Continued assessment ofhigh impact options

Presented by Public Financial Management to the Act 141 Advisory CommitteeDavis School

March 27, 2013

2

Framework for evaluating options

We have continued to evaluate the two remaining high impact options according to the Committee’s criteria:

Does it provide a sound, effective education?

Does it provide a safe, healthy learning environment?

Does it provide a viable, sustainable business model?

We are also considering the relative difficulty for the District to implement the high impact option.

Tonight we will give you more information on the full charter conversion option and academic performance analysis for the internal transformation option.

Conversion charter

4

Demographic comparison

We described Philadelphia’s Renaissance School approach to conversion charters at the last Advisory

Committee meeting. One follow up questions was how the Renaissance Schools compare to the

District operated schools in terms of demographics defined as:

Number of students per facility

Percent of student population that is “economically disadvantaged” (receiving free or reduced price

lunches)

Percent of student population that has an Individualized Education Program (IEP) that helps students

with a disability meet their educational objectives

Please note that, for internal consistency, we are presenting the data in each of these categories for

the students who took the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests in 2011-

2012 unless otherwise noted. Students in grades 3-8 and 11 take the PSSA tests, so the subsequent

analysis does not capture the demographics of every student in every grade. However, using the

PSSA test data allows us to show demographic information for the same student population whose

test results we presented on March 17.

York data does not include Lindberg Academy, which had only 11 eleventh grade students in 2011-

2012. Renaissance School data does not include one of the eight K-8 schools because it was not

available.

5

Students per facility (2011-2012 PSSA results)

Since the data is from last year, it reflects York’s elementary/middle school split before the conversion to the K-8 model. York had fewer

students taking the PSSA in its elementary schools (K-4) than the Renaissance Schools (K-6). York’s middle schools (5-8) were 32

percent larger and its high schools were 26 percent smaller than the Renaissance Schools according to this measure. Overall the

Renaissance Schools had more students– 305 per facility versus 225 for York.

6

Students per facility (2011-2012 Enrollment)

This shows the total enrollment in 2011-2012 as reported to the Commonwealth, including students who did not take the PSSA

tests. York’s middle schools (5-8) were 36 percent larger and its high schools were 7 percent smaller than the Renaissance

Schools according to this measure. Overall the Renaissance Schools had more students – 718 per facility versus 558 for York.

7

Economically disadvantaged students (PSSA)

The proportion of economically disadvantaged students taking the PSSAs at York City schools was lower than at the Renaissance

schools – 81.2 percent for York versus 91.9 for Renaissance. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students at York City

Schools ranged from 73 percent to 90 percent. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students at Renaissance Schools

ranged from 67 percent to 100 percent.

8

Students with IEPs (PSSA)

The proportion of students with IEPs who took the PSSA at York City schools was higher than at the Renaissance

schools – 21.0 percent for York versus 11.9 percent for Renaissance. The percentage of IEP students at York City

Schools ranged from 12 percent to 25 percent. The percentage of IEP students at Renaissance Schools ranged from 1

percent to 22 percent.

9

PSSA test results for Renaissance IEP students

At the last meeting we presented the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment

(PSSA) math and reading test results for the schools converted to charters via the

Renaissance program. We showed the percentage of students achieving advanced or

proficient scores for all students, economically disadvantaged students and African

American/Hispanic students. The test scores for each of these groups included

students with IEPs.

The next two slides show the math and reading test results just for students with IEPs. As

before, the dotted line shows the performance of the SDP schools excluding those in the

Renaissance Program. The blue lines shows the performance for schools that converted

to Renaissance charters in 2010-2011 (two years of results since conversion). The red

line shows the performance for schools that converted to Renaissance charters in 2011-

2012 (one year of results since conversion).

One of the K-8 schools converted to a Renaissance School in 2011-2012 did not have

results available.

10

PSSA results: Math for students in IEPs

Operated as charter school

11

PSSA results: Reading for students in IEPs

Operated as charter school

12

Pre- and post-conversion staff comparison

Another question following our March 13 presentation is how staffing and compensation levels changed at the facilities that converted to Renaissance Schools after their conversion.

From a pre-conversion perspective, we have information on the number of positions and base salary amounts at some facilities in some years. This information does not include the fringe benefits for the specific employees at these facilities and

fringe benefits are a significant part of total compensation.

From a post-conversion perspective, we do not have any information on the staffing or compensation levels at the Renaissance Schools under the new operators. Because the administrators and teachers at the Renaissance Schools are not

public employees, their compensation and head count is not public information.

We will request information to see if we can advance this analysis and will provide it if possible. But the Committee should proceed under the expectation that there is inadequate public information to answer this question.

Conversion charter

14

Academic performance baseline

To provide a baseline for evaluating the internal transformation option, we are providing the Pennsylvania

System of School Assessment (PSSA) math and reading test results for the District operated schools and three

charters (New Hope, Lincoln and Helen Thackston) in York City.

Students take the PSSA in grades 3 through 8 and 11. Their scores are broken into four categories –

advanced, proficient, basic and below basic. We focused on the percentage of students achieving advanced

or proficient scores.

Our review covers the school years from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012 (most recent available).

Existing charter schools: In all categories, the percentage of students receiving advanced or proficient

scores dropped for math and reading over this period. In come cases there was a steady decline. In others

there was a large drop and then it leveled off. In others there was a large drop and then the results rebounded,

but not to 2006-2007 levels.

District operated schools: The percentage of students receiving advanced or proficient scores in math

increased over this period. For reading there was improvement through 2010-2011 but performance in 2011-

2012 fell back to 2006-2007 levels.

