No Child Left Behind

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


Challenges

5

Educational/Social Challenges

Compared to other school districts, including urban peers, the Reading School District has

extraordinary challenges…

6


• 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


• 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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!

No Child Left Behind

Documents

Transcript of No Child Left Behind