CSPR Cycle 1, Study Area 3

OVERVIEW: The Comprehensive School Planning Review (CSPR) Office began holding meetings with committees in the late fall-early winter of 2019 to orient them to the process, to engage in collaborative research, and to collectively begin to identify issues.

This included three meetings with each of the Study Area Planning Committees, comprised of four individuals from each school in the Study Area (a school leader, teacher, parent, and community member), as well as three meetings with an Advisory Committee comprised of leaders from the school district’s central office.

These meetings allowed committee members more time to sit with data on their study areas, to revisit and refine issues previously identified, and to begin a discussion about solutions. Some highlights from these meetings include:

RESEARCH DISCUSSIONS: The Planning Committees of each study area were provided with a large amount of data and information to examine with the support of FLO analytics. This data packet was intended to be a jumping off point. Committee members were provided with preliminary data packets, and asked to identify additional data or information they would like to see. The most up to date data packets are available below and will continue to be updated throughout this process with more information.

Study Area 3 Data Packet

IDENTIFYING ISSUES: Once initial data was shared and discussed, we asked committee members from each study area to identify, discuss, and refine key issues, and then to begin to surface potential solutions.

The primary issues discussed in Study Area 3 included:

  • Low building utilization and declining enrollment
  • Cassidy, Gompers, Lamberton, and Overbrook
  • High transfer rates out and mobility
  • Families choosing area charter schools (30-50% of students residing in catchments, depending on school)
  • High transfer out rate to Overbrook Educational Center (OEC), a special admit school

Additional considerations:

  • Perceptions of schools (quality, climate, safety, programs)
  • Walkability and safe corridors
  • Lack of awareness of what programs and resources are available in order to attract and retain students (i.e., arts, music, playgrounds)
  • SA3 schools are less likely to have academic electives due to low enrollment

In considering these issues, breakout groups were asked to begin to surface solutions. Everything shared was collected by the CSPR team, and will be shared in the next round of meetings as a part of a first set of potential options.

IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS: Once groups discussed and refined issues, they began to  consider potential solutions that could help our communities design schools that meet the educational needs of their changing student populations. See a list of potential solutions below that were shared with planning committee members as a starting point. This list was meant to support deliberation, but was not meant to be exhaustive. Planning committee members were asked to discuss these potential solutions and share any new ideas or feedback they had.

  1. Addition/New Construction:  The construction of a new or renovation of an existing building to meet future demand.
  2. Boundary Change: A realignment of boundaries to accommodate projected changes in populations and communities across our city.
  3. Closing: The elimination of an academic program and/or school facility.
  4. Co-Location: Sharing underutilized space for appropriate educational or administrative functions.
  5. Consolidation: A realignment of student population in order to better serve the educational needs of students.
  6. Grade Change: The addition or reduction of grades.
  7. Policy changes: Changes to district policy and admin procedures.
  8. Relocation: Movement of an educational program to another facility.
  9. Replication: The replication of high quality academic programming.
  10. Transitions:  Creating thoughtful transitions for students at elementary and middle grades.

 

Full summaries of what was discussed in these meetings are provided here.