New Path to Excellence RevisionsImpact of Consolidation on FHSD

AcademicFinancial

2013-2014 Status2014-2015 StatusCommissioner’s Plan (draft)

Legislation

Updates

Every student mattersEvery school mattersEvery community matters

New Path Plan Developers Believe

Continue four levels of accreditation.

Continue focus on academically stressed schools.

Continue focus on early intervention.

Continue the belief that transferring children does not improve schools or school districts.

Continue the focus on building local control and empowering communities to improve their schools.

Continue the focus on every student, every school, and every community matters.

What Is the Same?

Discontinued reference to the development of an Academic Achievement District. Replace with a committee of DESE and selected representatives from the school community/district.

Changed the number of years at each level and substituted a focus on achieving annual progress on priority areas identified by the DESE review team.

Added Progressing w/in Academically Stressed category. If a school in Level 3 makes annual progress in its priority areas, it will be designated as Academically Stressed and Progressing. No additional students may transfer out of the school under this designation.

Added a more detailed list of supports for Level 3.

Add categorical which will pay the difference between amount of state aid transmitted by sending sch district and the receiving school district.

When sending sch district become provisionally accredited, transportation no longer provided to receiving school district.

What Is Different?

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000N

orth

wes

t R-I

Gran

dvie

w R

-II

Hills

boro

R-II

I

Dunk

lin R

-V

Fest

us R

-VI

Jeff

erso

n Co

. R-V

II

Win

dsor

C-1

Fox

C-6

Crys

tal C

ity 4

7

Deso

to 7

3

Ft. Z

umw

alt R

-II

Fran

cis H

owel

l R-II

I

Wen

tzvi

lle R

-IV

St. C

harle

s R-V

I

Orc

hard

Far

m R

-V

Haze

lwoo

d

Ferg

uson

-Flo

rissa

nt R

-II

Patt

onvi

lle R

-III

Rock

woo

d R-

VI

Kirk

woo

d R-

VII

Lind

berg

h Sc

hool

s

Meh

lvill

e R-

IX

Park

way

C-2

Affton

101

Bayl

ess

Bren

twoo

d

Clay

ton

Hanc

ock

Plac

e

Jenn

ings

Ladu

e

Map

lew

ood-

Rich

mon

d He

ight

s

Rite

nour

Rive

rvie

w G

arde

ns

Uni

vers

ity C

ity

Valle

y Pa

rk

Web

ster

Gro

ves

St. L

ouis

City

Enro

llmen

t

District

District Enrollment2012-2013 and 2012-2013 plus Normandy's 4,155 Students

1213 DESE 1213 DESE + Normandy

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0N

orth

wes

t R-I

Gran

dvie

w R

-II

Hills

boro

R-II

I

Dunk

lin R

-V

Fest

us R

-VI

Jeff

erso

n Co

. R-V

II

Win

dsor

C-1

Fox

C-6

Crys

tal C

ity 4

7

Deso

to 7

3

Ft. Z

umw

alt R

-II

Fran

cis H

owel

l R-II

I

Wen

tzvi

lle R

-IV

St. C

harle

s R-V

I

Orc

hard

Far

m R

-V

Haze

lwoo

d

Ferg

uson

-Flo

rissa

nt R

-II

Patt

onvi

lle R

-III

Rock

woo

d R-

VI

Kirk

woo

d R-

VII

Lind

berg

h Sc

hool

s

Meh

lvill

e R-

IX

Park

way

C-2

Affton

101

Bayl

ess

Bren

twoo

d

Clay

ton

Hanc

ock

Plac

e

Jenn

ings

Ladu

e

Map

lew

ood-

Rich

mon

d He

ight

s

Rite

nour

Rive

rvie

w G

arde

ns

Uni

vers

ity C

ity

Valle

y Pa

rk

Web

ster

Gro

ves

St. L

ouis

City

FRL

PERC

ENT

District

District FRL Percent2012-2013 and 2012-2013 plus Normandy's 3,614.5 Students

1213 DESE 1213 DESE + Normandy

StandardPoints

PossiblePercent ofAll Points

S1: Student Achievement

56 40%

S2: Subgroup Achievement

14 10%

S3: College & Career

Readiness

30 21.42%

S4: Attendance

10 7.14%

S5: Graduation

Rate

30 21.42%

Total Points Possible

140 100%

Distribution of Points in MSIP5

With MSIP 5 the Problem Gets Worse

* MSIP 5 accreditation standards will begin Fall 2015

Current Status4th Cycle MSIP

Provisional & Unaccredited

Potential Status2012-13 MSIP 5*

Provisional & Unaccredited

Calhoun Gilliam Gorin

Malta Bend Spickard

Swedeborg

Normandy St. Louis Public

Riverview Gardens Hickman

Mills HaytiKansas

City Caruthersville

Jennings

Pemiscot Co. R-III So. Pemiscot Co.

