Berks Vital Signs Education Report

PUBLIC K-12 EDUCATION

REPORT

P U B L I C K - 1 2 E D U C AT I O N I N B E R K S C O U N T Y2

ron

saa

ri.c

om

P U B L I C K - 1 2 E D U C AT I O N I N B E R K S C O U N T Y 3

Berks County Community Foundation was founded in 1994 to help individuals, families, organizations and businesses achieve their charitable objectives and improve the quality of life for the residents of Berks County. Since that time, the Community Foundation has grown to manage hundreds of charitable funds. Each year, those funds distribute scholarships and grants to support local students and assist a variety of nonprofit organizations and causes.

The O’Pake Institute was established in 2012 at Alvernia University to foster and promote ethical leadership and public service. The Institute serves as a catalyst for creating strategic community partnerships, supporting the broader community in developing leadership capacity and promoting dialogue on important civic issues and fostering public engagement.

The O’Pake Institute produced the Berks Vital Signs 2014 for the Berks Community Foundation. (http://issuu.com/alverniauniversity/docs/berksvitalsigns?e=5238587/6505989 )

This report is one in a series of reports on specific aspects of life in Berks County.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Berks County is a mix of urban, rural and suburban communities in Southeastern Pennsylvania. While considered part of Pennsylvania Dutch Country, Berks County is located in close proximity to Philadelphia (approximately 65 miles) and within 125 miles of New York City. The county is bordered by Schuylkill, Lebanon, Lancaster, Lehigh, Chester and Montgomery counties.

Established in 1752, Berks County covers 866 square miles, most of which is in the Delaware River Basin. The county is comprised of 73 municipalities and includes 18 school districts.

Situated between the Blue and the South Mountains, Berks County is part of the Great Valley, which was the passageway for early pioneers to migrate west and south from Pennsylvania into Virginia, North Carolina and Kentucky. The county’s iron furnaces, canals and railroads fueled the Industrial Revolution, while farming in the county served as the breadbasket for America throughout much of the early years of the nation.

Who We AreWho We Are ...................................................................................4

A Decade and a Half of Change ....................................................5

Berks County Schools .....................................................................7

Enrollment Trends ...........................................................................8

Poverty ...........................................................................................9

Ethnicity ........................................................................................12

Special Education .........................................................................15

Academic Achievement ................................................................17

Graduation Rate ...........................................................................19

School Discipline ..........................................................................24

Technology ...................................................................................27

School Finance .............................................................................28

A Brief Comparison of Four School Districts ................................32

Sources and Acknowledgements .................................................36


A DECADE AND A HALF OF CHANGE

The first decades of the 21st Century have seen dramatic, albeit gradual, changes in public education in Berks County. Significant demographic changes have affected public schools. Every school district in the county has ethnic or racial minority students and many have significant numbers of English Language Learners or ELL students. The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in several districts is approaching or over 40 percent of the student body.

Demographic changes have affected Berks County school districts in other ways as well.

Medical advances and enhanced diagnostic tools have affected the population of students who receive special education services. For example, autism, which was a virtually unknown diagnosis 20 years ago, now accounts for roughly 10 percent of all the students enrolled in special education programs. Between 37 percent and 55 percent of the special education students in Berks County public schools have some form of learning disability. Sixteen of the 19 districts in the county have over 15 percent of their students enrolled in special education programs.

Since the 1990s, the state has capped reimbursement for special education enrollment at 15 percent of the total student population in the district, which means that those districts that exceed the cap bear the full cost of the additional enrollees.

Special education isn’t the only state funding source with an erratic history. Pennsylvania has been without a funding formula for basic instruction costs since 1992, instead using a hodgepodge of funding mechanisms to distribute new funds to public schools. This has meant that the districts that have significantly grown or declined in student population, districts that are substantially poorer or wealthier or districts that have dramatic changes in their number of hard-to-serve students, have not seen their state reimbursement fully adjusted to account for these changes. Many Berks County districts, particularly those that are poorer relative to other Pennsylvania districts (16 of 19) or have significant changes in student population, have been adversely impacted. That said, some districts received an increased share of their budget from state sources.


Significant demographic forces are changing the face of basic education in Berks County. Hispanic populations within school districts have increased significantly, in some cases offsetting what would have otherwise been substantial decreases in student population. Many school districts now have populations of English Language Learners (ELL), students whose primary language is not English.

Increasing poverty and particularly concentrated poverty is effecting school districts across the county. There are clear links between poverty, special education and learning outcomes. Based on a state index of the ability of school districts to generate local revenues, virtually every district in the county is relatively poorer than it was 20 years ago.

The disparity in per pupil instructional spending between districts appears to be growing. While there does not appear to be any strong correlation at the top, between districts spending the most and districts with best levels of student achievement, there are linkages between those districts with low per pupil instructional spending and low achievement.

