Philadelphia schools have long battled declining student achievement, sky-rocketing violence, and unsustainable spending levels. Yet, several turn-around schools have managed to overcome this bleak educational trajectory and should serve as a model for further reforms.
Pennsylvania Independent’s Maura Pennington examines the striking consequences of Philadelphia School District’s 2010 experiment in reforming its lowest performing schools. The district employed two models: district-managed Promise Academies and privately-operated Renaissance Charter Schools.
The outcome? In short, things worsened for district-run schools, but the Renaissance Charter alternatives are showing improvement.
The latest report shows that the district’s Promise Academies lacked proper oversight and clarity as they sought to hire new staff and enforce a uniform dress code. One major hurdle they could not overcome was seniority requirements, which led to major staffing problems. And the district’s fiscal mismanagement led to funding decreases that severed the cornerstone of the reform—greater student instruction time.
At this point, three district-run Promise Academy high schools have closed, and in those that remain, academic performance sits below the district average.
Renaissance Charter Schools—free from seniority requirements and other bureaucratic restrictions—managed to surmount the same obstacles and forge a path to success. When implementing new policies and procedures, they were governed by specific missions and goals and, consequently, achieved, according to one Renaissance Charter parent, “more order, organization, safer learning environment and a mutually agreed upon commitment from the staff at all levels.”
The benefits are tangible:
- Decreased violence. At Young Scholars Frederick Douglass Charter School, serious safety incidents plummeted from 23.86 per 100 students in 2008-09 to .61 in 2010.
- Increased academic achievement: Grover Cleveland Mastery Charter School gained 10 percentage points in reading and math proficiency one year after the change.
With such stark results and parental support, Philadelphia should look to the charter model of reform to take its failing schools to the next level.
Part two of our conversation with Ashley DeMauro, PA state director for StudentsFirst, features an in-depth discussion of seniority reform, teacher evaluations, school transparency, and charter school reform. Here are some highlights:
How can we measure teacher effectiveness to ensure education quality?
Because of recent reforms pushed for by StudentsFirst and others, Pennsylvania now has a robust, 4-tier rating system for educator performance.
So, once they're identified, how do we reward and protect the best public school teachers in the state?
Doing away with the "last in, first out" seniority-based hiring and firing is an obvious step one.
How can we make school spending and contracting more transparent to protect taxpayers?
A proposed transparency website called SchoolWATCH promises to do just that.
What’s on the General Assembly’s plate regarding long-overdue charter school reform?
SB 1085, while unnecessarily punitive to cyber schools, promises to expand charter authorization while enhancing accountability measures.
In case you missed it, listen to our first conversation with Ashley DeMauro on Pennsylvania's new student performance profiles.
What do they measure? How can parents learn about their children's schools and how can schools use the profiles to learn from each other?
Listen here to find out in the first of two conversations on education reform in Pennsylvania.
Curious about your school’s performance or want to compare it with schools in the city you’re moving to?
The data is available to everyone at PaSchoolPerformance.org.
With a composite score of 1480, Pennsylvania now ranks 37th in the nation. You can view the full state profile here.
A more accurate comparison of state achievement, however, factors in student participation. States with high participation rates have a larger percentage of the student population taking the test, including lower-achieving students, which often translates to lower average scores. Therefore, we have also created a table ranking states with participation rates similar to Pennsylvania (see "high participation states" in the table below).
According to the College Board's 2013 SAT Report on College & Career Readiness, only 43 percent of SAT takers from the class of 2013 are prepared for college course work, matching the rate from the past 5 years.
The College Board suggest these national trends signal a "call to action." Pennsylvania must heed this call and push for dramatic changes to our current approach to education, which throws more money at underachieving schools. Instead, we should give parents the power to choose which school best fits their child's unique needs. School choice has shown to improve student achievement at a lower costs to taxpayers.
Note: According to The College Board, the percentage of high school graduates is based upon the recently revised projection of high school graduates in 2013 by the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE), and the number of students in the class of 2013 who took the SAT in each state. Therefore, participation rates from prior years are not fully comparable to those listed above.
The Pennsylvania School Performance Profile launched today, but will it deliver the "accountability system" Acting Secretary of Education Carolyn Dumaresq promised in a briefing earlier this month?
Created through a federal waiver from the mandates of No Child Left Behind, this web-based resource aims to measure proficiency and growth of Pennsylvania schools using self-reported data from each district and school. PDE hopes it will give parents and taxpayers a clearer picture of school performance than the current standard of Adequate Yearly Progress.
