2014 State of the District Report

STATE OF THE DISTRICT:

A SNAPSHOT OF THE

BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

2014

www.Buffalo ReformEd.org @BuffaloReformEd

1 State of the District: 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Buffalo City School District (BCSD) is the second largest public school district in New York State, serving over 30,000 students in 56 schools. For too long, the Buffalo district has been in a state of emergency, struggling with low graduation and student performance rates, high suspension and drop-out rates, falling enrollment, high teacher turnover, giant budget gaps, and a drastically changing enrollment demographic that brings unique needs. This report aims to provide a 'snapshot' of the District across a number of matrixes, including student performance, enrollment and demographics, and budgetary information. In particular, this report will look to make comparisons, both at the district level (compared to the State as a whole and to similar urban Upstate districts) as well as across schools. The report will also identify key issues facing the District over the next two years. The Buffalo City School District is at a unique and opportune time: it has a new board majority and interim superintendent that have acknowledged the problems the district faces and is interested in finding solutions to these issues, as opposed to prior boards and administrations who ignored problems and failed to accept responsibility for leading improvement. The new majority and interim Superintendent also have a growing number of community stakeholders ready and willing to partner with the District to drive improvement. The State Education Department has also paid increasing attention to Buffalo: the District's relationship with the State can either be a positive partnership, or it can continue the adversarial relationship the previous board and administration developed.


OVERVIEW OF THE BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Buffalo City School District (BCSD) is the largest public school district in upstate New York, serving over 30,000 students in 56 schools. The District operates a network of elementary schools, open-enrollment high schools, criteria-based high schools, magnet and vocational high schools, credit recovery and non-traditional student programs, an 'early college' program, and a number of adult educational programs. The District is overseen and governed by an elected Board of Education, made up of nine members. Six Board members represent individual geographic 'districts,' and are elected to three-year terms: these members were last elected in 2013. Three Board members are elected by popular vote 'at-large,' by popular vote across the entire city. These 'at-large' members serve five-year terms and were last elected in 2014. The six 'district' seats will be up for re-election in 2016 and all nine seats will be up for re-election in 2019. Following the 2014 'at-large' seat elections, the Board terminated Superintendent Dr. Pamela Brown, who had been hired in 2012. In her place, the Board appointed Don Ogilvie as interim superintendent. Mr. Ogilvie previously served as Superintendent of Erie1BOCES. Mr. Ogilvie has adamantly stated that he will not take the Buffalo superintendent position on a permanent basis; rather, he will remain in the position until the Board identifies and hires a permanent candidate.


MAP OF SCHOOLS AND DISTRICT

The map below shows all the schools in the BCSD. Many of Buffalo's school facilities date back to the first half of the 20th century, when Buffalo's population distribution was significantly different than today. As the map shows, a large proportion of schools are located in the Central district, a district largely covering the near-east side of the city, stretching directly east of Main Street roughly to Fillmore Avenue. This area of the city has seen significant population decline over the previous decades. Other areas of the city that have either remained stable or have grown in population, particularly the West Side, North Buffalo, and the University area (in the Ferry District), now see an insufficient number of schools for their populations.

Legend

Elementary PK-8

High Schools 9-12

Middle-High 5-12

Adult Ed


ENROLLMENT IN THE BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Enrollment in the BCSD has been declining for many years. In just the last seven years, since 2005, enrollment has fallen nearly 12%, from 34,899 to 30,750. Enrollment has been declining for two primary reasons. First, the population of Buffalo itself has been in steady decline since the 1970s, though this trend has slowed significantly in the past decade. The second factor has likely been more significant: over the same period, charter school enrollment in Buffalo has grown dramatically. Since 2006, charter enrollment in Buffalo has grown from 5,664 to 7,894 in 2013, an increase of nearly 40%. Charter school enrollment in Buffalo looks to continue to grow, as one new charter is set to open in 2015-16 and several charters consider expansion.

Enrollment figures for 2013-14 and 2014-15 are not yet available; however, early reports indicate enrollment decline has leveled off due to two factors. First, with Pinnacle Charter School closing in 2013-14, the BCSD absorbed about 550 students. Second, early reports from Say Yes to Education have indicated that the program's partnership with the District has encouraged some parents who might otherwise enroll their students in private or parochial schools to enroll them in District schools.

