no child left behind
DESCRIPTION
No Child Left Behind. Impact on the Reading School District. Profile of the Reading School District. 5 th largest of 501 school districts in PA 16,466 students 64% Hispanic 20% White 15% African American 1% Asian. RSD Profile - Our Schools. 20 school buildings - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
No Child Left Behind
Impact on the
Reading School District
2
Profile of the Reading School District
• 5th largest of 501 school districts in PA
• 16,466 students
64% Hispanic
20% White
15% African American
1% Asian
3
RSD Profile - Our Schools
• 20 school buildings
14 elementary schools
4 middle schools
1 high school
(2003-04 enrollment of over 4,000 students)
1 alternative education school
• Reading-Muhlenberg Vocational-Technical School draws about 550 students each AM and PM
(1,100 grades 10-12)
4
Reading School District
Challenges
5
Educational/Social Challenges
Compared to other school districts, including urban peers, the Reading School District has
extraordinary challenges…
6
Educational/Social Challenges
• Sustained enrollment increase
over 3,500 students in the past 10 years
• High Poverty - State Percentile 97.6
• High Limited-English Proficiency - State Percentile 99
• High mobility - State Percentile 100
• 2002-03 Student Population - 16,280
“Ins and Outs” as of May 1, 2003 – over 8,000 (entering or leaving district)
- over 10,000 (including intra-district transfers)
7
Educational/Social Challenges
• High dropout rate
State Percentile 100
• Adults with at least a high school diploma
State Percentile 1
• Single parent households with children
State Percentile 99
• More than 25% of our students have special needs (LEP, Special Ed, Teen Parents and Alternative Ed)
• Community violence issues drain resources
8
Financial Challenges
The Reading School District does not have the local taxing capacity to continue to adequately fund the
education of our children.
9
Financial Challenges
Allentown Harrisburg Lancaster Reading Berks Average
$3,042 $4,062 $3,503 $1,578 $4,900
Local Property Tax Revenue ($ per student)
Allentown Harrisburg Lancaster Reading Berks Average
$148,964 $132,267 $158,243 $78,281 $255,345
Full Market Property Value ($ per student)
Low market value/student requires raising tax rates much more than other school districts to yield the same amount per student.
• 2.2 times as much as Central PA urban peers
• 3.3 times as much as Berks County school districts
10
Financial Challenges
Property tax revenues have eroded while student population has grown.
• Property tax revenue declined from $33.8 million to $22.3 million in 8 years
• For each additional student served in the past 6 years, the district lost $2,909 in property tax revenue
11
Enrollment Change, Six Year1995-96 to 2001-02
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Berks County School Districts
Source: Pennsylvania Economy League
12
Property Tax Revenue Change, 6 Years1995-96 to 2001-02
-$10,000,000
-$8,000,000
-$6,000,000
-$4,000,000
-$2,000,000
$0
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
Antiet
am
Boyer
town
Area
Brand
ywine
Heig
hts
Conra
d W
eiser
Daniel
Boo
ne
Exete
r Tow
nship
Fleetw
ood
Gover
nor M
ifflin
Hambu
rg
Kutzto
wn
Muh
lenbe
rg
Oley V
alley
Readin
g
Schuy
kill V
alley
Tulpeh
ocke
n
Twin Vall
ey
Wils
on
Wyo
miss
ing
Berks County School Districts
At the end of the period, Reading School District's tax millage equalled the county average, a factor important to community economic development efforts which are critical to the district's future..
Source: PennsylvaniaEconomy League
13
Additional Revenue Per Additional Student, Six Year1995-96 to 2001-02
-$20,000
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
Antiet
am
Boyer
town
Area
Brand
ywine
Heig
hts
Conra
d W
eiser
Daniel
Boo
ne
Exete
r Tow
nship
Fleetw
ood
Gover
nor M
ifflin
Hambu
rg
Kutzto
wn
Muh
lenbe
rg
Oley V
alley
Readin
g
Schuy
kill V
alley
Tulpeh
ocke
n
Twin Vall
ey
Wils
on
Wyo
miss
ing
Berks County School Districts
Reading School District served an additional 2487 students while losing $7,235,132 in property tax revenue. This amounts to a loss of $2,909 for each additional student served.
Source: Pennsylvania Economy League
14
Financial Challenges
The citizens of Reading make a strong local tax effort.
