overall there were fewer comments about elementary school scenarios than there were for each of the high school scenarios. Scenario 1 (Neighborhood School) Figure 4.4 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for Elementary Scenario 1.

Participants say that neighborhood schools to build a stronger sense of community.

Strengths An obvious strength of neighborhood schools is that transportation costs would be lower. There would be fewer bus miles and more opportunities for students to walk or bike to school. Similar to Scenario 1 for the high school, participants frequently say that being familiar and traditional is a primary strength. The other most frequent theme deals with community aspects of neighborhood schools. In addition to being simply familiar and traditional, participants see this as a proven model that is easier to obtain buy-in and implement. They also expect that neighborhood schools offer all students similar opportunities. The bulk of other comments talk about the benefits of having localized, neighborhood-based schools. Specifically, they say it helps to build a stronger sense of community. For instance, children can attend school with others from their neighborhood. Also there would be more familiarity between students, teachers and parents. Weaknesses The most common weaknesses surround similar issues as the strengths. They talk about neighborhood and community character implications as well as the traditional nature of the concept. Many participants express concern

about the redistricting for attendance boundaries that will occur. Although this change will happen regardless of which scenario is selected, a new neighborhood school would mean that attendance would come primarily from students who live nearest to that new facility. In other words, redistricting will affect all students, but with a neighborhood school, only those in a limited area of the city would benefit, participants explain. They also fear there will be socioeconomic inequality between the schools. Another weakness some say is that neighborhood schools are too traditional and not progressive. Reynoldsburg has no elementary schools of choice. Adding another neighborhood school would be a missed opportunity to offer the community something new. Some also say that it is difficult to align curricula among neighborhood schools. Although they are intended to be comparable, these schools are perceived to have different levels of academic rigor and student achievement. They also recognize that, relative to the proposed alternative, this scenario limits choice. Opportunities The opportunities participants mention involve the themes already mentioned. They see the potential for localized attendance to strengthen neighborhood communities. They also believe that this proximity will encourage parental involvement and make teachers more aware of individual students needs. Smaller classes is also mentioned repeatedly as an expected benefit. Threats The commonly mentioned threats surround redistricting and attendance boundaries. Many acknowledge that redistrict-

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Strengths

Approximate Total Responses: 750

Transportation Familiar/traditional Localized/neighborhood experience Same opportunity for all students Smaller classes Going to school with neighborhood kids Live close to School More parent involvement Builds community Easy to implement/manage Proven model More familiarity between students/staff/parents Consistency Set boundaries Walk or bike to school Decrease student-teacher ratio Maintains status quo Easier to staff Saves money Easier transition to Middle School Good for property values Provides a broad foundation

Opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 200

Smaller Classes Strengthened neighborhood community Ride bike or walk to school Proximity encourages parental involvement More individual attention/more awareness of student needs More athletic opportunity Put special classes within a traditional school High school mentorship at new elementary school More community involvement Consistency with other schools Easier to implement Encourages well-rounded education Easier to balance enrollment Make all elementaries choice schools Could keep the Grant Road staff together Make preschool or special needs school out of Grant Road Schools could develop a focus based on community input

FREQUENCY:

High

Moderate

Weaknesses

SWOT Analysis 550 Approximate Total Responses:

Boundaries (How will boundaries be drawn fairly?) Socioeconomic inequality between districts Limits choice Redistricting (May cause turmoil/divide neighborhoods) Traditional/not progressive Fewer special opportunities May not meet needs of all students New elementary school located very close to new high school Lack of diversity Hard to align curricula between schools Only benefits some Neighbors may not get along Competition/rivalries between schools Inequity in school quality/student achievement Divide community Where will Grant Road staff/students go? Doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t provide enough individual attention Old/new perceptions

Threats

Approximate Total Responses: 150

Socioeconomic segregation/inequality Boundaries/Redistricting causing turmoil Limiting choice High demand/competition for new school (with open enrollment) Trouble balancing teachers/staff turnover New elementary location too close to new high school (safety) Lack of diversity Inequality Harder to meet future educational needs Divisive Not all benefit from new school Schools too competitive Harder to meet individual needs Inconsistency Unfair boundaries Neighborhood issues affect schools Lost opportunity to be innovative

Low

Figure 4.4 Elementary Scenario 1 (Neighborhood School): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Several participants expect that having a school of choice will draw positive attention to Reynoldsburg, promote parental involvement and better prepare children for the future.

ing will cause turmoil that will affect all students. They also reiterate the concern that socioeconomic segregation or inequality could become more significant.