25,000

27,500

30,000

32,500

35,000

37,500

40,000

BCSD Enrollment (2003-2013)


ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL

The BCSD operates 53 schools, in addition to three special program schools. Listed below are the schools, by grade level, and their 2012-13 enrollment:

Elementary Schools

#17 Early Childhood Center 351

#54 Dr. George Blackman School 433


#64 Frederick Law Olmstead 490

#65 Roosevelt Early Childhood Center 286


#99 Stanley Makowski Early Childhood Center 690

#45 International School 711

Elementary/Middle Schools

#3 D'Uouville Porter Campus School 642

#6 Buffalo Elementary School of Technology 526

#18 Dr. Antonia Pantoja Comm. School 474

#19 Native American Magnet School 488

#27 Hillery Park Elementary School 552

#30 Frank A. Sedita Academy 728

#31 Harriet Ross Tubman School 450

#32 Bennett Park Montessori 572

#33 Bilingual Center 447

#37 Marva J. Daniels Futures Prep. School 503

#39 Martin Luther King Jr. Multicultural Inst. 618

#43 Lovejoy Discovery School 551

#53 Community School 386

#59 Dr. Charles Drew Science Magnet School 471

#66 North Park Middle Academy 353

#67 Discovery School 531

#69 Houghton Academy 486

#72 Lorraine Elementary School 550

#74 Hamlin Park School 489

#76 Herman Badillo Bilingual Academy 646

#79 William Grabiarz School 508

#80 Highgate Heights 494

#81 671

#89 Dr. Lydia T. Wright School 703

#91 BUILD Academy 459

#93 Southside Elementary 1005

#94 West Hertel Academy 688

#95 Waterfront Elementary 837

#97 Harvey Austin School 396


ENROLLMENT BY SCHOOL (CONT'D)

Middle High Schools

#156 Frederick Law Olmstead 589

#192 Buffalo Academy of Visual and Performing Arts 804

#195 City Honors 909

#197 Math Science Technology Preparatory School 398

#198 International Preparatory School 521

High Schools

#200 Bennett High School 661

#204 Lafayette High School 780

#205 Riverside Institute of Technology 751

#206 South Park High School 824

#212 Leonardo Da Vinci High School 387

#301 Burgard High School 523

#302 Emerson School of Hospitality 427

#304 Hutchinson Central Technical High School 1073

#305 McKinley Vocational High School 985

#307 East High School 388

#415 Middle Early College High School 295

Special Program Schools

#42 Occupational Training Center 72

#84 Health Care Center at ECMC 109

#131 Alternative High School/STAR Program 159

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Early Elementary Elementary Middle/High High School Special

BCSD Enrollment by School Type (2012-13)


ENROLLMENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Racial Demographics The BCSD has long been a 'minority-majority' district, with White students making up only around 23% of enrollment. Demographic trends since 2005 show, however, that the District is seeing growing numbers of Hispanic and Asian students while the Black and White student shares decrease. This trend in school enrollment follows the overall population changes in Buffalo, with influxes of Latin American, Southeast Asian and Middle Eastern families, particularly into the city's west-side neighborhoods.

The chart above shows the noteworthy growth of Asian enrollment since 2005-06, as well as the declines in White and Black enrollment. Asian enrollment has grown from 1% of enrollment to 6% of enrollment, while Black enrollment (down from 57% to 51%) and White enrollment (26% to 22%) have both decreased significantly. Hispanic enrollment has also slightly increased, from 14% to 17%. The cause of the increased share of Asian and Hispanic enrollment is due to two coinciding effects: first, these demographics have seen population increases over the past decade, particular in the neighborhoods in West Buffalo. Second, the overall enrollment of the District has steadily declined, whether due to increased charter enrollment or students leaving the city for the suburbs or for other areas entirely. English Proficiency Demographics Students may be categorized as 'Limited English Proficient' in two ways. First, a school or district may determine on its own that a student understands and/or speaks little or no English. Alternatively, a school or district may test students using one of a number of different language-ability assessments provided by the State. If a student scores below the proficiency level on this assessment, they may be designated as "Limited English Proficient.' The changing demographics of Buffalo, with growing enrollment of Latino and Asian students, is also reflected in the increasing share of Buffalo students considered 'Limited English Proficient.' With the change in demographics largely coming from newly immigrated or

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

BCSD Demographics (2005-2013)

Asian

Hisp.

