Table of Contents -- New York City Districts 25 and 30 Interdistrict Consortium Competitive Preference Priority 1 – Need for assistance...………………………………….….1 Competitive Preference Priority 4 –STEM Education ...............................................................16 Competitive Preference Priority 5 – … Evidence of Promise ...................................................27 Invitational Priority: Socioeconomic Integration........................................................................37 MSAP Selection Criteria: (a) Desegregation. .................................................................................................................38 (1) The effectiveness of its plan to recruit students from different social, economic, ............38 (2) How it will foster interaction among students of different social, economic, ethnic, .......48 (3) How it will ensure equal access and treatment for eligible project participants................52 (4) The effectiveness of all other desegregation strategies proposed ......................................59 (b) Quality of Project Design ................................................................................................61 (1) The manner and extent to which the magnet school program will improve student ........61 (2) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources .......................101 (3) The extent to which the training or professional development services ..........................105 (4) The extent to which the proposed project is supported by strong theory ........................108 (c) Quality of Management Plan ........................................................................................111 (1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the …project .........111 (2) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project including those of parents, teachers, ..........................116 (d) Quality of Personnel ......................................................................................................117 (e) Quality of Project Evaluation .......................................................................................130 Appendix (Attachments): Resumes, School Logic Models, Evidence of Promise Studies, etc. PR/Award # U165A160045 Page e17 Priority 1–Need for Assistance: (a) The costs of fully implementing the magnet schools project as proposed Introduction: Community School Districts 25 and 30 in New York City have formed a consor- tium to apply for the Magnet Schools Assistance Program (MSAP). Both Community School Districts 25 and 30 have not received funds under this program in the last fiscal year of the previous funding cycle. The Districts 25/30 Consortium is applying for MSAP funding to estab- lish two new magnet programs at PS 200 and PS 92. These schools have never received MSAP funding. The consortium will also significantly revise two schools – PS 201 and IS 145 that have lost their effectiveness. These schools became magnet schools in 1989 and 1993 re- spectively. By creating attractive magnet schools, the Interdistrict Consortium provides an opportunity for students to expand their choice options by enabling students to cross dis- trict lines to enroll in magnet schools with special curricula that would not otherwise be availa- ble to them. Districts 25 and 30 at the Crossroads The Superintendents of Districts 25 and 30 have recognized that the growing urgency to promote both racial and socioeconomic diversity in their schools can only be accomplished by both districts working together. The two districts adjoin each other. Both districts have large concentrations of poor, minority students. However, in District 25 there are geographically clustered neighborhood schools in wealthier communities that have high concentrations of middle class, non-minority students. This is not the case for Dis- trict 30. The only way highly minority group isolated schools with large numbers of poor, Hispanic students in District 30 can become more racially and socioeconomically diverse is if students can cross district lines. 1 PR/Award # U165A160045 Page e18 There are also imperatives within District 25. Most of the District 25 schools are zoned, neighborhood schools. This also relegates many poor, minority students to schools that are racially and socioeconomically isolated. In a borough where school overcrowding is a serious problem, many of the highly minor- ity group isolated schools in Districts 25 and District 30 are not fully utilized whereas most of the schools with higher proportions of nonminority, middle class students in District 25 are over- crowded or are approaching full utilization. Many parents of students in more affluent communi- ties in District 25 are expressing frustration and anger when their children “can’t get in” their zoned schools. They are looking for alternatives to their neighborhood schools and are consider- ing other schools in District 25, and are “eyeing” the possibility of new opportunities in neigh- boring District 30 schools if high quality education programs are offered. In many cases, students in both districts are “trapped” within their school district boundaries when there are schools in another district that they could attend. The Commu- nity School Districts 25 and 30 Superintendents recognize this as a problem that can be solved. They developed the plan for this proposed magnet program that will open the district boundaries so that four highly minority group isolated and socioeconomically isolated schools (PS 92, IS 145, PS/MS 200, and PS 201) can have a chance to attract a larger pool of nonminority, middle class children within and across district lines, where schools that are predominantly nonminority have a chance to become more diverse through a larger and more diverse applicant pool, and where all children can have more choices. New York City Desegregation Initiatives – A Common Purpose Across School Districts to Expand Choice: The Districts 25 and 30 initiative comes at a time that is especially hospita- ble for expanding choice. There is a new mayor – Bill de Blasio, who came into office in 2014, 2 PR/Award # U165A160045 Page e19 and a new Chancellor who was appointed by the mayor and oversees all 32 school districts in New York City – Carmen Farina. Both have demonstrated their full commitment to equity and desegregation throughout their long careers. At the same time, outcries for racial and economic equity in the city’s schools have been coming from the schools themselves. Thus, there is a unique convergence of grass roots commitment and commitment from the top that has led to concrete actions that will support the proposed magnet project and ensure its success. On June 14, 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law the School Diversity Accounta- bility Action Act (Int 0511-2014 – Local Law 59), which amends the New York City adminis- trative code, “in relation to requiring the department of education to report annually on student demographics in community school districts and high schools.” The Act is intended to provide a better framework and data to advance the goals of more diverse New York City schools. NYC Council Member Brad Lander, co-sponsor of the NYC School Diversity Accountability Act, stated that this new legislation will not immediately desegregate schools but it is an important first step. When signing the law, Mayor de Blasio called it “a step further in our efforts to ensure that our schools are as diverse as our city and people of all communities live, learn, and work together.” (Office of the Mayor, 2015) This new city legislation came on the heels of a March 2014 report published by the UCLA Civil Rights Project, entitled the New York State’s Extreme School Segregation: Inequali- ty, Inaction and a Damaged Future, which found that the New York City's schools are among the most segregated schools in the country and that segregation has grown more extreme since 2000. (Kucsera & Orfield, 2014) On the positive side, the UCLA Report indicates that mag- net schools across New York City have the highest proportion of multiracial schools and the lowest proportion of segregated schools. 3 PR/Award # U165A160045 Page e20 Following up on the report, in December 2014, the City Council held an extensive hear- ing in which parents, educators, and civil rights advocates called on the city to take further steps to put NYC schools on a path toward integration as they invoked both the UCLA report and the 60th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision. Also in December 2014, on a parallel track, the New York State Education Department under a state Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program announced by Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch and former State Education Commissioner John B. King, Jr (current- ly Secretary of Education for the U.S. Department of Education), the state offered the city fund- ing over the next three years to increase diversity at eight low-performing Priority and Focus Schools where at least 70% of students are considered poor. In total, in July 2015, the New York State Education Department awarded Socioeconomic Integration Pilot Program Grants to 20 schools across the state, of which eight are in NYC. This grant money, which comes from school-improvement money from the federal government, is intended to support programs that increase socioeconomic integration. The schools are developing magnet programs