PLUS offers testimony before House Education Committee on August 5, 2011

House Education Committee

Informational Meeting on Vouchers and Charter School Reform

August 4, 2011

Testimony Submitted by

Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools

Beth Olanoff, Executive Director

The Pennsylvania League of Urban Schools (PLUS) is a non profit organization dedicated to support, promote, and improve education opportunities for students in Pennsylvania’s urban school districts.  I bring greetings to the Committee from our president, Pedro Rivera, Superintendent of the School District of Lancaster and the other members of PLUS. We appreciate the opportunity to present testimony to the Committee on these important issues

PLUS has nineteen school district members which educate 381,000 students, 22 percent of Pennsylvania’s school children.  It is important to note as well that a disproportionate percentage of the Commonwealth poor communities are concentrated in our urban school districts.  PLUS school districts educate 22 percent of the Commonwealth’s children but 38 percent of our poor kids.

Poverty certainly exists throughout the state; the average rate of poverty across our 500 school districts is 36 percent.  In our urban districts, the average concentration of poor students is almost twice that high at 64 percent. Research tells us that individual poor children require more services and supports to attain high academic standards, and it also tells us that concentrations of poor kids in a school is an additional risk factor for academic success.

The U.S. Department of Education reported in 1993 that there is even a point at which at students in a school with concentrated poverty begin to suffer: "School poverty depresses scores of all students in schools where at least half the children are eligible for subsidized lunch and seriously depresses the scores when more than 75 percent of students live in low income households." [1]

Even so, the urban districts in Pennsylvania have made substantial progress in recent years increasing student achievement using the additional state resources provided by the General Assembly.  Implementation of a funding formula in 2007 and increases over in state aid in the past several years have allowed school districts to spend more money on the strategies and supports needed most by students at risk for failure.

Students across the state made strong progress in academic achievement.  In 2010, the Pennsylvania Department of Education reported on this achievement:

• Three quarters of Pennsylvania students were achieving at grade level
• The smallest percentage of students ever scored at the lowest level since the inception of the PSSAs; this number was half the number in 2002.
• Student achievement increased in every subject, at all tested grade levels and for all ethnic, racial and economic subgroups of students since 2002 -- the eighth straight year of student performance gains. 
• The number of students performing at the highest levels has increased by 300,000 students since 2003.
• Achievement gaps between African American students and white students and Hispanic students and white students were reduced substantially  

Urban districts in particular, made strong progress since 2003. For example:

• Lancaster School District with 79 percent poverty increased its percentage of students at grade level or above in math by 71 percent (from 32.1% to 54.8%)
• Scranton School District with 61 percent poverty increased its percentage of students at grade level or above in math by 57 percent (from 47.9% to 75.1%)
• Philadelphia School District with 62 percent poverty increased its percentage of students at grade level or above in math by 161 percent (from 21.6% to 56.3%)
• Southeast Delco School District with 59 percent poverty increased its percentage of students at grade level or above in math by 123 percent (from 27.8% to 61.9%)
• York School District with 80 percent poverty increased its percentage of students at grade level or above in math by 62 percent (from 31.5% to 51.1%)

These results make it clear that investment in the strategies, programs and supports needed by all students and especially by students in poor communities result in academic achievement. PLUS endorses this opinion as stated by Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy.

The public debate ought to revolve around the clear issue of whether we as a nation want good public schools for all students, most particularly for low-income students. The main issue should not be whether poor inner-city kids should receive public support to attend private schools. If we really cared about improving the education of low-income students, we would guarantee them high-quality preschool programs, experienced elementary and secondary teachers, high academic standards and fair funding. That is what research tells us will really help those kids and what we ought to commit to doing.[2]

The balance of PLUS’ testimony is specifically responsive to the questions posed by the chair in its announcement of these hearings.  Committee questions are set forth in bold and italics.

1. The majority of Pennsylvania’s children are and will continue to be educated within public school districts

• Therefore, it is self evident that we must maintain a strong and robust public school system:
  
  • Our statewide commitment to public education for all children is embodied in our state constitution and indeed, every state has a similar commitment in its state constitution. These constitutional commitments make clear the essential importance of this value in our society.
  • An educated population is the foundation of a vibrant democracy 
  • High quality public education for all children is an essential investment in the economic future of individuals and of our communities.

2.      What are the issues facing the traditional public schools that create problems for parents and children?

• Here are the funding adequacy gaps per student and classroom for a sampling of PLUS urban districts:  

• Inadequate funding is especially damaging to the academic achievement of children who live in poverty without the parental and community support and enrichment found in more affluent environments. 
• Of course, money along is not enough.  It is also necessary to spend adequate resources on appropriate services and strategies to help students succeed. 