Black

White

Native American


refugee families, the share of enrollment with special language needs has increased dramatically. This increase in students with special language needs has been an issue the District has thus far failed to adequately address.

As the chart shows, the increased enrollment of Limited English Proficient students has primarily been concentrated in West Buffalo, true to the city's overall demographic changes.

This chart below shows how Limited English Proficient students are concentrated in just a few schools, primarily in West Buffalo. In the chart below, schools are colored by which geographical district they are in. Only schools with at least 5% Limited English Proficient enrollment are shown: 19 of 53 schools exceed this threshold. At the elementary school level, 12 schools have at least 5% enrollment of Limited English Proficient students. Nine of the twelve schools are in West Buffalo, and all nine of these schools have at least 20% Limited English Proficient Enrollment.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

BCSD Limited English Proficient Enrollment (2005-2013)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35% Limited English Proficiency Enrollment by Geographic District

West Buffalo

East Buffalo

Ferry

South Buffalo

North Buffalo


Note that this trend is not as pronounced with high schools, where the District's criteria, vocational and choice based enrollment depress neighborhood based enrollment.

At the secondary level, the growth in enrollment of Limited English Proficient students has almost exclusively been in 'open enrollment' schools. While the District did open one specialized program specifically geared to English-language learning students (International Preparatory School, opened in 2007), this program only accounts for 11% of all 'criteria' or 'special program' seats. For more information about 'open' versus 'criteria/special' enrollment schools, see the 'A Two Tiered System?' section below.

The District and its stakeholders should be having serious conversations as to whether these gaps in minority enrollment and overall proficiency performance are closing fast enough and what can be done to ensure these gaps continue to close. There must also be a discussion of whether the District is adequately meeting the needs of the growing English-language learning population of students.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Limited English Proficiency Enrollment by School (2012-13)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% Limited English Proficient Enrollment in Secondary Schools

Criteria & Special Program

Open Enrollment

West Buffalo East Buffalo Ferry District North Buffalo South Buffalo


Enrollment of Students with Learning Disabilities In order to be labeled as a 'Student with a Learning Disability' (SWD), a student must be designated as such by the District's Committee on Special Education and be receiving special resources in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Typically, school officials and/or parents will request that a student be evaluated for a learning disability. If the student is diagnosed, then the school and District must develop a learning plan, with specific additional services, for the student. Students with disabilities make up 20.8% of District enrollment (in 2012-13); this compares to a rate of 15% across New York State. Trends in the enrollment of SWDs are hard to track because this demographic has not been reported out in New York's annual School Report Cards. Using data reported by the District for Buffalo,i which further differentiates between students with significant disabilities and students with less serious restrictions, enrollment of SWDs appeared to be slowly declining until a spike in the 2013-14 school year. There does not seem to be any clear reason for the sudden spike, though perhaps more complete information will be released when the District's full enrollment data for the 2013-14 school year is released.

The graph below plot maps schools by comparing their enrollment of students with disabilities and their eligibility for free and reduced price lunches, a poverty proxy measure. The graph attempts to determine if schools with high poverty levels are likely to enroll more students with disabilities. Looking at enrollment of SWDs by school, the graph below makes two points. First, there appears to be only a weak correlation between enrollment of economically disadvantaged students and SWDs. Second, there is a huge variation in SWD enrollment among schools. The range between the lowest enrollment (Hutch Tech with 6.3%) and the highest (PS #82 with 33.6%) is significant, as is the standard deviation among enrollment.ii

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% Enrollment of Students with Disabilities