Changing population sizes: The size of the student populations educated by these two groups has changed

significantly since 2006-2007. The number of students taking the PSSA at the three charter schools increased

by 130 percent over this period and by higher percentages in certain categories (+250% for IEPs). In contrast,

the number of students taking the PSSA at District-operated facilities dropped by 30-50 percent, depending on

the category.

15

PSSA results: Math for all students

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

16

PSSA results: Math for economically disadvantaged

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

17

PSSA results: Math for students with IEPs

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

18

PSSA results: Reading for all students

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

19

PSSA results: Reading for economically disadvantaged

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

20

PSSA results: Reading for students with IEPs

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

21

Pennsylvania magnet school examples

The District’s proposal cited three Pennsylvania magnet schools as models that show the

potential for the internal transformation option to improve academic performance in York.

Conwell Russell is a Philadelphia magnet school with students in grades 5-8. Its academic

performance is consistently stronger than other SDP schools. In 2011-2012, 77 percent of its

students scored advanced or proficient in math and 80 percent reached that level in reading.

However, Conwell only accepts students who score 70 percent on math and reading for sixth

grade enrollment and 80 percent for seventh and eighth grade enrollment. So its high

performance is partly a result of its selectivity.

Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy is a magnet school covering grades 6-12 .

Its academic performance is also stronger than other Pittsburgh Public schools. In 2011-2012,

79 percent of its students scored advanced or proficient in math and 84 percent reached that

level in reading. However, it only accepts students who achieve basic proficiency on the PSSA

in those areas. One-third of the York City students did not reach basic proficiency for reading

in 2011-2012.

If the District wants to establish a magnet school with a similar approach, it will have to set its

entrance requirements, project its enrollment based on those requirements and make staffing

and facility plans accordingly.

22

Magnet school: Dilworth Elementary

The third Pennsylvania-based magnet school is

Dilworth Elementary in Pittsburgh that has 417

students in grades K-5. Dilworth is open to all

students in the surrounding neighborhood.

Seventy-five percent of the Dilworth students who

took the PSSA in 2011-2012 were economically

disadvantaged (82 percent in York). For the other key

demographic, 7.5 percent of the Dilworth students

who took the PSSA had IEPs (21 percent in York).

We reviewed the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) math and reading test results

for Dilworth Elementary and all other Pittsburgh School district facilities. As before we focused on

the percentage of students achieving advanced or proficient scores with a breakout for economically

disadvantaged students and students with an IEP. We are presenting the scores for the school

years from 2006-2007 through 2011-2012, as we did for York and the Renaissance schools.

On average Dilworth had 22 IEP students per year who took the PSSAs. Last year Dilworth had 15

students and less than 10 in each grade. The Commonwealth does not report results when less

than 10 students per grade take the PSSAs, so the charts for IEP students stop in 2010-2011.

PSSA results: Math for all students

23

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Math for economically disadvantaged

24

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Math for students with IEPs

25

PSSA results: Reading for all students

26

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Reading for economically disadvantaged

27

Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Reading for students with IEPs

28

29

Goldsboro and Gardendale Magnet Schools

Goldsboro and Gardendale Elementary Magnet

Schools are two of the 189 elementary magnet

schools in Florida. Goldsboro Magnet has 656

students in Pre-K to fifth grade while Gardendale

Magnet has 449 students in Pre-K to sixth grade.

Of the students who took the Florida

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) in 2011-

2012, 60 percent of the Goldsboro students and

43 percent of the Gardendale students were

economically disadvantaged (82 percent in York).

Twenty (20) percent of the Goldsboro students and 28 percent of the Gardendale students who took

the FCATs had Florida’s version of the IEP (21 percent in York).

We reviewed the FCAT math and reading test results for fourth graders at Goldsboro Elementary

and all other facilities in the Seminole County School District since that grade and school has the

most information available.

Note: We have the same charts for Gardendale Elementary available if needed

FCAT results: Math for all fourth grade students

30

What happened last year?

Last year Florida applied higher grading standards to measure proficiency in math and reading. Across the State, test results dropped by double digits.

FCAT results: Math for economically disadvantaged

31

FCAT results: Math for students with ESE

32

FCAT results: Reading for fourth grade students

33

What happened last year?

Last year Florida applied higher grading standards to measure proficiency in math and reading. Across the State, test results dropped by double digits.

FCAT results: Reading for economically disadvantaged

34

FCAT results: Reading for students with ESE

35

36

Working toward a Recovery Plan

Act 141 requires the CRO to propose and the York School Board to adopt a Recovery Plan to lead

the district into financial solvency and position it for academic success. The Recovery Plan will

outline a relatively specific strategy that the District will implement for those objectives. We need to

start moving toward the creation of that document.

Eventually we will have to select one of the two high impact options that will become the basis for

the final Plan. For now we will focus our analysis on what the Plan would look like under each

option.

Working through these specifics will help us refine the financial projections and surface issues

related to ease of implementation. As we collect information, we will share it with the Advisory

Committee.

Example: The internal transformation option proposes the creation of magnet schools. For inclusion in the Recovery Plan and refining the financial projections we need to know…

What will be the focus for the magnet schools?

Will there be admission standards like those at Conwell Russell or Pittsburgh Science and Technology?

What’s the projected enrollment?

What facility will house the students?

37

Ease of implementation

As you move toward a decision, the questions that we raised in late February related to

ease of implementation become more relevant. Here are the questions we raised on

February 28.

Does the option require a change to Commonwealth law or other action by the General

Assembly?

Does the option require the cooperation or active partnership of another School District?

Does the option require changes to collective bargaining agreements?

How long will it take to implement the option?

Who will be accountable for administering the process and do they have a track record

of success?

The second question is not relevant for the remaining high impact options, but the others

still are.