Continued assessment of high impact options Presented by Public Financial Management to the Act 141 Advisory Committee Davis School March 27, 2013

1 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

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

4 Students per facility ( 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.

5 Students per facility ( Enrollment) This shows the total enrollment in 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.

6 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.

7 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.

8 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 (two years of results since conversion). The red line shows the performance for schools that converted to Renaissance charters in (one year of results since conversion). One of the K-8 schools converted to a Renaissance School in did not have results available.

9 PSSA results: Math for students in IEPs Operated as charter school

10 PSSA results: Reading for students in IEPs Operated as charter school

11 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

13 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 through (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 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 but performance in fell back to levels.  Changing population sizes: The size of the student populations educated by these two groups has changed significantly since 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 percent, depending on the category.

14 PSSA results: Math for all students Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

15 PSSA results: Math for economically disadvantaged Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

16 PSSA results: Math for students with IEPs Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

17 PSSA results: Reading for all students Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

18 PSSA results: Reading for economically disadvantaged Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

19 PSSA results: Reading for students with IEPs Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

20 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 , 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 Its academic performance is also stronger than other Pittsburgh Public schools. In , 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 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.

21 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 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 through , 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

PSSA results: Math for all students 22 Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Math for economically disadvantaged 23 Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Math for students with IEPs 24

PSSA results: Reading for all students 25 Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Reading for economically disadvantaged 26 Percent scoring Advanced or Proficient

PSSA results: Reading for students with IEPs 27

28 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 , 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 29 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 30

FCAT results: Math for students with ESE 31

FCAT results: Reading for fourth grade students 32 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 33

FCAT results: Reading for students with ESE 34

35 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?

36 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.