Disability %

Significant Disability %


Variation in enrollment of SWDs is difficult to measure because certain schools might specifically cater to students with particular disabilities, while others may see significant SWD enrollment without the necessary resources to serve this demographic. More detailed information about specific disabilities, school resources and programs, etc., is needed to understand the District's trends of enrolling students with disabilities.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Stu

de

nts

w/

Dis

abili

ty E

nro

llme

nt

Free/Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility


Enrollment of Economically Disadvantaged Students In reporting school and district demographics, New York's School and District Report Card use student eligibility for free or reduced price lunches as an imperfect proxy for economic disadvantage. Eligibility is based on the student's family's income relative to federal poverty levels, which take into consideration family size. Family income below 185% of the federal poverty level qualifies students for reduced price school lunches; below 130% qualifies students for free school lunch. While using this number gives an idea of what share of the district or a school's enrollment falls below 185% of the federal poverty level, it cannot say more about the distribution of family income below that level (for example, it cannot say if most families are right below that threshold, significantly below, or normally distributed). Nonetheless, absent the widespread reporting of more accurate numbers, free and reduced price lunch eligibility serves as a helpful proxy in education research. In terms of enrollment of economically disadvantaged students, using free and reduced price lunch eligibility as a proxy, both the BCSD and the local charter sector are right around the upstate urban district average of 82%, though both far above the statewide average of 54%.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

BCSD Buffalo Charter Sector

New York State

Upstate Urban Avg.

Rochester Syracuse Albany Yonkers

Free/Reduced Price Lunch Eligibility (2012-13)


STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT - OVERVIEW

Elementary Proficiency (Grades 3-8) The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act required all states to annually test students in math and English in grades 3 through 8, as well as once in each subject during high school; it also required individual districts to report out the results of these assessments across the district and for each school, with performance reported out for each demographic group. While this reporting helped provide snapshots of performance, unfortunately the standards and proficiency thresholds used for assessments have been frequently altered over the years, making it difficult to compare performance from one year to the next. This is especially true when comparing performance before and after 2012, when New York aligned its assessments to the newly adopted Common Core State Standards. As anticipated, proficiency rates dropped significantly in 2012-13 from 2011-12. With two years of assessments under the new standards (2012-13 and 2013-14), however, performance growth can be compared over the last two years. The graphs below include performance data only for the last two years, since New York adopted and aligned assessments with the new academic standards.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2012-13 2013-14

Elementary ELA Proficiency Rates (2012-13 and 2013-14)

BCSD

Buffalo Charters

Upstate Urban Districts

New York State


BCSD trails proficiency rates across the state as well as in the Buffalo charter sector. However, BCSD does outperform the other upstate urban districts. Math proficiency rates improved somewhat from 2012-13 to 2013-14; however, ELA proficiency rates were stagnant. The two charts below plot elementary 2013-14 proficiency rates against free and reduced price lunch eligibility enrollment. There is a correlation between the two; however, a number of schools have been able to significantly outperform the trend line.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2012-13 2013-14

Elementary Math Proficiency Rates (2012-13 and 2013-14)

BCSD

Buffalo Charters

Upstate Urban Districts

New York State

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fre

e/R

ed

uce

d P

rice

Lu

nch

Elig

ibili

ty

Proficiency Rate

2013-14 Elementary ELA Proficiency Against Economically Disadvantaged Enrollment


What can the District learn from schools outperforming the trend line? This is a vital question to be considered.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fre

e/R

ed

uce

d P

rice

Lu

nch

Elig

ibili

ty

Proficiency Rate

2013-14 Elementary Math Proficiency Against Economically Disadvantaged Enrollment


Secondary Proficiency (High School) At the high school level, schools and districts must report proficiency levels for students after four years of instruction in both Math and English/Language Arts (ELA). New York uses its Regents exams to measure proficiency for No Child Left Behind reporting purposes.

Buffalo is trailing all comparison groups in secondary proficiency rates in both ELA and Math. The Buffalo District is significantly behind statewide averages, the local charter sector, and even behind other upstate urban districts. This is particularly troubling because, as the charts above show, Buffalo outperforms other upstate urban districts in both Math and ELA at the elementary level. Since New York's Regents exams have not yet been aligned with the new Common Core State Standards and have changed very little over time, comparisons can be made over time going back much further. New York first required district and school level reporting in 2005-06, providing eight years of data. New York's Math and ELA Regents exams will be aligned with the new standards starting in 2014-15.

The District has made notable, sustained improvement in math proficiency; early gains in English proficiency, however, have leveled off since 2008-09.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Secondary ELA Secondary Math

2012-13 Secondary ELA & Math Proficiency

BCSD

Buffalo Charters

New York State

Upstate Urban

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100 Secondary ELA and Math Proficiency (2005-2013)

Secondary ELA

Secondary Math


A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM?