Scenario 2 (School of Choice) Figure 4.5 shows the frequently mentioned strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for Elementary Scenario 2.

Other Observations and Conclusions Participants strongly value the communityenhancing qualities of neighborhood schools and they equally dislike changes to attendance boundaries because of the negative effects on the community. They generally view neighborhood schools as fair since they offer similar opportunities to all students and so are less divisive. However, some participants recognize that elementary school redistricting is inevitable, which will change what school some students attend and potentially disrupt established neighborhood communities. Facing that circumstance, they may view a new neighborhood school less favorably than a school of choice, because the latter option might benefit students in more than one area of the city.

Strengths The most commonly mentioned strength of the elementary school of choice is simply that it provides parents and students the opportunity to choose what type of school is most appropriate for them. Participants think that a more focused curriculum is a strength and that a magnet type of school could better match learning and teaching styles. Many also expect that this choice would lead to more interested and motivated students, particularly those students with special talents and higher aptitudes. Aside from the benefits to students, several participants expect that having a school of choice will draw positive attention to Reynoldsburg, promote parental involvement and better prepare children for the future. Weaknesses Participants express many concerns about elementary schools of choice. First there is the obvious implications on transportation logistics and cost since attendance at the choice school could come from anywhere in the district. A second weakness is the issue of a lottery. Participants seem uncomfortable with having a lottery determine attendance. They fear the possibility of rejection and how that might affect students or parents. Also many participants say that elementary students are too young for such academic choices. However others express concern about parents making that choice and the possibility that choices might be made for the wrong reasons. Another significant concern is that

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Strengths

Approximate Total Responses: 550

Provides choice More options for parents Meets needs of students (especially gifted/talented) Greater academic opportunities Greater parental involvement Can match learning and teaching styles Many possibilities for programs Builds on student talents and aptitudes More opportunities More interested/motivated students Smaller schools More experiences/special opportunites New/unique for Reynoldsburg Improve achievement (for special needs, gifted, or at-risk) Attract more positive attention to Reyn Focused curriculum Opportunity for specialization Opens future opportunities Preparation for better high school performance Potential preparation for small schools in high schol Providing choice encourages ownership Some young students are ready for advanced learning More individual student attention Better to develop student strengths at a young age

Opportunities

Approximate Total Responses: 350

Enhance student potential Develop students strengths Offer more than one choice school Presents more opportunities for gifted/talented students Could choose to attend with friends at neighborhood school Parents can choose curriculum Match teaching and learning styles May give students more enthusiasm for learning Could require parental transportation More parent involvement Offers an alternative to tradition Better preparation for future Create a special needs school Include a focus at all schools More engaged students and fewer discipline issues Attract better teachers May help struggling students Higher overall achievement

FREQUENCY:

High

Moderate

Weaknesses

SWOT Analysis 700 Approximate Total Responses:

Transportation logistics/cost Too young for such choices No follow-up programs (choice) in middle school or junior high Higher cost If demand is high, many will be denied attendance Students not as well-rounded/should have broad exposure How is attendance choice made Lottery/not getting choice Parents choosing for kids/parent’s choice may not be best Inequity Hire or train more teachers (cost) Choices/focus areas are limited Not liking teachers Could separate siblings Parent choosing for kids Too young for specialized curricula Neighborhood schools may be seen as inferior Harder idea to sell/understand Could be separated from neighborhood friends Less community identity Students may not prefer choice school Difficult to manage/more effort to plan How to identify students’ strengths How will school’s concept be chosen? Difficult to ensure balanced socio-economic opportunity