The special education population is changing significantly as students diagnosed with autism

and other learning disabilities become a more significant element of the special education population, requiring different teaching strategies. There are some indications that ethnicity, race and student discipline issues have influenced the special education determinations.

State and federal testing mandates and assessments are impacting basic education across the country. The target of achieving 100 percent student proficiency has clearly been challenged by the economic and demographic forces effecting basic education. While school districts have made some progress in terms of student achievement, no district in the county has achieved 100 percent proficiency.

Technology is changing the face of basic education, creating new teaching modes and opportunities for academic partnerships that were previously unheard of. But the availability of this technology, particularly in lower income households, can be a barrier to access.

Despite these challenges, Berks County school districts in general match up well with their state and national peers in terms of high school graduation rates, college attendance rates and student achievement tests.

BERKS COUNTY SCHOOLS

The state and federal government have increasingly focused on student learning outcomes and school performance, largely measured by universal testing protocols. The federal “No Child Left Behind” statute set a target of 100 percent of all students being proficient in writing and math by 2014. Pennsylvania created a test-based school assessment system (PSSA). Yet despite this increased focus on testing and student proficiency, student performance continues to vary from district to district and from year to year.

Finally, technology is also dramatically effecting public education. Today, every school in Berks County has access to broadband services either through a cable, fiber or DSL platform. Through the Berks County Intermediate Unit, students can enroll in a Chinese language course participating with students in China. At the same time, national data suggests that some Berks County students are less likely to have access to broadband and the internet from their homes, specifically low-income, ethnic or racial minorities, and those living in non-English speaking households.

KEY FINDINGS

A DECADE AND A HALF OF CHANGE


There are 19 school districts operating in Berks County. Three of these districts cross over into other counties; two into Montgomery (Boyertown and Upper Perkiomen) and one (Twin Valley) into Chester. All but Upper Perkiomen School District are part of the Berks County Intermediate Unit. Only the 18 schools participating in the Berks County Intermediate Unit and classified by the Pennsylvania Department of Education as Berks County districts are included in this report.

This report investigates trends in basic education in three ways. First, it compares districts within the county in some important areas. Second, in a few cases, it compares select Berks County districts with other counties bordering Berks County. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, it looks at longitudinal changes—changes over time—in district finances, special education and demographic trends. The report draws from two primary data sources: the Pennsylvania Department of Education and the National Center for Education Statistics. Secondary publicly available data is used for each factor.

KutztownL E

HI G

H

L EB

AN

ON

L AN

CA

ST

ER

S CH

UY L K

I L L

CH

ES

TE

R

MO

NT

GO

ME

RY

Hamburg

Tulpehocken

FleetwoodSchuylkill

ValleyOley Valley

Brandywine Heights

Muhlenburg Antietam Boyertown

ExeterReadingWilson

Wyomissing

GovernorMifflin

DanielBoone

TwinValley

ConradWeiser

BERKS COUNTY SCHOOLS


School district populations changed significantly during the period from 1998 to 2014. Reflecting the regional trend in declining birth rates, today many of the districts are smaller in terms of student population. For example, Antietam saw a modest but steady increase from 1998 (992 students) to 2007 (1,121 students) but then slowly began to decline in 2008. In 2014, it had 1,030 students.

Brandywine Heights has been on a steady decline in enrollment since 1999. Conrad Weiser’s enrollment peaked in 2008 with 3,065 students but consistently decreased in population each year losing over 300 students by 2014 (2,763 enrolled students). A number of other districts had their peak enrollment in the period 2008-2009 (Daniel Boone with 3,978 students and Exeter with 4,449 students). On the other hand, Hamburg peaked in 2003 with 2,766 students, but is now down over 500 students. Kutztown peaked in 1998 with 1,932 students and has been on a steady decline ever since. In 2014 there were 1,415 students enrolled. The decline in school population in the Muhlenberg and Wilson school districts has been more recent and less dramatic. Muhlenberg’s enrollment peaked in 2012 with 5,550 students, only losing 44 students since then. Wilson peaked in 2013 losing 10 students in 2014. Oley Valley has lost over 450 students since its peak enrollment in 2003 with 2,199 students. Reading School District had a peak population in 2011 with 18,194 students and declined to 17,487 students in 2014. Tulpehocken School District has been on a steady decline since 2005. Twin Valley’s enrollment population has remained fairly steady over the last five years. Both Schuylkill Valley and Wyomissing school districts have been up and down over the last 16 years.

