Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assignment Simulations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stanford simulations: prioritizing students from low‑scoring census tracts increases access to high‑API schools
Summary
Researchers tested five assignment systems and found that adding an 'academic‑diversity' preference (priority for students from historically low‑CST census tracts) substantially increases historically underserved students' access to high‑API schools; adding a local/proximity preference on top of that had little cost to equitable access.
A team of researchers working with Stanford, MIT, Duke and others presented computer simulations to the Board showing how five different student‑assignment models would perform on two goals: reducing racially isolated schools and improving equitable student access to high‑API (Academic Performance Index) schools.
Muriel Niedle (Stanford) described two system families tested: local assignment (neighborhood first, restricted/unrestricted ranking) and lottery‑based assignments with optional priorities for local preference and an "academic‑diversity" preference that gives higher priority to students living in census tracts that historically posted low California Standards Test (CST) scores. The simulations used prior round‑1/round‑2 choice data from 2007–2009 and replicated sibling, inclusion and program pathway rules in current practice.
Key findings: school‑level racial composition looked broadly similar across the five options, but student‑level outcomes differed. Options that included an academic‑diversity preference materially increased the share of historically underserved children able to attend high‑API schools (for example, in one comparison the likelihood rose markedly for kindergarteners from low‑CST census tracts). Niedle argued these options also raised the probability that underserved students would get a first‑choice school — a factor the team said could boost participation — and that adding a local preference on top of academic preference was "not costly" in terms of equitable access while improving predictability for parents.
Board members asked whether simulations are reliable given past gaming of the system, how capacity and transportation costs would be handled, and how to prevent address gaming. Presenters and staff acknowledged limitations of past choice data, proposed recalculating census‑tract metrics (suggesting a moving average), and said staff will return with a hybrid recommendation that addresses capacity, transportation and community engagement on Feb. 2.
The Board did not vote. Several commissioners signaled early support for a hybrid approach that preserves high school choice while emphasizing greater proximity for younger grades and an academic‑diversity priority to improve equitable access.