Threats

Approximate Total Responses: 400

Students not as well-rounded/may limit future opportunities No follow-up programs (choice) in middle school or junior high High demand may deny many admission Lottery/not getting choice – may lead to anger Insufficient funding Staffing issues Parent’s choice may not be good for student Transportation logistics/cost Elitism/choice school could be seen as “the good school” Choice is made for wrong reasons Classmates too similar/diverse environments enhance learning Harder to acquire special staff/resources Other schools could be perceived as inferior Admission may not be balanced for diversity Labeling/stigmatizing students Too few choices Could increase enrollment at other schools if choice isn’t popular Move-in students may not have opportunity Hard to change school concepts once established Redistricting will occur with two choice schools Staff discomfort with change

Low

Figure 4.5 Elementary Scenario 2 (School of Choice): Commonly Mentioned Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

A concern that supporters and opponents of schools of choice share regards the lottery system to determine attendance.

there are no current or proposed follow-up programs in middle school and junior high to complement an elementary school of choice. Finally participants suggest that a special choice school would make students less well-rounded and could limit their future opportunities.

choice may not be right for their child. They could choose based upon an ideal or perception that does not match with the student’s real needs. Some also fear the threat of elitism associated with a choice school. A magnet school could be perceived as “the better school” and parents may choose to send their child there because of that perception.

Opportunities The opportunities mentioned are similar to many of the stated strengths. Participants see that students would be more engaged and learn more, which would ultimately enhance their potential. They also say that there would be more opportunities for “gifted and talented” students. Some others suggest that there could be more than one choice school, in order to satisfy different needs. Finally, they suggest that the positive attention it would bring to the district would attract higher quality teachers.

Other Observations and Conclusions The idea of choice at the elementary school level is a controversial one. People who support the option like that it gives students and parents more choices. They believe that it can better match learning and teaching styles and help students with special needs or higher aptitudes. Opponents argue against the idea based on their belief about the appropriateness for students and potential implications for the community. They say that children are too young for specialization and that they need broad exposure to ensure their future opportunities are not limited. They also fear that a school of choice may be seen as better than neighborhood schools, which could be divisive within the community. Another concern that supporters and opponents share regards the lottery system to determine attendance. There is considerable reservation about disappointments or anger if a child is denied attendance who could have benefitted greatly from the special program. Perhaps some participants would rather the opportunity not exist than face the possibility of rejection.

Threats The commonly cited threats are very similar to the identified weaknesses. Participants again show concern that students of a school of choice may be less well-rounded than other students. Also they see the lottery system as a divisive threat because not everyone would be guaranteed attendance. Others are very concerned about the absence of follow-up choice programs in upper grade levels such as middle school and junior high. Many also recognize a risk that a parental

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Scenario Preferences

5. Scenario Preferences

Overview At the conclusion of the SWOT exercise, small group participants recorded their preferred high school scenario and elementary school scenario. These preferences were tallied and compiled with those from all other meetings. The following analysis examines the aggregate results and compares the combined preferences of community, staff and student participants. Since this exercise was conducted at the end of the meetings and some participants

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

left early, there was somewhat less response than the meeting attendance would indicate. In total, 609 and 556 preferences were recorded for the high school and elementary school scenarios respectively. During the meetings several participants indicated that they felt unprepared to select a scenario, but others were more confident. The results overall reveal that there is not a consensus or overwhelming preference. Each scenario received significant support.

Before the meetings ended, facilitators asked participants to select their most preferred high school and elementary school scenario.

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

High School Hybrids

Two 9-12 High Schools

21%

Small Schools

36%

9-10/11-12

39%

Community Responses (238 total)

comm comm comm

Staff Responses (246 total)

Student Responses (125 total)

staff staff staff

students students students

Elementary 38

High High High School School School

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Community Community Community

Students Students Students

Staff Staff Staff

Total Total Total

Hi Tw 9-1 Sm Hy

Scenario Preferences

The High School The figures on page 42 show participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s preferences for a high school scenario. Overall Scenario 1 received the least support at 21 percent, while Scenarios 2 and 3 received similar levels of support. The former, 9-10/11-12 option is the most preferred overall. Several participants opted to select a scenario that was not presented as an option. These hybrids account for 4 percent of preferences and are generally a combination or variation of the proposed Scenarios 2 and 3. Clearly, the preferences indicate that there is significant support for each of the three proposed scenarios, and notable support for hybrids of these proposals. Given that these hybrids offer alternatives to the Small Schools or 9-10/11-12, it can be presumed that the difference in preference between these two scenarios is negligible. However, different conclusions can be drawn if the preferences of the three groups are considered separately and the relative number of their responses is taken into account.