CallaoSouthern Reynolds Co R-

II BonciPoplar Bluff

Ripley Co. R-IVNew Madrid Co R-I

SSD of St. Louis Bosworth

Slater University City

Newburg Risco

Crawford Co. R-I Southland

Ferguson-Florissant Maries Co R-II

Dixon

Current: 14 Districts Provisionally Accredited and Unaccredited

MSIP 5: 27 Districts Provisionally Accredited and Unaccredited

With MSIP 5 the Problem Gets Worse

Unaccredited

Provisional

Lighter shade = lower percent

of points earned

* MSIP 5 accreditation standards will begin Fall 2015

Lighter shade = lower percent

of points earned

The Problem is StatewideThe 27 Districts Provisionally Accredited and Unaccredited are Located from East and Southeast to West and Northwest

Accreditation Classifications with new MSIP 5

Direct Correlation Between Poverty & Accreditation % of Free and/or Reduced

Lunch/ Building

Poverty Matters

Consolidation Impacts Accreditation

* MSIP 5 standards will begin Fall 2015

District MSIP5* Potential District Accreditation Status (Percent of Points Earned)

Based on 2012-13 APR

Accreditation w/Normandy (Status Only)

Affton 101 Accredited (94.3) Accredited (70.7)Bayless Accredited (79.3) Provisional (58.9)Brentwood Accredited (100) Accredited (73.2)Clayton Accredited (98.9) Accredited (94.6)Ferguson-Florissant R-II Provisional (69.3) Unaccredited (37.5)Ft. Zumwalt R-II Accredited (92.9) Accredited (76.8)Francis Howell R-III Accredited (96.4) Accredited (82.5)Hancock Place Accredited (88.6) Provisional (65)Hazelwood Accredited (85.4) Provisional (61.8)Jennings Provisional (65.7) Unaccredited (41.8)Kirkwood R-VII Accredited (98.2) Accredited (83.2)Ladue Accredited (98.9) Accredited (86.8)Lindbergh Schools Accredited (99.3) Accredited (92.1)Maplewood-Richmond Hts Accredited (88.6) Provisional (57.5)Mehlville R-IX Accredited (92.5) Accredited (78.2)Orchard Farm R-V Accredited (91.8) Provisional (61.4)Parkway C-2 Accredited (99.6) Accredited (92.9)Pattonville R-III Accredited (82.9) Provisional (66.1)Ritenour Accredited (71.8) Provisional (56.8)Rockwood R-VI Accredited (92.9) Accredited (91.4)St. Charles R-VI Accredited (86.8) Provisional (61.4)St. Louis City Unaccredited (24.6) Unaccredited (12.9)University City Provisional (66.8) Unaccredited (45.4)Valley Park Accredited (89.3) Provisional (63.9)Webster Groves Accredited (97.5) Accredited (75.7)Wentzville R-IV Accredited (96.4) Accredited (78.6)

* MSIP 5 standards will begin Fall 2015

Consolidation of Lapsed DistrictsNormandy: 9 districts would downgrade to provisionally accredited;3 districts would downgrade to unaccredited within 1 yearDistrict New MSIP 5 Rating If Normandy collapsed

into this district

Bayless 79.3% 58.9%

Ferguson-Florissant 69.3% 37.5%

Hancock Place 88.6% 65%

Hazelwood 85.4% 61.8%

Jennings 65.7% 41.8%

Maplewood-Richmond Heights 88.6% 57.5%

Orchard Farm 91.8% 61.4%

Pattonville 82.9% 66.1%

Ritenour 71.8% 56.8%

St. Charles 86.8% 61.4%

University City 66.8% 45.4%

Valley Park 89.3% 63.9%

Consolidation Impacts Financial Health

1 RSMO 162.202. For purposes of determining the proposed tax rate when two or more school districts are consolidating, the tax rate ceiling of the consolidated district shall be determined by multiplying each district's tax rate ceiling by its total assessed valuation, adding such products and dividing the sum by the combined assessed valuation of the component districts.