One common criticism of the BCSD is that its enrollment policies, particularly at the high school level, result in a 'two-tier' education system, wherein students enrolled in schools with entrance criteria or with specialized programs receive a significantly better education than students in 'open enrollment' schools. The charts below provide evidence for this concern. The charts look at performance of 'criteria' and 'special program' schools, compared to 'open enrollment' schools, in Math and English.iii

'Criteria' and 'special program' schools dramatically outperform 'open enrollment' schools in both core subjects, though it is encouraging to see 'open enrollment' making significant improvements in math proficiency; English proficiency in 'open enrollment' schools has made no such improvement.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Secondary ELA Proficiency in 'Criteria/Special Program' vs. 'Open Enrollment' Schools


Open Enrollment

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Secondary Math Proficiency in 'Criteria/Special Program' vs. 'Open Enrollment' Schools


Open Enrollment


There are additional positive trends with 'criteria/special program' schools and 'open enrollment' schools. First, enrollment in 'criteria' and 'special program' schools has been increasing, with new special program schools opening, while enrollment in 'open enrollment' schools has been in steady decline.

Second, the demographics of the two groups of schools are growing more similar as more minority students enroll in 'criteria' and 'special program' schools. White students still make up a disproportionate share of enrollment in 'criteria' and 'special program' schools, but this share is steadily declining.

Some concerns remain, however, particularly the disproportionate enrollment of Limited English Proficient students in 'open enrollment' schools, as discussed in the Demographics section above.

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

Total Enrollment in 'Criteria/Special Program' and 'Open Enrollment' Schools


Open Enrollment

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

'Criteria' and 'Special Program' School Demographics

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

'Open Enrollment' School Demographics

White Asian Hispanic Black Native American


ACCOUNTABILITY STATUS & TURNAROUND PLANS

Under No Child Left Behind, all schools would be held accountable for raising academic achievement of all students. While the formulas for determining progress are complicated, the basic premise is that all schools were expected to make 'adequate yearly progress' towards proficiency goals: failing to do so over a number of consecutive years would subject the school to increasingly rigorous interventions. In 2012, New York was granted a waiver from the full regulations of No Child Left Behind, allowing them to amend their accountability system. However, the basic premise remains the same. Under New York's waiver, schools are placed into one of three accountability categories. 'Good standing' schools are performing adequately or showing signs of adequate improvement; 'focus' schools have failed to make progress for one to three years and are to be watched and reviewed; 'priority' schools have persistently failed to make improvements and are required to develop and implement more dramatic interventions. 'Priority' schools are required to develop turnaround plans, implementing one of four 'turnaround' models, or proposing their own alternative and thorough intervention plan. Students attending 'priority' schools are also eligible, under Federal Regulations, to request a transfer from that school to a school in good standing. For the 2014-15 school year, 27 BCSD schools have been identified as 'priority' schools; another 15 schools have been identified as 'focus' schools. Only 11 schools have been identified as being in 'good standing.'

Priority Priority (cont'd) Focus Good Standing #3 D'Youville Porter #95 Waterfront #18 Pantoja #27 Hillery Park #6 B.E.S.T. #97 Harvey Austin #19 N.A. Magnet #45 Int'l School #17 E.C.C. #99 Makowski ECC #32 Montessori #64 Olmstead Elem. #30 Sedita Acad. #198 Int'l Prep #43 Lovejoy Disc. #67 Discovery #31 H.R. Tubman #200 Bennett HS #53 Comm. School #72 Lorraine #37 Marva Daniels #204 Lafayette HS #54 Geo. Blackman P.S. #81 #39 MLK Inst. #205 Riverside IT #61 E.C.C. #156 Olmstead HS #59 Drew Science #206 South Park HS #65 Roosevelt #195 City Honors #66 North Park #301 Burgard HS #69 Houghton #212 daVinci HS #74 Hamlin Park #305 McKinley HS #79 Grabiarz #302 Emerson Sch. #77 Badillo #307 East HS #82 E.C.C. #304 Hutch Tech HS #80 Highgate Heights #93 Southside Elem. #89 Lydia Wright #192 Perform. Arts #91 BUILD Acad. #197 MST Prep. #94 West Hertel #415 Middle Early


As mentioned, 'priority' schools are required to develop 'turnaround' plans to dramatically change how the school operates. As part of President Obama's 'Race to the Top' program, significant federal money was made available to states to assist school reform. A large portion of this funding was to be further granted from the states to districts in the form of School Improvement Grants (SIG) to fund school turnarounds. A significant number of BCSD schools have applied for and received SIG funding to implement an approved turnaround plan; in fact, several of these schools have already concluded their grants. The list below indicates each approved grant, their approved turnaround model, and their status as of September 2014.

