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. 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 Local Property Tax Revenue ($ per student) 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

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 DistrictCost per PupilRank 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

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!