A school receives a score based upon raw student performance (as measured by all four PSSA tests and Keystone Exams), ability to close the achievement gap amongst demographic groups, academic growth of students from year to year, and other factors. Based on these scores schools can be designated "Title 1 schools," with "priority schools" (those scoring the lowest 15 percent) requiring department intervention.
Dumaresq stressed the new system's ability to drive specific improvements. The system is also supposed to be a tool for the public. But the question remains: will this information empower parents and enhance students' opportunities?
The true goal of the School Performance Profile is not just to grade schools, but to provide information parents, educators and lawmakers can access and use to improve schools and choose the best education options for students.
You can view the School Performance Profile now—some schools do not yet have performance data available yet—and tell us what you think.
Things have reached a fever pitch in Philadelphia as the city's school district—the eighth-largest in America—is scrambling to close its $300 million deficit and open schools on time. As protestors close in on City Hall and the clock runs down on the start of a new school year, it's worth looking at what's really behind the school funding crisis in Philadelphia.
1. Philadelphia's violent, failing schools are the real crisis, not funding. We've pointed out for years that the real problem in Philadelphia is how district schools are failing students and families. Philadelphia spends $14,000 per student, right at the state average. But despite that, students perform poorly. Whether you look at state tests or national benchmarks, only 20 to 30 percent of Philadelphia students can read or do math at grade level. What's tragically worse is the danger and violence students suffer on a daily basis: In 2011-12 alone, district schools saw 2,310 assaults on students and staff, 15 rapes, 166 indecent assaults, 86 robberies, 157 thefts and 566 weapons possessions.
2. Emergency funding won't fix the spending problem. In fact, the gap is going to get worse. Despite the focus on getting $50 million in emergency funding from the state, and the layoffs of 3,800 teachers and school workers (some of whom are being rehired), Philadelphia's pension costs alone are set to exceed this year's $300 million budget gap by 2020. Simply raising taxes and pouring money into Philadelphia schools won't fix this long-term crisis brought on by failed policies.
3. School union leaders are driving the crisis. Everyone agrees that good teachers deserve to be paid adequately, but the demands of the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT) have been unreasonable for years. In a district with struggling students and chronic money woes, the PFT's last contract was padded with unnecessary perks. The year 2010-11 alone saw $2.6 million for a legal services fund that covered employees' personal needs such as preparing a will or buying a home; $15.3 million in severance pay; and virtually free health care for employees (that cost the district $165 million—with an extra $66 million for vision, prescription and dental benefits).
Now PFT union leaders are refusing to make financial concessions—regardless of the impact on students—even as their contract is due to expire Aug. 31. They are also worsening the crisis by fighting the school district's suspension of seniority rules. But such rules simply protect longstanding teachers without regard for whether they're the best educators.
4. Charter schools are rescuing students. With the inflexible and expensive teachers' contract, the school district has been hard-pressed to focus its spending better on students, or even downsize as it should given falling enrollment. Unsurprisingly, desperate families want out of Philadelphia's violent, failing schools and are flocking to charter schools. In the last five years alone, enrollment in district schools has dropped 17 percent, while charter enrollment has nearly doubled.
5. Families need more school choice. The explosion in charter schools shows that parents want out of persistently failing public schools. Expanding charter school options, as well as tax credit scholarships, throws an immediate lifeline to students while forcing the school district to spend more effectively and improve its standards—a trend that has improved schools in other major cities. That's the silver lining in the Philadelphia schools crisis: Kids may finally get the education they deserve.
Here is a letter to the editor I submitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Pennsylvania cyber school performance:
Mary Niederberger reports on a new, largely positive charter school study by Stanford University by taking an odd swipe at Pennsylvania cyber schools, blaming them for the state's poor charter school performance.
Cyber charter schools have proven immensely popular with Pennsylvania families, who appreciate the flexibility and individualized learning these public schools offer. Some 35,000 students now attend the schools, which begs the question: If cyber schools perform so poorly, why are parents choosing them?
Cyber schools frequently function as "last-chance" institutions for students who have fallen behind or failed in traditional public schools. One-third of cyber school students are from school districts that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress, and half of all cyber students are economically disadvantaged.
Given a few years at cyber school, many of these students improve in reading and math, and students do even better if they start at cyber school. At the Midland-based Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, for example--the state's largest--long-time students scored 17 percent higher in math and 14 percent higher in reading compared to newly enrolled students.