ENROLLMENTTRENDS

Berks County School Enrollment (1998 to 2014)

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014


There are several ways to identify the concentrations of economically disadvantaged school children in a school district. The analysis below looks at three: poverty level students identified by the US Census (Fig. 1); economically disadvantaged students as identified by PDE (Fig. 2), and the number of students eligible for free and reduced lunch under the federal school lunch program (Fig. 3). While there are low-income, poverty level students in virtually every school district, generally districts that have over 20 percent of their population identified as poor are considered to be “high poverty districts.” Based on this classification, only one district in the county meets that standard, Reading. The Reading School District has an almost 50 percent child poverty rate, reflective of the overall poverty rates in the city. But there are some districts, Muhlenberg, Antietam, and Tulpehocken, which have rates between 15 and 20 percent. Boyertown, Daniel Boone, Exeter, Fleetwood, and Oley Valley are the only school districts with a child poverty rate under 10 percent.

Figure 1: Child Poverty Rate for Berks County School Districts (2013)

POVERTY

P U B L I C K - 1 2 E D U C AT I O N I N B E R K S C O U N T Y1 0

The second indication of socio-economic status within a school district is the percent of economically disadvantaged students within a district as defined by the state. Within the county, the range is from 19 percent to 93 percent. Fleetwood (19 percent), Boyertown (20 percent), and Schuylkill Valley (20 percent) have the lowest percentages of economically disadvantaged students within their districts. Consistent with the child poverty reports, the three districts with the highest percentages of economically disadvantaged students within a district are Reading (93 percent), Muhlenberg (50 percent), and Antietam (46 percent).

The final indicator is eligibility for free and reduced lunch. Figure 3 shows the percentage of students who are eligible for free and reduced lunch as reported by PDE for the school year 2014-2015.

POVERTY

Percent Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch

Percent of Economically Disadvantaged

Figure 2: Percent of Economically Disadvantaged Students (2014)

Figure 3: Percent Eligible for Free and Reduced Lunch (2015)


Figure 4 reveals a link between socio-economic status and student achievement. Generally, those schools that have the lowest percent of students scoring proficient or above on the state PSSAs also have the highest concentrations of economically disadvantaged students. The exception to this rule is the Tulphehocken School District, which has a high concentration of low-income students but is not a low scoring district on the PSSAs.

Figure 4: Academic Achievement and Child Poverty (2013)

Percent Proficient + Math Percent Proficient + Reading Percent of Child Poverty


Most of the school districts in the county are composed predominately of white students (Fig. 5). One district, Reading, has an enrollment population that is predominately Hispanic students. The next highest concentrations of Hispanic students are in the Antietam School District (24 percent) and Muhlenberg School District (35 percent).

Over the past decade and a half, all Berks County schools have witnessed growth in their Hispanic population. In some districts Hispanic populations grew as the overall enrollment was declining, sometimes creating dramatic increases in the percentage of Hispanic students within those districts (Fig. 6). For example, Antietam’s enrollment declined from 1,121 students in 2007 to 1,030 students in 2014, while the number of Hispanic students in the district has increased 925 percent since 1998. (Percent change in Figure 6 represents the comparative change in size between populations across a specific time period. The formula is [PopulationTime2 - PopulationTime1/PopulationTime x 100]. This transformation is evident when looking at the dramatic longitudinal changes in Hispanic populations in the county districts.

Figure 5: Student Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity (2014)

ETHNICITY

White Hispanic Black


Figure 7 on the next page shows the growth in Hispanic students may be related to another trend in county districts. While not every Hispanic student is an English Language Learner (ELL), and not every ELL student is Hispanic, there is a correlation between the growth of the Hispanic student population and an increase in ELL enrollment. In 2014 statewide average of ELL students among the student population was three percent.

Figure 6: Hispanic Enrollment (1998 to 2014)

SCHOOL DISTRICT 1998 2014 PERCENT CHANGE

HISPANIC ENROLLMENT HISPANIC ENROLLMENT FROM 1998 TO 2014

Antietam 24 246 925%

Boyertown 25 139 456%

Brandywine Heights 4 41 925%

Conrad Weiser 35 240 586%

Daniel Boone 22 113 414%

Exeter Township 54 251 365%

Fleetwood 27 166 515%

Governor Mifflin 90 612 580%

Hamburg 15 114 660%

Kutztown 11 45 309%

Muhlenberg 153 1,230 704%

Oley Valley 16 59 268%

Reading 7,245 14,113 95%

Schuylkill Valley 7 129 1743%

Tulpehocken 30 165 450%

Twin Valley 26 111 327%

Wilson 110 766 596%

Wyomissing 45 342 660%


The majority of school districts in Berks County have an ELL population under 2 percent (Fig. 7). Four school districts (Antietam, Tulpehocken, Wilson, and Wyomissing) have an ELL population between two and four percent. Muhlenberg is just over four percent. Reading has 18 percent of its population designated as ELL which is six times the state average and is the largest concentration of ELL students in any Pennsylvania district. This difference between the concentration of Hispanic students in a district's population (Fig. 8) and the identification of ELL students, suggests that large numbers of the Hispanic student population are proficient in English. At the same time, districts are challenged to address both the language and the cultural differences occurring within their schools. The data also suggests that there may be a growing second and third generation Hispanic population in the county, which is located in areas outside of the City of Reading.