• But clearly, successful strategies such as high quality pre-kindergarten, full day K, extended time learning, tutoring, summer school, targeted professional development, library and technical resources and other strategies cannot be implemented without resources.
• Deputy Superintendent Dr. Leroy Nunnery of the Philadelphia School District was asked at this committee’s hearing just last Wednesday how the district’s ambitious plans for turning around failing schools would fare in light of recent state funding cuts.
  
  3. Are these issues regional and/or statewide?
  
  

• Inadequate funding for students in school districts with high concentrations of poverty is a statewide problem.
  
  
  
  4.      What educational options currently exist for our parents to ensure their child is receiving an education that provides them with a solid foundation in order to live up to their potential?
  
  

• School districts across the state, including our urban districts, already offer a multitude of educational choices for students especially at the high school level.
  • For example, in Philadelphia, in the traditional  public high schools, students can take advantage of advanced college prep programs including dual enrollment in college courses, Advanced Placement coursework, the International Baccalaureate Diploma program and specialized courses of study at the School for the Creative and Performing Arts, the Science Leadership Academy, the Urban Education Academy and others.
    
    
    • Philadelphia middle and high school students can also take advantage of the Secondary Robotics Initiative which is the largest urban research based robotics program of its kind in the county combining the resources of industry and university professionals to introduce students to state of the art technological opportunities and experiences. .
    • Philadelphia is also home to 74 charter schools educating more than 40,000 Philadelphia students.  
  • Other urban districts also offer many opportunities for school choice within the traditional public school system. Here are just a few examples: 
    
    
    • The Pittsburgh School District offers a wide program of options including two new single gender grade 6-12 academies, a school for creative and performing arts, an International Baccalaureate program, a grade 6-12 college going program in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh and a science and technology academy.  
    • The School District of Lancaster offers an Institute of Technology, the International Baccalaureate Program, a School of Health Sciences and a Leadership Academy
    • The Lebanon School District offers dual enrollment and College in the Classroom opportunities with three higher education partners: Harrisburg Area Community College, Lebanon Valley College and Harrisburg University of Science and Technology.  
    • The Southeast Delco District offers dual enrollment at Delaware County Community College and a medical careers program in partnership with local hospitals.

 5.      An educational option available in other states is vouchers.   In some areas of the State, this could prove to be a viable alternative for our children and their parents. Should vouchers be a part of providing educational alternatives to those children who are not being served within the traditional public school framework? Why or why not?

• PLUS is opposed to the private school tuition vouchers in the bills currently proposed.
• The primary reason for our opposition is that the current proposals take funds directly away from the school districts of students given vouchers thereby reducing the available resources for the students who remain in traditional classrooms.
  
  
  • As described above, these school districts are already underfunded and cannot afford to lose additional resources.
  • School districts do NOT realize cost savings when one, two or even five students leave the public school especially when student departures under the voucher bill would take place right before the school year starts.
  • Current voucher proposals would provide vouchers (and take money away from state funding) to children already in private schools.  Schools would lose state funding without losing any students.
  • PLUS does not necessarily oppose a policy of using public funds to provide tuition vouchers for private schools but not at the expense of current state funding to districts.
    
    
    • For example, an expansion of the EITC program (with appropriate reforms to current program).

• In addition to our primary objection that current proposals take funds from school districts to pay for vouchers, there are several serious problems with the current proposals:
  
  
  • Private schools’ get their choice of students; parents do not get their choice of schools. 
  • Private schools may pick and choose among student applicants; students do not have a right to attend a particular private school even with a tuition voucher unlike public schools which must educate all students and even charter schools which must take all children as space allows.
  • Current proposals lack any sort of fiscal or academic accountability.
  • Research does NOT support the claim that private school tuition vouchers result in greater academic achievement for inner-city poor students than comparable students in public schools.[4]
  • Current proposals are not targeted to failing students but to students in so-called failing schools and have even been expanded to other students who are neither failing nor in failing schools.
  • Voucher proposals are a wholesale transfer of taxpayer funds already dedicated to public education to private schools in furtherance of a policy to privatize education which is bad public policy, not to ensure that poor students get equal opportunities.[5]

6.  Recognizing that charter schools are a viable option within the State’s public educational system:  Are they successful?  How can the system of charter schools be improved?

• There are many charter schools which are very successful in educating students to high levels of academic achievement.  Charter schools have been effective in Philadelphia both as new schools and even as operators retain by the district to “turn around” existing struggling schools.
• PLUS believes that the state should establish a system to evaluate and share the best practices of the successful charter school models.
• Currently, oversight of charter schools is left to the authorizing district.  This can present problems because no additional funding is provided to the district to support that oversight and therefore, effective monitoring and oversight is often not accomplished at all.
• Current proposals to empower the state or institutions of higher education as charter authorizers are also problematic because school districts and local taxpayers should be the ones to authorize the spending of their local resources on educational options for the children in their districts.
• PLUS suggests that the reform of Pennsylvania’s charter school law is a very important subject and worthy of much more attention and debate as we proceed into the fall.