Normandy ConsolidationEstimated Impact by District

Normandy gets $25 millionin state aid

DistrictCurrent State

Aidw/NSD State

Aid+ or - NSD's

State Aid

Change in Operating

Levy 1

Lost Revenue w/o

Increase Rate LimitAffton 101 2.8$ 31.2$ 3.3$ (0.2960) -$ Bayless 5.4$ 33.8$ 3.3$ 0.1938 0.7$ xBrentwood 0.3$ 24.0$ (1.3)$ 0.0063 -$ xClayton 1.0$ 13.2$ (12.9)$ 0.1828 2.3$ Ferguson-Florissant R-II 39.3$ 66.8$ 2.4$ (0.0166) -$ Francis Howell R-III 38.1$ 66.5$ 3.3$ (0.0052) -$ Ft. Zumwalt R-II 52.6$ 81.0$ 3.3$ 0.0531 1.2$ xHancock Place 6.8$ 34.7$ 2.8$ 0.1711 0.6$ xHazelwood 54.9$ 83.3$ 3.3$ (0.0855) -$ Jennings 15.2$ 42.0$ 1.8$ (0.5115) -$ Kirkwood R-VII 2.6$ 27.1$ (0.6)$ 0.0718 1.1$ Ladue 2.0$ 12.9$ (14.1)$ 0.1901 3.1$ Lindbergh Schools 3.2$ 26.7$ (1.6)$ 0.1539 20.1$ Maplewood-Richmond Heights 1.2$ 28.4$ 2.1$ 0.1145 0.6$ Mehlville R-IX 13.8$ 42.2$ 3.3$ 0.1125 2.1$ xOrchard Farm R-V 2.9$ 31.3$ 3.3$ 0.1715 0.9$ xParkway C-2 8.2$ 10.6$ (22.7)$ 0.0386 1.7$ Pattonville R-III 4.2$ 16.9$ (12.4)$ 0.0832 1.3$ xRitenour 21.7$ 50.0$ 3.3$ 0.1089 0.8$ Rockwood R-VI 29.0$ 57.4$ 3.3$ 0.0451 1.5$ St. Charles R-VI 8.6$ 32.7$ (0.9)$ 0.0575 0.6$ St. Louis City 132.1$ 147.9$ (9.3)$ 0.0505 2.1$ xUniversity City 6.5$ 31.5$ (0.1)$ 0.0529 0.4$ Valley Park 0.9$ 29.3$ 3.3$ (0.1105) -$ Webster Groves 4.9$ 33.3$ 3.3$ (0.1828) -$ Wentzville R-IV 48.1$ 76.5$ 3.3$ 0.0592 1.0$

Local Tax ChangeThis Is Only An Estimate

in Millions

Estimated Change in State AidBased on January Payment Information

in Millions

Consolidation Impacts State Aid

$

$ 104,948,036 $ 135,345,559

Less Local EffortState Aid (if <), then 0)

$ (130,686,671)$ -

$ (130,686,671)$ 4,658,888.00

State Aid per WADA -$ 229.83559.7490

11,346,92410,592,890

$

2,379,075

25,043,725

(22,664,650)

Example: Parkway State Aid CalculationCurrent

ParkwayParkway + Normandy

Weighted Average Daily Attendance (WADA) x State Adequacy Targetx Dollar Value Modifier

State Funding Required

15,7196,1311.089

20,2716,1311.089

$

HH Guarantee $559.7490

$

Greater of State Aid or HH x WADA $8,798,499

$

Prorated $8,213,815

$

Additional Funding for Normandy Students $

Normandy Current State Aid $

Lost State Aid $

State Board will take over financial operations of Normandy School District

Current Normandy students will remain in Normandy

Current transfers will remain in their current schools

Receiving school districts will receive their tuition

2013-2014 School YearRecommendation of Commissioner February 18, 2014

FHSDCurrent Enrollment

20-25 new students380 returning students (approximately)

Placement CriteriaReturn to the same building if there is spaceFollow feeder pathway when possibleMaintain balance

NORMANDYDESE transition team appointed to determine

2014-2015 plan (Due July 1, 2014)

2014-2015

Held statewide hearings to seek input on various plans

Conducted work session on February 10Shared Commissioner’s Plan (February 18,

2014)Will seek feedback on Commissioner’s Plan

February 24 (Kansas City)February 25 (St. Louis)

State Board Actions

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/documents/MSIPUnaccreditedPlan.pdf

http://dese.mo.gov/divimprove/sia/msip/documents/SummaryOfTiers.pdf

Review Commissioner’s DRAFT Plan

Commissioner’s Plan--Summary Page 8 Tier Summary

Concerns

• LONG TERM—PLAN

• Transfer Continuance

• Plan Sustainability—long term

Schools 5-10% ?

Districts 20% ?

• Charters and Vouchers

• Plan Cost

• DESE/ Support Staff Add staff or use existing staff

• Lapsing Districts

Academic

Financial

• SHORT TERM2014-2015 Sch Year Normandy status determined when?

26 filed bills (approximately)

Appropriation of funds for 2013-14

Tuition Caps

Accreditation classification systems

Assessment changes

Transportation determinations made by DESE

New Path to Excellence type concepts

Vouchers and Charters

Contractual agreements

Legislation Includes

Every student matters, every school matters, every community matters

Transferring students from one location to another does not improve schools, nor does it revitalize communities

Local control builds strong communities

Early intervention is essential to improving schools

School buildings and the children they serve should be the focus rather than school districts

School funding should be spent on improving instruction rather than transporting students

Poverty matters

Stronger Missouri schools will come from keeping every student, every school and every community intact

A New Path to ExcellenceMissouri Education Leaders Agree

Was developed by school administrators from MASA, EducationPlus, CSD Kansas City and Southwest Center

Is supported by superintendents statewide

Requires early, proactive intervention for struggling schools

Is fiscally sustainable, which student transfers are not

Eliminates influx of students not currently attending public schools, maintaining current levels of funding from the foundation formula

Allows funds to be spent on instruction rather than transportation

Stops forced consolidation of school districts

Preserves communities and neighborhoods, preventing isolation of families and communities from schools

Is broadly applicable to all schools and districts statewide

A New Path to Excellence