Cohort 1 (November 2010) #39 MLK Institute Transformation model Grant concluded - School still Priority listed #45 Int'l School Transformation model Grant concluded - School in Good Standing #200 Bennett HS Transformation model Grant concluded - School still Priority listed #206 South Park HS Transformation model Grant concluded - School still Priority listed #204 Lafayette HS Transformation model DENIED #205 Riverside IT Transformation model DENIED #301 Burgard HS Transformation model DENIED

Cohort 2 (August 2011) #205 Riverside IT Transformation model Grant concluded - School still Priority listed #301 Burgard HS Transformation model Grant concluded - School still Priority listed #33 Bilingual Center Restart model (w/ EPO) DENIED #59 Drew Science Restart model (w/ EPO) DENIED #204 Lafayette HS Restart model (w/ EPO) DENIED

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

BCSD Schools by Accountability Status

Good Standing

Focus

Priority


Cohort 3 (May 2012)

#6 B.E.S.T. Restart model (w/ EPO) Grant approved w/ Research to Practice as EPO partner

#33 Bilingual Center Turnaround model Grant approved #37 Futures Acad. Turnaround model Grant approved #59 Drew Science Turnaround model Grant approved

#204 Lafayette HS Restart model (w/ EPO) Grant approved w/ Johns Hopkins as EPO partner; terminated in 2014

#307 East HS Restart model (w/ EPO) Grant approved w/ Johns Hopkins as EPO partner; terminated in 2014

#95 Waterfront Restart model DENIED Cohort 4.1 (March 2013)

#31 H.R. Tubman Transformation model Grant approved

#80 Highgate Heights Restart model (w/ EPO) Grant approved w/ Westminster as EPO partner

#89 Dr. Wright Transformation model Grant approved #91 BUILD Transformation model Grant approved #198 Int'l Prep Transformation model Grant approved

Cohort 4.2 (July 2013) #66 North Park Transformation model Grant approved #76 Badillo Acad. Transformation model Grant approved #95 Waterfront Elem Transformation model Grant approved #74 Hamlin Park Transformation model DENIED To summarize, the district has submitted 28 SIG applications for 21 schools; five schools have had their initial applications denied once before receiving approval; one (Lafayette HS) was denied twice before receiving approval; and one (Hamlin Park) has been denied once and yet to receive approval. Of the six schools which have completed their three-year grant period, only one (International School) has made significant improvement and been removed from the 'Priority' schools list.


