Enrollment and Spending in the Cambridge Public Schools: Cambridge’s

Declining Investment in its Public School System from 2000 to the Present

An Analysis Developed by CPS parent Emily Dexter, Ed.D.,

February 2013 emilydexter@comcast.net

Summary• Between 2001 and 2007, public school enrollment in Cambridge decreased by 20%, and is now

only gradually recovering.

• Cambridge also decreased its investment in its school system: Between 2002 and 2012, Cambridge’s spending on its public school system decreased from 34% of the total city budget in 2002 to only 30% of the total city budget in 2012.

• The largest enrollment decrease was in middle-income “Paid Lunch” students, decreasing the city’s ability to have economically integrated schools.

• Cambridge needs to adopt policies, practices, and programs that will achieve two goals: 1) decrease achievement gaps between low-income and non-low-income students and between African American and Latino students as compared with white and Asian students; and increase enrollment by attracting middle income families of all races, ethnicities, and nationalities to Cambridge.

• One promising program would be a citywide K-5 world language program. Such a program would offer low-income students a benefit not available in other school districts, and would attract new middle-income families to Cambridge.

One of the largest challenges the Cambridge Public Schools faces is maintaining and increasing

enrollment.

In 2000, CPS enrollment was 7,367 students. In 2012 it was 6,224 students.

In particular, Cambridge runs the risk of not enrolling enough middle-income students to

keep the schools economically integrated and diverse.

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 5,500

5,700

5,900

6,100

6,300

6,500

6,700

6,900

7,100

7,300

7,500

7,3677,296

7,111

6,756

6,450

6,001

5,7975,861

5,950

6,1376,202 6,224

Cambridge Public School Enrollment: FY02-FY12

Source: Unless stated otherwise, all CPS enrollment figures are from the CPS FY11 Adopted Budget and FY13 Proposed Budget.

Over 6 years, between 2001 and 2007, Cambridge’s enrollment dropped by 1,570 students (21%). Enrollment began to increase again in 2008. Over the past 5 years it has regained 427 students, a little more than one-fourth of what it lost.

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 5,500

5,700

5,900

6,100

6,300

6,500

6,700

6,900

7,100

7,300

7,500

7,3677,296

7,111

6,756

6,450

6,001

5,7975,861

5,950

6,1376,202 6,224

Cambridge Public School Enrollment: FY02-FY12 Some attribute the rapid drop in en-

rollment to the “Consolidation,” in which three schools were closed (and their populations reassigned to three other schools), and three schools were physically moved to new locations. The Consolidation Plan was approved in the Spring of 2003 and implemented in the Fall of 2003.

Belmont and Arlington did not experience the same enrollment

decrease in the first half of the 2000s.

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-04

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

7367

5797

6224

4215

4548

4858

35633727

3961

Cambridge, Arlington, Belmont Enrollment

CambridgeArlingtonBelmont

Axis Title

While Cambridge’s enrollment decreased by 21% between 2000 and 2007, Belmont and Arlington’s enrollment increased by 5% and 8% respectively during that time period.

Source for Arlington and Belmont enrollment figures: Mass DESE website.

Is it housing prices? Cambridge & Brookline

Brookline is Cambridge’s main competitor for middle class, college-educated parents of all races and ethnicities who want to live in a cosmopolitan, semi-urban environment.

Housing prices and cost-of-living in Brookline are just as high as in Cambridge, and showed the same steep increases in the 2000s. Brookline, however, did not suffered a dramatic decrease in its school enrollment like Cambridge did.

