Administrative Offices

VanHoose Education Center PO Box 34020 Louisville, KY 40232-4020 (502) 485-3011

To: From:

Jefferson County Board of Education Members Sheldon H. Berman, Ed.D. Superintendent Board Update April 20, 2011

Subject: Date:

I'm sure all of us were happy that our students and their families were granted almost a full week of terrific weather during Spring Break. Over the past four weeks, I have focused on a number of priority issues and activities, some of which are especially deserving of your attention and input. Included with this memo are three separate important memos for you to review. The Core Planning Team and I have provided a very detailed summary of the plans we've put in place to prepare for the smooth opening of school next year. Jonathan and Cordelia have assessed the impact of the federal budget agreement on funding to JCPS. Cordelia has prepared a memo on a developing issue with KDE around MUNIS implementation. As you can see, Spring Break notwithstanding, we continue to be very busy working on many important issues. Please take the time to review these memos and I would be happy to receive your feedback. As our teachers and students focus on the state assessments this week and next, I think it is advisable for all of us to do our part to shield the schools from any distractions to the teaching-learning process. Here's my update.

IDENTIFICATION OF PLA SCHOOLS

I was very surprised to receive the March 24 letter from Terry Holliday identifying Knight Middle School as a perSistently low-achieving (PLA) school based on 2010 KCCT results. I immediately met with Sandy and principal Kenneth Black to review the situation and develop possible strategies. I also contacted USED Assistant Secretary Thelma Melendez to convey my deep concerns. Pursuant to her suggestion, I worked with Dena, Sandy, Joe, and Joyce to develop a written request that USED consider alternative ways of addressing this issue with Knight. I suggested that the change in calculation be applied proactively to those schools identified next year, rather than retroactively to add schools to this year's list. Alternatively, I suggested that we be able to utilize the Investment Model as an alternative to the four models currently outlined in the regulations. Dr. Melendez promptly forwarded that request to her federal SIG staff. Her action prompted a conference call about a week later, during which I discussed our request/proposal with Carlas McCauley, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs, and members of his staff. After talking with both USED and KDE about how this situation developed, I prepared and shared with you a memo outlining in some detail what I perceive to be the short-term and long-term implications of the revised interpretation of the process for identifying PLAs. Over the past weeks, conversations with USED and KDE continued. Yesterday I took part in a conference call with Dr. Melendez, Carlas McCauley and USED staff member Kandace Jones regarding USED's guidance on SIG. Because they gave notice to KDE on December 20 that the state did not calculate the appropriate number of PLAs, they felt that the Department needed to maintain their requirement of adding PLA schools this year. They also decided that they could not authorize an alternative model to the four outlined in the regulations. They suggested that KDE might have greater flexibility and could defer consequences if we did not want to receive SIG funds for Knight. Although the USED would allow this, HB 176