Figure 7: ELL Enrollment Percentages (2014)

Figure 8: Hispanic Enrollment Percentages (2014)

ETHNICITY


As a way of controlling the mounting cost of special education, in the 1990s the Commonwealth established a cap on special education enrollment for state reimbursement purposes. No more than 15 percent of the district population could qualify for state special education funding. Today, the majority of school districts in the county are over that state enrollment target (Fig. 9). Once a school district has

over 15 percent special education enrollment, it is responsible for funding the difference in educational costs. Only three school districts (Antietam, Hamburg, and Schuylkill Valley) in the county are at the 15 percent mark. All other school districts are above that level, with Kutztown having the highest percent of special education enrollment at 22 percent.

The racial and ethnic composition of special education populations in the county is particularly revealing. The ethnic or racial group that is in the minority within a district seems to be over represented in the special education population of

that district. For most districts in the county, this means that Hispanic or black students seem to be over represented in special education; while in the Reading School District, white students are over represented. This pattern persisted for the majority of schools in Berks County over the six year time period (2007 to 2013).

Longitudinal data from 2007 to 2013 discloses some interesting patterns in special education. Nearly every school district in Berks County had a higher percentage of special education students than the state’s arbitrary 15 percent cap at some point over that time period. Four school districts

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Figure 9: Special Education Enrollment Percentages (2014)


for the most part remained at or below the state average: Daniel Boone, Fleetwood, Hamburg, and Schuylkill Valley. Kutztown has consistently had the highest percentage of special education students in the county, never dropping below 20 percent throughout those six years.

A closer look at special education for the schools in the county (Fig. 10) reveals that the majority of special education enrollments are students with specific learning disabilities followed by emotional disturbance and autism.

Berks County schools saw an increase in total special education enrollment of almost 70 percent from 2001 to 2012, but more recently special education enrollment either leveled off or decreased in the past two years.

There have also been dramatic shifts within the special education population. The autism population, according to PDE, increased statewide by almost 771 percent from 2001 to 2012. This trend has affected all Berks County school districts. Autism

enrollment increased at 45 percent in virtually every Berks district between 2007 and 2012. Some school districts (Hamburg, Oley Valley, Reading, and Twin Valley) saw over 100 percent increases in their autism population.

Special education in Pennsylvania also includes gifted and talented students, who are identified by criteria, established by state law, but are not recognized under federal law as special education

SPECIAL EDUCATION

students. They also have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs), but those numbers are not captured in the data. The percentage of gifted students in the county averages about 4.7 percent. The school districts with the highest percentages of gifted students are Exeter (7.7 percent), Conrad Weiser (7.1 percent), and Daniel Boone (6.6 percent). Schuylkill Valley (2 percent) and Twin Valley (2.8 percent) have the lowest percentages of identified gifted students. enrolled in the county.

Figure 10: Special Education Enrollment Percentages by Specific Type (2014)

Students with Emotional Disturbance

Students with AutismStudents with Specific Learning Disability


The majority of Berks County schools are doing well in terms of academic achievement. Most of the school districts have around 80 percent of their students scoring proficient or above on the state achievement test in both math and reading. Boyertown and Wilson came closest to having 90 percent of their students scoring at least proficient on the tests, but not one school in the county or the state achieved the 100 percent proficiency level set by the No Child Left Behind act, which was the 2014 target. That said, with the exception of Tulpehocken, those districts scoring the lowest on the PSSAs also have a poverty rate above 15 percent. Antietam, Muhlenberg, and Reading had less than 70 percent of their students

scoring proficient or above on the PSSAs for both

math and reading. The same pattern is true for SAT

scores. The school districts with lowest averages in

both math and reading scores, and below the state

average, were Antietam, Muhlenberg, and Reading.

They also have some of the highest poverty rates in

the county. Meanwhile, Kutztown and Wyomissing

have the highest average SAT scores for both reading

and math scores. Overall the school districts in the

county are comparable with the state averages in

both SAT reading scores (494) and math scores (504).

Academic achievement is clearly linked to socio-economic status and other demographic data, such as race and ethnicity. In those districts where these factors are most concentrated, the evidence shows that they have a clear impact on student achievement. There also appears to be an academic achievement gap between students with IEPs (other than gifted

students) and students without IEPs (Fig.11). This chart reveals that the majority of the school districts in Berks County have below 50 percent of their students with IEPs scoring proficient or above on the PSSA reading and math tests.. The school districts with the lowest percentage of students with IEPs scoring proficient or above are also the school districts showing greater rates of poverty and minority populations in the county.