What staff prefer Participants at the staff meetings reported the strongest support for Small Schools and less support for Scenarios 1 and 2. Like the other groups, their least preferred is the Two 9-12 schools, with 17 percent. 45 percent of staff favor the Scenario 3. What students prefer Student participants reported preferences similar to the aggregated results and those of community participants. But they had the least support for Small Schools, at 27 percent, and slightly more support for Two 9-12 High Schools, the 9-10/11-12 scenario. Their most preferred scenario is the 9-10/11-12 at 45 percent. If staff responses are eliminated, or the weight of their responses reduced, the overall balance of preferences wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t change significantly. There would be slightly more support for the Two 9-12 schools and less support for Small Schools. The most preferred would still be the 9-10/11-12 scenario with greater than 40 percent.

When participants were asked to select their preferred high school and elementary school scenarios, some showed passionate opinions while others were less sure which scenario they liked best.

What the community prefer Participants at the community meetings reported preferences similar to the aggregated results. But they had slightly less support for Small Schools, and slightly more support for Two 9-12 High Schools, the 9-10/11-12 scenario and various hybrids. Their most preferred scenario is the 9-10/11-12 at 41 percent.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

Hig Tw 9-1 Sm Hy

Elementary

Ele

Ne Ch comm comm comm

staff staff staff

students students students

School of Choice

Neighborhood Elementary

45%

High High High School School School Two Two Two High High High Schools Schools Schools 9-10 9-10 9-10 / 11-12 / 11-12 / 11-12 Small Small Small Schools Schools Schools Hybrids Hybrids Hybrids

55%

Community Community Community 23% 23% 23% 41% 41% 41% 32% 32% 32% 5% 5%5%

Students Students Students 26% 26% 26% 43% 43% 43% 27% 27% 27% 3% 3%3%

Staff Staff Staff 18% 18% 18% 31% 31% 31% 49% 49% 49% 3% 3%3%

Total Total Total 22% 22% 22% 38% 38% 38% 37% 37% 37% 4% 4%4%

65% 65% 65% 35% 35% 35%

37% 37% 37% 63% 63% 63%

52% 52% 52% 48% 48% 48%

54% 54% 54% 46% 46% 46%

Elementary Elementary Elementary School School School Neigh. Neigh. Neigh. Elementary Elementary Elementary Choice Choice Choice Elementary Elementary Elementary

Community Responses (209 total)

comm comm comm

Staff staff staff staff Responses (224 total)

Student students students students Responses (123 total)

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Scenario Preferences

The elementary school The figures on page 44 show participant’s preferences for an elementary school scenario. Overall the preferences are almost balanced, with slightly more support for an additional neighborhood school over offering a school of choice. Like the high school scenarios, different conclusions can be drawn if the preferences of the three groups are considered separately and the relative number of their responses is taken into account. What the community prefer Participants at the community meetings strongly prefer a neighborhood school over offering a school of choice. 65 percent indicated that as their preference.

Students’ opinions on their preferred elementary school scenario differ significantly overall from those preferences of participants at the community meetings.

What staff prefer The preferences of staff participants mirror the aggregate results. 45 percent would prefer to offer a school of choice. Interestingly, the same percentage of this group indicated a preference for High School Scenario 3, Small Schools Under One Roof—a school of choice concept. What students prefer The preferences reported by students are opposite of those among the community participants. Approximately 63 percent of students prefer to offer schools of choice over an additional neighborhood school.

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS

Reynoldsburg Reach Summary Report

REYNOLDSBURG CITY SCHOOLS