JCPS Board of Education-April 20, 2011

Page 2

does not. It requires that all schools identified as PLAs select one of the models whether or not the school foregoes SIG funding. Therefore, there is no flexibility at either the federal or state level and Knight will have to go through the audit and turnaround process. I have continued communicating with Sandy about these developments and met with Knight's ILT this week to discuss with them how they could best proceed. I encouraged them to do their best in their current test administration and then through the audit process. The audit will begin on May 8, and we won't know the results until late Mayor early June. At our June 13 meeting, the Board will have to make a decision on which turnaround option to select for Knight. In addition to this issue, I believe all of you received a copy of the letter from Tom Price regarding the Commissioner's concerns about our SIG application. Dena Dossett and Bill Eckels are meeting with Tom Price this week to address those concerns and revise the application accordingly. It will be resubmitted on Friday. Both Dena and Bill will be available to discuss these concerns and our response at the Board meeting on Monday. STUDENT ASSIGNMENT PLAN Much has been accomplished over the past several months in preparing for next school year's opening days and in developing further recommendations to improve the student assignment plan. Craig Garrison has continued to facilitate a group from the Core Planning team working on operational issues. He has also worked with Transportation and our IT staff to ensure our technology best supports student assignment and routing. Amy Dennes has worked with her principals, Transportation, and others to further refine the tagging and communication processes for next year. Sandy has similarly worked with middle school principals, focusing on the new boundaries, and Jack has continued to refine operations in his department to support all aspects of student assignment. I have enclosed a separate memo that details all of this work for your review, along with a copy of the packet that was given to elementary principals. Next year's first-day operations will assuredly be smoother and more efficient than ever before. With regard to the student assignment plan itself, I asked Dena to work on some further analyses of the A within Band B within A scenario. So that I can refer to this more succinctly, I'd like to simply call it the "new AlB scenario. n Although the memo I sent to Gary Orfield in December and distributed to you in February discussed this scenario at length, we did not have time to assess its potential impact on reducing the number of students who would need to be transported. I thought it would be helpful both to Gary and to the Board to have this information. Using the data on the resides population from each school, I asked Dena to create tables that show the number of students who would be required to be transported in the current AlB plan vs. the new AlB scenario. Because 19 A area schools have B areas within their boundaries and 26 B area schools have A areas within their boundaries, including these students would reduce the number of students who would need to be transported in order to meet the 15-50 guideline. In the memo I sent from the Core Planning Team to Gary Orfield, and later distributed to you, we suggested that the guideline might be extended to 15-55 because this scenario actually increased the number of A area students from approximately 30 percent of the student population to 35 percent of the student population. I have attached two tables that provide the details of these analyses, one if we retained the 15-50 guideline and one if we implemented the 15-55 guideline. What do the tables and these analyses tell us? We have 36,786 elementary students. In order to meet the current 15-50 guideline, we need to have 9,975 ofthose students attend schools in the opposite geographic area. That means that we need to transport 27 percent of our students in order to meet the guideline. We currently achieve that guideline through a mix of choice and assignment. If we were to implement the new AlB scenario with no change in the guideline, we would reduce the number needing to attend schools in the opposite geographic area by 3,193. This is a 32 percent reduction in the number of students requiring transportation between A and B area schools. We would be reducing the percent requiring exchange of schools from 27 percent to 18.4 percent. If we extended the guideline to 15-55 as the Core Team recommended, 3,797 fewer students would require transportation between A and B area schools. That is a reduction of 38 percent! That means that instead of 27 percent of our students requiring transfers to other area schools, it would be only 16.8 percent. I think we could alleviate many assignment problems if we pursue that scenario. It is important to note that implementation of the new AlB scenario and the 15-55 guideline would in no way represent a lessening of our commitment to school diversity. In spite of the fact that this proposal reduces the number of students

JCPS Board of Education-April 20, 2011

Page 3

transported, we would actually maintain the same level of diversity in our schools because we are simply acknowledging and incorporating the diversity that already exists within many of our resides areas. I have shared this information with Gary Orfield. I realize that he would like to wait until he has the latest U.S. Census Bureau data from the American Community Survey, which may not be released until fall 2011. So that this matter doesn't become a contentious issue in either the gubernatorial election or the next board election, I would suggest that (if Orfield agrees with this analysis) the Board vote to implement this change "in concept" so that people can be made aware that the numbers requiring transportation could be reduced by as much as 38 percent in the 2012-13 school year. Then in the fall, once the demographic information is available that enables the district to clearly determine which areas are identified as A within Band B within A, the actual proposal for the subareas can be approved. In that way, the Board can clearly indicate that you have heard the public's concern and developed a way to address the problem while retaining diversity in our schools. Although everyone may still not get the school they want, many will be far more likely to get their resides school. Over the coming months and years, as the Board continues to discuss the ramifications of our student assignment plan, and to consider modifications in line with district and community needs, it would be well for all of us to remember that JCPS is still being watched and studied by many observers nationwide. The actions taken here have social and educational implications that reach far beyond the boundaries of Jefferson County. As you know, I was asked by Secretary Duncan to discuss our plan with him and his senior staff several weeks ago as the USED attempts to find its path in supporting school integration. I have enclosed an article that appeared in the May 2010 issue of the Fordham Law Review in which the author concludes that through our current student assignment plan, "JCPS has helped define the future of integration for any district seeking to pursue it." JCPS will continue to be at the national center of the student assignment and integration debate. I hope you will be able to chart a path that provides hope for other communities around the country. SMALLER LEARNING COMMUNITIES Last October, we were awarded a two-year federal grant of nearly $3.8 million under the Smaller Learning Communities (SLC) program, with the potential of an eventual five years of funding. The project is being implemented in five high schools-Eastern, Jeffersontown, Pleasure Ridge Park, Seneca, and Southern-with a goal of improving student achievement by fully developing the career-themed Schools of Study. Last week, we were notified by the USED that the budget deal agreed upon by the President and Congress does not include any funding for the third year of the SLC program. However, any funds not expended by the end of the second year (Le., by September 30,2012) can be extended into the 2012-13 school year to complete any unfinished activities. This news is, of course, very disappointing. We do have a pledge from Congressman John Yarmuth that he will continue to oppose additional cuts to education funding, but the future for education-related funds from the federal level does not appear promising. Jonathan and Cordelia have conducted a comprehensive analysis of the federal budget reductions and their implications for JCPS funding. I've attached that analysis in a separate memo. CLOUD COMPUTING The KDE is proceeding with a new plan to implement cloud (off-site) computing for all MUNIS operations. This plan has serious ramifications for the district, both financial and operational. Cordelia has been the recipient of most of the information that KDE has made available; however, we do not yet have all the answers we would like to have from KDE. David Couch and the Commissioner discussed this issue at a recent LSAC meeting that I attended and they provided some measure of clarity; however, they also raised additional concerns, particularly for JCPS. We wanted you to be informed of what we know at this point, because the district may need to make a rather rapid decision. I am attaching a memo from Cordelia that spells out the details currently at hand. In essence, going with cloud computing for MUNIS has Significant operational and cost issues; on the other hand, KDE has indicated that if we don't go with cloud computing they will be charging us significant additional costs. Although KDE acknowledges that cloud computing is not economically beneficial for JCPS, we are still in discussions about whether they will require us to adopt it anyway. Please share your thoughts on this matter, because the topic will probably be discussed in our upcoming meetings with other districts.