Percent of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above (Math)

Percent of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above (Reading)

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT

Figure 11: Percent of Students with IEPs Scoring Proficient or Above in Math and Reading (2014)


Pennsylvania has recently launched a second initiative to assess student achievement called the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System (PVAAS). PVAAS was designed to help districts, schools and teachers evaluate how much groups of students have advanced academically from one school year to the next. By analyzing available test result data from previous years, PVAAS attempts to answer the question whether a group of students made a year’s worth of academic growth over the course of a year of schooling? As part of the PVAAS, the Pennsylvania Department of Education calculates an Average Growth Index (AGI) in both math and reading for every school district in Pennsylvania. The AGI was designed to answer the question about how the growth of students in a district or school compares to growth of students in other districts or schools. The department of education explains the numbers in this way. If the AGI is equal to or near zero this means that on average, the group of students made progress similar to the standard for PA Academic Growth (PAG). If the AGI is greater than zero, this means that on average, students made more progress than the standard for PAG. A larger AGI provides more evidence that the group of students exceeded the standard for PAG. If the AGI is less than zero, this means that on average, students made less progress than the standard for PAG. A smaller AGI provides more evidence that the group of students did not meet the standard for PAG. The challenge for each school district will be how to use the information to address student performance.

Average Growth Index Math Average Growth Index Reading

Figure 12: PVAAS Growth Data (2014)


The majority of school districts in Berks County have four-year graduation rates above 80 percent with the exception of Reading which has a four-year graduation rate around 65 percent (Fig. 13). Again, as the chart suggests, there appears to be a connection between academic achievement (here being graduation rates) and child poverty.

GRADUATIONRATE

Figure 13: Four-Year Graduation Rate and Child Poverty (2013)

Graduation Rate Child Poverty


Using the 2012 State Report Card provided by PDE, two comparisons with four-year graduation rates were analyzed for economically disadvantaged students and students with IEPs. County-wide, graduation rates for economically disadvantaged students (Fig. 14) and graduation rates for

Figure 14: Graduation Rate for Economically Disadvantaged Students (2012)

GRADUATIONRATE

students with IEPs (Fig. 15) appear to track state averages. Statewide, 71 percent of economically disadvantaged students graduate from high school. Every school district in the county had a rate above the state average with Daniel Boone, Fleetwood, and Schuylkill Valley having the highest graduation rates in the county.


Figure 15: Graduation Rate for Students with IEPs (2012)*

Graduation rates for students with IEPs indicate a different story. Again, the Pennsylvania average is 71 percent. The majority of school districts in the county are doing better than the state average for graduating students with IEPs. The highest graduation rate is Schuylkill Valley (96 percent) while the lowest is Reading (51 percent).

*Data was missing for Antietam and Exeter.


GRADUATIONRATE

Figure 16: Percent of Graduates College Bound Students (2013)*

Of Berks County students graduating from high school in the 2012-2013 school year, more than 70 percent were college bound (Fig. 16). This was above the Pennsylvania average of 67.1 percent. Two school districts (Wyomissing and Exeter) had more than 80 percent college bound graduates, while Tulpehocken had the lowest percentage. Kutztown and Reading also had relatively low percentages of college bound students.

*Data was missing for Daniel Boone and Wilson.


Figure 17: Dropout Rates (2013)

Dropouts are defined as students who leave school before graduation without transferring to another educational institution for any reason other than death. The dropout rate is calculated by the total number of dropouts for the school year divided by the number of students enrolled in the fall. For the 2012-2013 school year, Pennsylvania’s dropout rate was 1.3 percent and for Berks County it was 1.8 percent. Using these two percentages as guides to how well Berks County high schools are doing, most

Berks County schools fall either within that range (Fig. 17). Reading’s dropout rate, however, is almost six times the Pennsylvania average.

Note: Dropout data uses high school data from the 2012-2013 School Performance Profiles for each district.


State data defines students who have committed an offense that would warrant detention, suspension, expulsion or arrest as “offenders.” In 2013-14, the Pennsylvania average offender rate was 2.7 percent; the rate in Lancaster County was 2 percent and in Lehigh County it was 5.2 percent. In Berks County the rate was also 2.7 percent. With two exceptions, every district in Berks County was at or below the state average (Fig. 18). Reading had a rate nearly triple that of most school districts in the county and Antietam had a rate of 4.9 percent.