• Local tax effort*
#1 in Berks County
#75 of 501 school districts in PA
*Local tax effort = Total Local Taxes ÷ Market Value
15
Financial Challenges
Comparisons - Peer Districts
District Cost per Pupil Rank
Statewide Peers $10,643 1
Central PA Urban $10,466 2
Berks County Average $10,262 3
Reading $ 8,369 4
16
No Child Left Behind
Financial Implications for the
Reading School District
17
Immediate Implications
•School Improvement
•Highly Qualified Staff Requirements
18
School Improvement
19
How Did Reading Schools Do?
Met parameters of the NCLB Law:
Lauer’s Park Northwest Elementary
Glenside Millmont
Riverside Thomas Ford
Warning List:
13th and Green 13th and Union
16th and Haak 12th and Marion
Southwest Middle Northeast Middle
Reading High School
Year One School Improvement:
10th and Penn 10th and Green
Amanda Stout Tyson Schoener
Southern Middle Northwest Middle
20
School Improvement Expenses
• School Improvement planning- additional hours for staff to participate in development of plans, etc.
• Additional teacher training – 10% of Title 1 building allocation must be for professional development
6 schools = $ 308,790
• Transportation for school choice – bussing costs
• Additional services for struggling students – extended-day programs, summer school (for schools with “Warning” status, as well as SI schools)
21
Anticipated future costs for School Improvement Efforts?
• Additional assessment costs – more frequent assessment of student learning; need for more robust student management system for tracking data ($500,000)
• Supplemental Educational Services (SES) – required for schools in School Improvement 2, but may need to offer SES in School Improvement 1 schools when school choice is not a viable option
22
What Schools Can Spend vs. What Schools Need for “Real” School Improvement Efforts
SchoolSI Budget(Existing funds)
Additional SI Funds Needed
10th & Green Elem. $59,410 $5,458,590
10th & Penn Elem. $58,756 $3,916,794
Amanda Stout Elem. $55,745 $4,838,805
Tyson Schoener Elem.
$55,850 $4,423,050
Northwest MS $59,985 $6,766,030
Southern MS $51,200 $5,146,000
23
Costs for Complying with Highly Qualified Staff Provisions?
• Costs to attract and retain highly qualified teachers
- Higher starting salary in new teachers’ contract
- Offering Step 3 salaries to new teachers in “high need” certification areas
• Subsidizing costs to meet ESL certification requirements – $80,000+ Title III $ spent to date
• Costs to prepare existing paraprofessionals to meet NCLB requirements – testing costs; test prep. classes
24
Anticipated Future Costs for Complying with Highly Qualified Staff Provisions?
•Continued use of higher starting salaries for teachers in “high need” certification areas
•Collective Bargaining Agreement for Paraprofessionals will change to reflect new employment requirements
25
Other Costs
•Transportation costs for school choice and homeless students
•.Technology costs – estimated 3.7 million
26
Two Conversations Must Be Held about No Child Left Behind
One Conversation:
We SHOULD be held accountable;
We SHOULD believe that every child can succeed.
We Can Do This
27
What We’re Doing to Get Better
• ALL schools are revising their Achievement Plans to be more focused, more data-driven.
• We are using “Closing the Gaps” strategies in K-8
• Technology is being used to meet individual student needs in K-12
• We have increased our extended-day activities, and focused them on PSSA skills
• We are implementing Reading First and adopted a new core reading program for K-5
• We have added reading coaches
28
What Else are We Doing?
• Middle School Pilots
Study Halls become PSSA Preps
Language Arts double block
Guidance teaching test strategies
• Mandatory PSSA courses in 9th grade
• Elective PSSA courses in 10th grade
• PSSA Prep Assessment in 11th grade
29
The “Second Conversation”
But we also need to raise a discussion about the inequities and
frailties of the NCLB Law and Evaluation System.
30
Lack of Support for Struggling Schools
• Many urban and rural schools do not have sufficient financial resources to adequately meet the needs of their children. Before the heavy sanctions of NCLB
are put in place, equity and adequacy for all children should be our focus. Current federal funds are only a small part of overall budgets and must supplement, not supplant.
“It is the cruelest illusion to promise far more than we will ever deliver………..Alas, the promises are far greater than the reality.” William J. Mathis (Phi Delta Kappan, May 2003)
31
Please…
Leave No Child Behind
Assure:
Adequacy
Equity
Fair Accountability Standards
Our Reward…
Instead of children at risk….
32
…Young people at-promise of becoming the most caring, insightful, resilient leaders this nation has known!