JCPS Board of Education-April 20, 2011 ADVANCED PLACEMENT

Page 4

Our Research Department has completed a review of outcomes from our Advanced Placement (AP) program in terms of number of students enrolled, number tested, and number attaining a qualifying score on the AP exams. I have enclosed this report for your information. Also included is a comparison of outcomes for JCPS vs. the 44 schools throughout the state that are part of the AdvanceKentucky initiative to increase course rigor and prepare students for AP exams. While these two approaches (JCPS AP and AdvanceKentucky) differ in scope and longevity, both have produced significant results. These results suggest that we have done approximately as well as AdvanceKentucky, even without the incentives provided by that program. NURSES IN SCHOOLS Given the impact that our existing nurses have had on student/staff health and attendance, other elementary schools have expressed an interest in adding a nurse to their staff. We developed a possible scenario in which the district and the school would split the average $28,500 annual cost of a school-based nurse (LPN) on a 5050 basis, beginning as early as next year. We are now surveying the elementary principals to determine their level of interest. Thus far, 20 elementary schools have responded affirmatively. The deadline to reply is this Friday, at which time we will share the final tabulation. FYI DOCUMENTS The following documents are included in your packet for informational purposes. Two tables on new AlB scenario applying 15-50 guideline vs.15-55 guideline Student Assignment and Transportation Improvements Bus Information packet for elementary principals Impact of federal budget reductions Cloud computing and MUNIS Fordham Law Review article about JCPS student assignment plan Analysis of student outcomes in Advanced Placement courses MEETINGS AND EVENTS In terms of leadership activities with staff, I met with the Cabinet subgroups for External Relations (Stephanie, DeVone, Jack, and Bemard), Schools (Amy, Sandy, Joe, Farryll, Jack, Bob, and Lynne), and Operations (Bill, Cordelia, Mike, and Cary), and with the Communications team (Stephanie, Bob, Jack, Joe, Sandy, and Amy). I participated in a meeting of the GE Steering Committee, and I had a discussion with Joe and Jerry Keepers about our concept of the Investment Model as a fifth intervention option so that he could bring a proposal to the Board of NASSP on which he serves. I met individually with Bernard and Bill to reflect on the work they have done during 2010-11. Bill and I met with representatives of JCASA (Warren Shelton, Tim Healy, and John Ansman). I also met individually with Tim Healy about the future of the Brown School. Kathy McGinnis and I, along with Amy and Jack, met with two groups of elementary magnet school principals and magnet coordinators. I conferred with Tom Price regarding the district corrective action plan and next year's SIG funding. I also met with Jack Jacobs, Ralph Stephens, Frank Mellen, Pat Todd, and an external consultant about student assignment, and with the Board's Budget and Finance Committee. At the request of principal Staci Eddleman, I provided a brief videoed statement encouraging Westport Middle School's students to do their best on the upcoming KCCT assessments. I met with Joe and Keith Look regarding the Academy @ Shawnee, with Cary regarding the reorganization of his department, and with Arthur and Jon Saphier about strategies for bringing to scale instructional improvement among our teachers. I also met with the Board Facilities and Maintenance Committee about a review of the revised District Facilities Plan and an update on swimming pools. With regard to school visits, in addition to visiting Knight in connection with their upcoming audit and turnaround process, I joined Greg Fischer at Lassiter for the launch of the CPR Anytime Program at Lassiter. Louisville is the first city in the nation to pioneer American Heart Association Reusable CPR Anytime Family and Friends kits, designed to teach seventh-graders how to administer CPR. I also presented the awards at Churchill Park's Special Olympic Day and participated in the ExCEL Award ceremony at Sanders Elementary School. Finally, I accompanied Joe to Doss to observe Project Proficiency being applied in a classroom. The focus of the visit was