FIgure 18: Offender Rates (2014)

SCHOOLDISCIPLINE

These state Safe School Reports provided information about the percent of offenders who also had IEPs, providing an opportunity to look at school discipline and special education classifications (Fig. 19). Overall, many of the school districts in Berks County have a higher percentage of offenders with IEPs compared to the state average and Lancaster and Lehigh counties. One school district,

Tulpehocken, was nearly triple the state average. As noted earlier in the report, Tulpehocken has a larger percentage of its special education population enrolled due to emotional disturbance which may be influencing these numbers. Some researchers have found that schools could be using this classification as a way of removing potentially disruptive students from the regular classroom (Henley, Ramsey, & Algozzine, 2009) .


Figure 19: Percent of Offenders with IEPs (2014)


SCHOOLDISCIPLINE

Figure 20: Habitual Truancy Rate (2014)

Two school districts, Antietam and Reading, have the highest rates of habitually truant students (Fig. 20). These school districts also have the highest percentage of students living in poverty. The majority of the other schools in the county are on par with the state and county rates or well below it in terms of habitual truancy.


TECHNOLOGY

Technological advances have had a dramatic impact on basic education across the nation, including in Berks County. At the beginning of the 21st century, many Pennsylvania school districts had limited access to broadband and the internet. In fact, there were some school buildings that didn’t even have dial-up internet access. Today, every district in the county has internet access. All of the districts except Reading are linked to the Regional Wide Area Network operated by the Berks County Intermediate Unit. In total, Berks County schools have installed the capacity to provide 13.3 gigabytes of service. This new technology has allowed some school districts to collaborate in ways that were impossible a decade ago. Students in some Berks County schools can enroll in Chinese language and culture classes, linking not only students in several school districts but also allowing those students to interact with students in China. An example of creative use of technology can be seen in Lancaster County, where three school districts have moved

some of its instruction to an open classroom setting. Penn Manor, Hempfield and Manheim Township school districts have combined resources to allow students to enroll in classes that were not previously available in any of the three districts. Some of the classes are offered in the evening at one of the high schools, others are offered online. Some are blended programs, where lectures are delivered online and classroom time is used for discussion and tutoring.

But as ubiquitous as the internet may seem, data for

Pennsylvania suggests that many households have limited or no access to the internet. Low income and rural families are less likely to have access. While young people are more likely than older adults to use the internet, many low income students use their cell phones to access the internet outside of school.

Rapidly changing technology has the potential to significantly change basic education, but as with many opportunities, these changes do not come without challenges.


Figure 21: Sources of Revenue—Percent Local, State, and Federal (2012)

Historically, financing public education has been a shared responsibility of the state and local school districts, with the federal government providing an increasing amount of support for federally mandated programs. State funding for basic instruction was designed to balance out the differences between the relative ability of school districts to generate support locally. At one point, the objective was for the state to provide half of the cost of basic instruction statewide, although for the past three decades the state has fallen well short of that goal. The state is also to provide significant contributions toward the cost of special education, pupil transportation, school construction costs and school employee pensions.

From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, the state used a basic instruction subsidy formula driven largely by student enrollment, the average statewide cost of education, and an index of each local district’s ability to generate tax revenues. The formula was called the Aid Ratio. The state essentially abandoned this formula in the early 1990s, instead choosing generally to give districts

For the past several decades districts have been guaranteed the amount of funding that they received the prior year for instruction costs, with the occasional addition of an increased percentage or an adjustment based on some other factor. Using this “grandfather process” has meant that demographic and economic changes that have occurred in school districts over the past 25 years are not generally

SCHOOLFINANCE

a modest increase over what they had received the prior year. There have been occasional efforts to revive a school subsidy formula. But the state still annually calculates the Aid Ratio, which gives some indication of the relative ability of school districts to generate needed revenues locally.

Percent Local Revenue Percent State Revenue Percent Federal Revenue


MV/PI 1991-1992 Aid Ratio MV/PI 2013-2014 Aid Ratio

Figure 22: Comparison of 1992 and 2014 Aid Ratios (ratios closer to 1 mean there is a greater need for aid)

recognized in the basic instruction allocation process. Coupled with a declining percentage of statewide overall instruction costs being supported with state funds. This process has meant that local districts have had to either generate more revenues locally, pare back spending or both.

For the 2011-2012 school years (Fig. 21), the majority of school districts in the county generated most of

their revenue from local sources. Wyomissing Area School District is the only district to have more than 80 percent of its revenues from local tax sources. Most of the districts generated more than 60 percent of their revenue from local sources. On the other hand, Reading School District was largely dependent upon state and federal revenue, generating less than eight percent locally. For some districts, such as

Conrad Weiser, Exeter, Kutztown, and Tulpehocken, the numbers in this chart are somewhat distorted because the overall revenues appear to include significant bond financing, which the state does not count as a local revenue source.