ISSUES FACING THE BUFFALO CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

In many ways, Buffalo has been perceived as a district in crisis for many years. Frequent leadership turnover, infighting among board members, extreme tension with labor bargaining units, annual budget crises, falling enrollment, a legitimate challenge by a robust charter sector, and stagnant academic performance have all contributed to this perception. Perhaps the most important factor contributing to this view, however, has been the failure of anyone inside the District to clearly identify and prioritize the issues facing the District. Without identifying the major priorities for the District to focus on confronting, too often District leadership appears to be in a game of 'whack-a-mole,' struggling with issues only when they pop up publicly, and only until the next issue arises. This section aims to name the major issues confronting the District over the next two years. By identifying and naming the issues, it should be clear both to the District and the public that these issues are foreseeable and should be prioritized for solutions. This process of identifying and prioritizing foreseeable issues would also help the District in avoiding a 'reactionary' approach to smaller issues that arise on a daily or weekly basis: typically, these types of issues stem from more systemic issues, yet often are divorced or removed from any systemic solution. Identifying and prioritizing issues would push the District beyond an approach of 'putting out fires' as they arise. The key issues facing the District can be grouped into four overarching categories: (1) central office issues; (2) coordination of support services and outside partners; (3) budget, contract and labor issues; and (4) strategies for improving school and instructional quality. Each of these categories will be briefly addressed below. Central Office The most important issue facing the District's central office is recruiting and hiring a permanent superintendent to replace the current interim. Don Ogilvie, the retired superintendent of Erie1BOCES, was installed as interim superintendent over the summer and has indicated he has no intention of becoming the permanent superintendent. Having an experienced interim who has no intention of staying on in the long term provides an important opportunity to the District to conduct a thorough search for the next superintendent. While finding a permanent superintendent is the most important issue, the District is facing two more pressing issues for the central office that should be addressed during Ogilvie's tenure. First, the superintendent's leadership team needs to be restructured, and several vacant positions need to be filled. Ogilvie has already begun to address this by proposing a realignment of his leadership team, eliminating a deputy superintendent position, with 'associate superintendent' positions instead directly reporting to the superintendent. Second, the District needs to begin the process of rethinking the role of the central office, shifting its relationship with schools from an 'oversight' role to a 'support' role, while granting more autonomy over decision-making to school leaders. This issue is both pressing, in that immediate action is necessary, while also requiring a long-term commitment.


Coordination of Support Services Buffalo is in the midst of two promising partnerships that will assist the District in aligning needed support services with the students who need them the most. The District must continue to prioritize these partnerships to maximize the benefits. The District has been a partner in the Buffalo Promise Neighborhood (BPN) initiative for many years. The BPN is a unique public/private partnership largely funded by M&T Bank, supporting two district schools and one charter school. The BPN coordinates support services such as early childhood services, tutoring, family engagement, college and career preparation, and more. The goal is to ensure that these support services are accessible to students and families. Yet relations between the District and the BPN became strained last year when the BPN was left out of discussions on developing new programs for Bennett High School, one of the schools within the BPN. This relationship must be rebuilt if other partnerships like the BPN are to materialize in other high-need neighborhoods. The District also has a key partnership with the Say Yes to Education Foundation. Say Yes is most widely known for its scholarship programming, providing scholarships to any student who graduates from a BCSD school or Buffalo charter school. But Say Yes also works to align student support services on a broader basis, working to connect community service providers with schools and students in their neighborhood. The Say Yes partnership requires a multi-year rollout, which requires a sustained commitment from the District to support this partnership. Budget & Contracts Two of Buffalo's most persistent challenges are balancing the annual budget and in negotiating a new contract with the District's two largest bargaining units, the Buffalo Teachers Federation (BTF) and the Buffalo Council of Supervisors and Administrators (BCSA). These long-persisting issues arise at regular intervals, appear to cause the District great pain, then subside without any long-term solution. Buffalo has struggled with annual budget deficits for many years; however, the problem has been the most pronounced since the most recent economic collapse. This constant struggle with balancing the budget can largely be contributed to the District's inability to keep labor costs, by far the most significant part of the District's expenses, anywhere close to being in line with the District's enrollment. Enrollment has fallen at least 10% since 2006,iv while compensation rose 29% (from $188.7M to $243.5M) and benefits rose an unbelievable 79% (from $106.5M to $190.6M). These sorts of expenses simply are unsustainable in a district with a declining, or at best stable, enrollment. Overall, total expenses (excluding payments to charter schools and Joint School Construction related debt) rose 16.5% from 2006 to 2014's adopted budget.v The explosion of labor related expenses can be traced back to the fact that the District's two largest bargaining units have been without a contract for many years. The BTF contract expired in 2002, while the BCSA contract expired in 2004. These contracts lock in compensation and benefit packages even after the contract expired. A decade-plus later, these