JCPS Board of Education-April 20, 2011

Page 5

to see how collaboration and planning are translated into action in the form of intervention, remediation, and reteaching. My professional leadership activities included an in-depth meeting with Dr. Carol Johnson, superintendent of Boston Public Schools, about student assignment issues and approaches in her district. I had a conference call with lyle Kirtman, the president and senior management consultant for Future Management Systems, Inc. I participated in a meeting of lSAC and in CASEl's 2011 Forum on Expanding Social and Emotional learning Natiowwide, which included a reception hosted by Jennifer and Peter Buffett of the NoVo Foundation. As for community activities, I met with Jonathan Blum of YUM! Brands about program recommendations to be made to the Muhammad Ali Center Board and participated in a Center board meeting. I also participated in board meetings for 55,000 Degrees and GU. I met with the WDRB Fox 41 Editorial Advisory Board, and I was honored to offer remarks at the annual Vogt Achievement Scholarship luncheon. I met with Jerry Abramson and then addressed his class at Bellarmine University. I was pleased to meet with Mayor Greg Fischer and Policy Director Tony Peyton to discuss our various JCPS-louisville Metro collaborations and other projects that involve shared budgets. I met with Mary Gwen Wheeler, who later joined Arthur, Audwin Helton, and me to tape a program for Inside JCPS on the 55,000 Degrees initiative. I offered a welcome to Dr. Toyoda and numerous members of the leadership of the Toyota Motor Company who were in louisville to visit the Toyota Family Literacy Program. I joined Greg Fischer for an enjoyable evening at the annual Mayor's Banquet recognizing Outstanding Seniors. Finally, this past weekend I participated in a two-day retreat with the Board and senior staff in Eugene. At the retreat, the Board reviewed a document they've relied upon for many years to guide their board-superintendent relationship. I thought the document might be of interest to you and have shared it with Steve. I look forward to seeing you on Monday evening. SHB:jb Enclosures

JEFFERSON

COU~(

JBLlC SCHOOLS

10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB USing District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K) 15-50 Guideline

RJR.dd.rmc

4/13/11

JEFFERSON COUN(

JBLlC SCHOOLS

10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB USing District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K)

15-50 Guideline

RJR.dd.rmc

4/13/11

JEFFERSON COUN(

JBLlC SCHOOLS

10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB Using District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K) 15-50 Guideline

AinA Ain B

9693
3482

1626 21985

B in A
Bin B

32%

RJR.dd.rmc

4/13/11

JEFFERSON

coJ'

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB Using District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K)

15-55 Guideline

RJR.dd.rmc

4/19/11

JEFFERSON CO~ PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB using District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K) 15-55 Guideline

RJR.dd.rmc

4/19/11

JEFFERSON CO( PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10-11 Elementary Resides School by Track/Block AB Using District Minority and Income (Excludes ECE-SC/K) 15-55 Guideline

AinA Ain B

9693 3482

1626 21985

B in A Bin B

38%

RJR.dd.rmc

4/19/11