Crossing the Redistricting Minefield

School Administrator, Feb, 1995 by Roger L. Creighton, Douglas M. Hamlin

Defining Your Goals Can Provide Safe Passage Through a Boundary Change Process

Redistricting is like a minefield: on one side of the field the school administration rests in a safe but uncomfortable position. It knows that now or soon, it will have to act since some schools will be overloaded or imbalanced in terms of race or at risk" student groupings, and some old buildings will need to be replaced.

On the other side of the minefield is the promise of a new equilibrium. This equilibrium must be defined in terms of which school buildings will be built or enlarged and where; with what capacities; where enrollment boundaries will lie; what grade groupings will exist; and in some cases what the composition of students in each building will be.

The superintendent and the school board have to cross this minefield-a dangerous crossing because it will force students to change schools, lose old friends, and deal with new routes to school. Eruptions may occur at public hearings. But the school system's administration will be driven to redistrict by population growth and changing geographic distribution of the student population--forces so powerful they will make the existing position untenable.

To make a safe passage, administrators must do three things.

* Plan the crossing.

Never venture into a minefield without studying the experiences of those who have done it before. Experience shows that a rational process exists to deal comprehensively with this complex problem. The process includes technical and political elements by means of which potential mines can be discovered and defused.

* Prepare a comprehensive roadmap.

Be ready for the new equilibrium on the other side of that field, including identifying boundaries and building capacities.

* Carry the community along.

Persuade stakeholders not that the new design will be the best of all possible worlds, but that a good stability will be reached with minimum impact in numbers of students changing schools.

Starting Point

In a rational redistricting process, defining goals is the first task. Staff or a citizens' group can do this. The Shenendehowa Central School District, north of Albany, N.Y., found it rewarding to have its goals developed early and by a citizens' group. In this way, although some changes in priorities had to be made, the plan was directed at what residents wanted.

The following goals adopted by school districts illustrate a range of real concerns, but each expresses a single parameter. Some have a range of possible responses, some a yes/no response.

"Avoid frequent shifts in boundaries." (Bremerton, Wash.)

"Retain neighborhood schools." (Bremerton, Wash.)

"Attempt to establish a socioeconomic percentage of poverty students in each school that represents the district 's average." (La Crosse, Wis.)

"Equalize minority enrollments in schools at district levels." (Davenport, Iowa)

"Limit non-contiguous zones, "in effect, to minimize the number of enclaves, or isolated areas within another school's enrollment area. (La Crosse, Wis.)

"Equality of building loading ... [meaning] that no segment of the public will be able to complain that its children are in a school that is more crowded than any other." (Danbury, Conn.)

Goals Statement

Direct statements such as the preceding should be incorporated within a formal document for two reasons. First, they must be comprehensive in coverage. Second, they need to be stated in terms of specific characteristics or criteria against which the performance of alternative plans can be evaluated, either quantitatively or qualitatively.

To accomplish this, goals can be organized into five major groups:

* Education objectives.

These include organization by grade groups, subsidiary grade objectives such as the number of sessions for kindergartners, and program objectives. Program objectives include the definition of programs such as special education, magnet schools, and controlled choice.

* School loading goals and fiscal goals.

These goals include desired numbers of pupils per classroom, level of use, degree of equality o loading between schools, and minimization of capital costs.

* Social goals.

These include racial/ethnic balance, income-group balance, cultural diversity, and other social goals that are deemed beneficial the education of students.

* Transportation goals.

The most commonly expressed goal in this group is the minimization of bus transportation costs. Other goals include minimizing student time in travel. Do consider the effects of special programs, such as magnet schools, on transportation costs.

* Administrative goals.

These include boundary stability over time; minimizing the number of students changing schools; and equalizing the burden boundary changes upon student of different racial and income groups.

The public should b warned that some goals conflict with others. Minimizing transportation costs, for example, may conflict with the need to achieve acceptable level of racial balance. Similarly, an "anti-enclave" policy may have to be foregone to achieve a fair distribution of students who are considered at risk of failure. If communication has been clear from the outset, the public will readily accept the fact that trade-offs must be made.