The Reading School District receives more from the state than it generates from local sources because it is the poorest school district in the Commonwealth. The Aid Ratio (MV/PI Aid Ratio) mentioned earlier is an indicator of the relative wealth of a school district compared to all other districts in the state. The higher the aid ratio, the poorer the school district, and, in theory, more of its budget should come from state sources. For the 2013-2014 school year (Fig. 22), eight school districts (Antietam, Conrad Weiser, Daniel Boone, Exeter, Fleetwood, Hamburg, Muhlenberg, and Reading) had aid ratios over 0.500. Reading School District was the highest at .8807. The two school districts with the lowest aid ratio were Kutztown (.3684) and Wyomissing (.3617).


But virtually every district in Berks County is relatively poorer than they had been in 1991-92. The aid ratios for Antietam and Wyomissing more than doubled while Muhlenberg’s tripled over that period.

Looking at instructional costs (Fig. 23), there is a significant disparity between the district spending the most per pupil and the one spending the least. Kutztown spent $10,231 per pupil, while Reading and Muhlenberg spent $6,714 and $6,872

SCHOOLFINANCE

respectively. That represents nearly a 50 percent disparity in classroom spending.

Over the past 20 years and particularly over the past 10 years, per pupil instructional spending has increased in virtually every district in the county. But the gap between the districts spending the most per pupil and those spending the least also seems to be widening.

Figure 23: Per Pupil Instructional Spending —(comparisons for three points in time (1996, 2006, and 2013)

1995-96 2005-06 2012-13


While there does not appear to be an absolute correlation between instructional spending and academic performance as measured by standardized test results, there does appear to be a connection between those districts that spend less on instruction and low test results (Fig. 24). (Ranking in each category is in parentheses.)

PER PUPIL EXPENDITURE PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE (INSTRUCTION) (2013-2014) PROF.+ MATH * (2014) PROF.+ READING * (2014)

Kutztown $11,178 (1) ‡ 79 (8) 79 (5)

Tulpehocken $10,677 (2) 82 (5) 75 (8)

Schuylkill Valley $9,906 (3) 83 (4) 81 (4)

Brandywine Heights $9,850 (4) 71 (11) 76 (7)

Oley Valley $8,977 (5) 77 (9) 74 (9)

Exeter $8,852 (6) 81 (6) 82 (3)

Hamburg $8,764 (7) 80 (7) 73 (10)

Conrad Weiser $8,699 (8) 76 (10) 73 (10)

Fleetwood $8,567 (9) 82 (5) 77 (6)

Twin Valley $8,564 (10) 82 (5) 76 (7)

Governor Mifflin $8,337 (11) 79 (8) 77 (6)

Wyomissing $8,323 (12) 80 (7) 79 (5)

Wilson $8,177 (13) 88 (2) 87 (1) ‡

Daniel Boone $7,994 (14) 85 (3) 79 (5)

Antietam $7,842 (15) 64 (13) 60 (12)

Boyertown $7,770 (16) 89 (1) ‡ 84 (2)

Muhlenberg $7,565 (17) 69 (12) 66 (11)

Reading $6,824 (18) ◊ 46 (14) ◊ 41 (13) ◊

Figure 24: Per Pupil Expenditures and Academic Achievement (2014)

*repeated numbers are due to tie in ranking/ ‡ indicates highest rank category/ ◊ indicates lowest rank in category


Figure 25: Hispanic and ELL Enrollment-Antietam

Hispanic Enrollment ELL Enrollment Hispanic Enrollment ELL Enrollment

Figure 26: Hispanic and ELL Enrollment-Muhlenberg

In this section, we will take look at four different school districts in the county looking first at Hispanic and ELL enrollment over time, and then looking at revenues and instructional spending over the same period. The four districts are Antietam, Muhlenberg, Reading and Wyomissing. Similar data is available for each of the districts in Berks County and will be made available online on the Berks County Community Foundation's website.

In Antietam (Fig. 25), Muhlenberg (Fig. 26), and Wyomissing (Fig. 28), Hispanic student enrollment has increased dramatically over the period from 2006 to 2013. But ELL enrollment has remained relatively static over that same period. Hispanic enrollment in Reading (Fig. 27) has increased by a large number but the rate of increase has not been nearly as steep as it has been in the other three

A BRIEF COMPARISON OF FOUR SCHOOL

DISTRICTS


Figure 28: Hispanic and ELL Enrollment-Wyomissing

Hispanic Enrollment ELL Enrollment

Figure 27: Hispanic and ELL Enrollment-Reading

Hispanic Enrollment ELL Enrollment

districts. ELL enrollment is also up over 2006-2007 levels, but is actually declining in the city, which still has the largest percentage of ELL students in the Commonwealth.