expenses are simply untenable for a district with a falling enrollment. Yet the contracts have gone without renegotiation largely because of New York's public employee labor laws.vi It is highly doubtful that the District would be able to renegotiate more favorable contracts in the short term. What is absolutely necessary, however, is a more complete understanding of the sources of the District's persistent and complex budget problems. Strategies for Improving School & Instructional Quality The issue with the most direct impact on student performance, improving school and instructional quality, also requires the most varied and wide-ranging response. In order to improve instruction, the District must develop and align district-wide and school-specific solutions, with significant input from various stakeholders. First, the District needs to redevelop a District Comprehensive Improvement Plan (DCIP) for submission to the State Education Department, and it must do so with much more input from parents as required by the State. A failure to do involve parents jeopardizes $36 million in grant funding. The DCIP for last year was rejected by the State when the District Parent Coordinating Council charged that the District had failed to receive any adequate parent input as required. Working closely with parents to develop a new plan is vital. Second, there are at least five schools that need dramatic turnaround plans developed as soon as possible. Two schools (Bennett High School and Martin Luther King Jr. Multicultural Institute) have gone through their School Improvement Grant without any improvement, two other schools (East and Lafayette high schools) have terminated their relationships with the contracted partner organization, and one other school (Harvey Austin Elementary) needs a long term plan for both improving the school and addressing the uneasy merger with a closed charter school. Each of these schools need a clear plan, developed with stakeholders, that will dramatically change the instructional process, and plans need to be developed quickly if implementation is to begin for 2015-16. Third, the District must continue to consider every available option for opening up seats in schools in good standing accommodate the 1,200+ students who requested a transfer out of a low-performing school over the last two years. Every option should be on the table and pursued, from expanding scholarship opportunities, to partnering with suburban districts, to working with local charter schools, to opening 'satellite' sites of high performing schools. Fourth, the District needs to continue implementing curriculum, professional development and other resources in support of the Common Core State Standards. Entering the third year of alignment with the standards, the continued implementation over the next several years will be the most critical as teachers and students become more familiar and comfortable with the new standards. Yet familiarity is not sufficient; the District must ensure that the new standards are deeply understood and faithfully embraced and adopted.


i Collected and made available by The Buffalo News, July 1, 2014. Available at

http://schoolzone.buffalonews.com/2014/07/01/how-many-special-education-students-does-your-buffalo-public-

school-have/

ii Standard deviation is a measure of the variation of values within a data set. One 'standard variation' covers roughly

the middle two-thirds (from the 16% to the 84% percentile) and gives an idea of how far away from the average

value the data points are. The standard deviation for enrollment of SWDs among BCSD schools is 51.6%: this

means that the school at the 84th percentile enrolls nearly 52% more SWDs than the school at the 16 percentile. Put

another way, a school at the 16th percentile has 16.1% SWD enrollment, while a school at the 84th percentile has

27.5% SWD enrollment.

iii

'Criteria' and 'special program' schools: #156 Olmstead School; #192 Academy of Visual and Performing Arts;

#195 City Honors; #197 MST Prep Academy; #198 International Preparatory School; #212 da Vinci HS; #302

Emerson School of Hospitality; #304 Hutch Tech HS. 'Open enrollment' schools: #200 Bennett HS; #204 Lafayette

HS; #205 Riverside IT; #206 South Park HS; #301 Burgard HS; #305 McKinley Vocational HS; #307 East HS.

iv Enrollment fell 10.5% from 2006-07 to 2012-13, the last year officially reported enrollment numbers are available;

the District's budget projections proceed on the assumption that enrollment increased in 2013-14 and 2014-15, but

there is no firm evidence to suggest this increase actually occurred.

v All budget figures are pulled from District budget documents. Actual expenditures for 2006-07 through 2012-13

are pulled from the District's 4-Year Budget Plans for the year n+2 (e.g. 2006-07 figures are pulled from the 2008-

09 4-year plan). 2013-14 figures are pulled from the adjusted budget projections in the 2014-15 4-year plan. 2014-15

figures are pulled from the adopted budget. All budget documents are available at

http://www.buffaloschools.org/Finance.cfm. Comprehensive budget figures have been compiled by Buffalo

ReformEd and are available at http://www.buffaloreformed.com/resources/.

vi Buffalo ReformEd has written extensively on the impact of New York's public employment labor law (the Taylor

Law), particularly the Triborough Amendment of that law. For more, see our contract analysis resources at

http://www.buffaloreformed.com/resources/education-policy/buffalo-teachers-contract-analysis/. See also, Jason A.

Zwara Left in the Dark: How New York's Taylor Law Impairs Collective Bargaining, 31 Hofstra Lab. & Emp. L.J.

193 (2013).

2014 State of the District Report

Documents

Transcript of 2014 State of the District Report