Certainly, Pennsylvania’s poorly performing charter or cyber charter schools should be forced to improve or be closed. But the same fate should befall persistently failing school districts that continue to flounder despite ever-increasing funding.
A healthy public school system that genuinely serves Pennsylvania students will have choices to serve different needs, while closing failing schools so our kids get a second chance before it's too late. Let's not forget that many cyber and other charter schools serve as lifelines to desperate families.
For more on cyber school funding, performance and popularity, please see our latest Policy Memo.
EDITORS NOTE: Click here for the 2013 SAT Scores by state
How did states compare on the SAT in 2012?
The College Board's 2012 annual report on college and career readiness includes average SAT scores by state. Since this data can be difficult to find on the College Board's website, we've organized and compiled it below.
It's difficult to make an apples-to-apples comparison between states simply by ranking them on mean SAT score. Some states have a high SAT participation rate, which means a larger percentage of the student population—and more lower-achieving students—take the test. Pennsylvania is one of these states and tends to have a lower mean SAT score because of it.
To account for this, we've also ranked Pennsylvania among states with similar participation rates in another tab on the spreadsheet below. This gives us a better idea of how we rate against comparable states.
Pennsylvania ranks 38th in mean SAT score, lagging behind most of its Mid-Atlantic and New England neighbors. Notably, Pennsylvania was outscored by New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Virginia, all with comparable participation rates (see page 39).
The College Board's Pennsylvania state profile shows Pennsylvania's SAT scores have remained flat since the data was first compiled in 1972, despite a doubling of education spending since 1997. In fact, last year Pennsylvania earned its lowest ever score in Critical Reading.
All of this suggests that pouring more money into failing schools will not bring results absent fundamental education reform.
posted by NATE HEETER | 01:41 PM | Comments
Hannah and Alyssa will tell you that the freedom to choose a school that works for them was essential to their academic success. They are just two of the 32,000 students across the nation enrolled in cyber schools. But you don’t have to take their word for it. Now, there is new research backing the academic benefits of school choice, specifically voucher programs.
A new report from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice found that children and families who utilize school vouchers achieve better educational outcomes. According to "A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice," 11 out of 12 "gold standard" studies showed that students excel with school choice vouchers, and none suffer when they chose educational options outside of the public school realm.
The report also found that 22 out of 23 studies on how school choice impacts public education showed that competition actually improved public school performance. No research concluded that school choice harms public schools.
The Friedman Foundation also reviewed empirical research related to the impact school choice has on taxpayers, diversity and civic values. Research consistently supports school choice in those areas.
Despite decades of carping by skeptics, vouchers and school choice in any form are a win-win for children—whether they attend private school or remain in a public school affected by school choice, said Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Competition works in all segments of our society, and it certainly helps children when they’re permitted to attend a school that fits their needs.
Pennsylvanians don't have to look far to see school choice at work. Last week, kids and parents celebrated the 12th anniversary of the Educational Improvement Tax Credit program. The program has allowed hundreds of thousands of children to escape failing schools while saving taxpayers millions of dollars.
In the past two years, five new states have adopted private school choice, and other states have expanded their school choice options, including the Pennsylvania's Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit—a lifeline for kids trapped in violent and failing schools.
posted by AMY CLINGENSMITH MONGIOVI | 10:44 AM | Comments
A new national school standard known as "Common Core" is fast becoming known for superseding state and local authority over public education curricula. Using cutting edge data collection and analysis techniques, the program is designed to streamline K-12 education and raise our world standing in education.
But a comprehensive study by the American Principles Project warns of increased costs and privacy concerns as the main reasons Common Core may do more harm than good. Why did 45 states sign up for a program that requires them to, "relinquish their autonomy over public education?" Money, of course.
The federal government offered a $4 billion incentive in the form of "Race to the Top" education grants contingent on accepting Common Core standards. All but four states complied, ignoring unanswered questions of cost and quality in favor of a quick money grab.
A growing number of states have begun rethinking their commitment to the curriculum as full implementation approaches later this year, while a coalition of grassroots activists are pushing back here in Pennsylvania.
When it comes to improving public education, there's one proven solution: school choice. Giving parents the freedom to choose the best education for their child is fundamental to boosting student achievement.
That's why the worst feature of Common Core is its one-size-fits-all approach to standards—transferring authority over to bureaucrats and test design consultants rather than families.
Total Records: 109
Who are We?
The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank. The Commonwealth Foundation crafts free-market policies, convinces Pennsylvanians of their benefits, and counters attacks on liberty.