Figure 30: Revenue and Expenditure- Muhlenberg

Revenue Per Pupil Instruction Per Pupil Expenditure

Figure 29: Revenue and Expenditure- Antietam


Per pupil revenue has steadily increased in all four districts (Fig. 29, Fig. 30, Fig. 31, and Fig. 32). The rate of growth was steeper in the early half of this time frame, with the rate flattening after the 2008 recession. Revenues exceed instructional expenditures for several reasons. They cover non-instructional costs. They provide funds for capital expenditures. They aid in paying off debt. Lastly, they help build budgetary reserves.

Reading has become increasingly dependent on state revenue sources for its funds. Per pupil spending on instruction has also increased but not as steeply as revenue growth. Antietam, Reading and Muhlenberg spend the least on instruction per pupil of all the Berks school districts; Wyomissing is in the upper half in instructional spending. But again, recent trends indicate a flattening in growth in classroom spending.


DISTRICTS


DISTRICTS


Figure 31: Revenue and Expenditure- Reading


Figure 32: Revenue and Expenditure- Wyomissing



One final note.: This report focuses on public basic education, but private basic education in the county has also undergone some significant changes over the past 15 years, from the merger of two Catholic high schools in the Reading area to the advent of the first charter school in the county.

SOURCES FOR VARIABLES:

• Special Education Data Report School Year 2013-2014 retrieved from http://penndata.hbg.psu.edu/BSEReports/DP_AlphaList.aspx

- Reg. enrollment by race (black/Hispanic/white)

- Percent special education district level

- Percent learning disability, emotional disturbance, autism

- Special education enrollment by race

• PVAAS Reports https://pvaas.sas.com/welcome.html?as=b&aj=b

- 2014 PSSA Math and Reading Data and Annual Growth Data

- Graduation rate data

• U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 2013 retrieved from http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/downloads/sd13/sd13_PA.txt

- Child poverty data

• School Performance Profiles (2014) retrieved from http://paschoolperformance.org/6/Districts

- ELL percent

- Percent of gifted students

- Percent of economically disadvantaged students

- Dropout rate

- Special Education percent

• National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/districtsearch/district_list.asp?Search=1&details=1&InstName=&DistrictID=&Address=&City=&State=42&Zip=&Miles=&County=lancaster&PhoneAreaCode=&Phone=&NumOfStudents=&NumOfStudentsRange=more&NumOfSchools=&NumOfSchoolsRange=more

- Percent of students with IEPs (2012)

- Student-Teacher ratios (2012)

- Per pupil revenue (2011)

- Per pupil expenditures (2011)

- Percent revenue from Federal government (2011)

- Percent revenue from State government (2011)

- Percent revenue local government (2011)

• Pennsylvania Department of Education. School District Fast Fact Data SY 2013-2014

SOURCES ANDACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


retrieved from http://paschoolperformance.org/Downloads

- Average SAT Reading score

- Average SAT Math score

- Number of Advanced Placement courses

• Pennsylvania Department of Education 2013-2014 SPP Score – School List retrieved from http://paschoolperformance.org/Downloads

- Average SPP Score

• Pennsylvania Department of Education-Graduate Data. Public High School Graduates and Postsecondary Education Rates School Districts Only. School Year 2012-2013 retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/graduates/7426

- Percent Graduates College Bound

• Pennsylvania Department of Education-Finance Data retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/financial_data_elements/7672

- MV/PI aid ratio for 2013-2014 school year

- MV/PI aid ratio for 1991-1992 school year

- Educational Expenses per Average Daily Membership (ADM) 2012-2013

• Pennsylvania Department of Education-Pennsylvania Safe Schools Online Reports(2013-2014) retrieved from https://www.safeschools.state.pa.us/Main.aspx?App=6a935f44-7cbf-45e1-850b-e29b2f1ff17f&Menu=dbd39a1f-3319-4a75-8f69-d1166dba5d70&res=

- Offender rate

- Percent of offenders with IEPs

- Habitual truancy rate

• Pennsylvania Department of Education-State Report Card (2011-2012) http://paayp.emetric.net/ReportCard/Index/c54/129547603/5070

- Graduation Rate for economically disadvantaged students

- Graduation Rate for students with IEPs

- Proficient and Above Percentages for Economic Disadvantaged Students

- Proficient and Above percentages for Students with IEPs

• Pennsylvania Department of Education-Drop Out data longitudinal data from 2005-2013 retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/dropouts/7396

- Drop out data for school years (2005 to 2013)

• Open PA Gov. org retrieved from http://www.openpagov.org/education_revenue_and_expenses.asp

- Spending trends for all school districts

Report Produced by the O’Pake Institute for

Ethics, Leadership and Public Service at

University, Tania Hollos and David Myers.

Made possible by a grant from the Hawley

and Myrtle Quier Fund of the Berks County

Community Foundation.


NOTES

Berks Vital Signs Education Report

Documents

Transcript of Berks Vital Signs Education Report