Brookline Cambridge$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$395,000

$331,600

$629,897

$566,100

Median Price of House/Condo: Brookline & Cambridge (2000 & 2009)

20002009

Cambridge 2011 Cost of living index = 145.0 (“very high”)

Brookline 2011 Cost of living index = 146.1 (“very high”)

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-04

2005-06

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

Proj 1

2-13

Proj 1

3-14

Proj 1

4-15

Proj 1

5-16

Proj 1

6-175500

5700

5900

6100

6300

6500

6700

6900

7100

7300

7500

73677296

7111

6756

6450

6001

57975861

5950

61376202 6224

63366395

64626553

6620

6028

59155828 5811 5775 5766

5883 5906

6072

6217

63786604

6746

6894

7078

7208

7340

Total Enrollment: Cambridge and Brookline

CambridgeBrookline

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

s

In 2000, Cambridge had 1,340 more students than Brookline Over the 7 years that Cambridge’s enrollment dropped by 1,570 students (21%), Brookline’s enrollment dropped by only 260 students (4%).

Over the past 5 years, CPS has increased by 427 students. Brookline has increased by 720 students.

In 5 years, Brookline is projected to have 720 more students than CPS.

Source for Brookline enrollment: Brookline Adopted Budget FY12 and Brookline Proposed Budget, FY13.

How did the decline in Cambridge’s enrollment affect the demographics

of its student population?

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-04 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-121500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2584

3273

2613 2612

3031

2748

2393

2553 2533

27092620

2927

4526

3773

4162

3825

31523055

32063129

3237 3241

3399

3125

Cambridge Enrollment: Low-Income & Not Low-Income

# Low-Inc# Not Low-Inc

# St

uden

ts

The number of low-income students in CPS peaked in 2002 and 2004, but otherwise did not show any dramatic increase or decline.

Most of the CPS enrollment decline was in non-low-income (Paid Lunch) students, whose numbers went from 4,525 in 2000 to 3,055 in 2005.

Source for data on CPS SES and race-based enrollments: Mass DESE website.

The future of Cambridge’s SES balance: Does it matter if middle-income families

choose Brookline?

Derek W. Black, professor at Howard University School of Law, wrote an 2012 article called, “Middle-Income Peers as Educational Resources and the Constitutional Right to Access.”

“Legally relevant educational resources tend to be conceptualized as those things schools can buy, develop, or create

that have positive impacts on educational outcomes. This conceptualization is overly narrow and ignores reality.

Schools enjoy any number of important re- sources that they do not and cannot buy, such as the communities, public

services, partnerships, and private industries surrounding them that support the educational environment. The more

important and direct noneconomic resource, however, is a school district’s middle- income students. Common

sense and social science indicate that students learn not only from their teachers, but also from their peers. Middle-

income peers (and their parents), in particular, bring a host of experiences, outside learning, and high expectations to

schools that positively impact other students in their schools. The percentage of middle income students in

a school can be more important to the educational achievement of all students in that school than

any other resource or factor. Students, regardless of their individual socioeconomic status or race, achieve at

higher levels in predominantly middle class schools and at lower levels in predominantly poor schools. In short,

although not a traditional resource that schools can buy, middle- income students are an invaluable resource that

exerts significant influence on the achievement of all students.”

Derek W. Black, in Boston College Review, 32, 2, p. 337. (Bold is my emphases.)

Cambridge spending on schools:What role does spending play in enrollment increase or decline?

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY1350

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

113.0 116.6 117.9 122.1 124.1 125.4 127.7 130.7 133.6 137.5 140.7 144.9

206.4215.5

223.6240.3

256.1270.1

284.6

303.4310.6

322.2331.5

343

School Spending Vs. Non-School Spending In Cambridge: 2002-2013

School Spending

Non-School SpendingCity

Bud

get E

xpen

ditu

res i

n M

illio

ns o

f Dol

lars

The 2000s saw a steep rise in non-school city spending, which rose from $206 million in 2002 to $343 million in 2013, a 66% increase.

School spending, however, increased by only 28% in that time period.

Non-School City

Spending

School Spending

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY1329.0%

30.0%

31.0%

32.0%

33.0%

34.0%

33.3%

34.0%34.1%

32.5%

32.6%

31.7%

31.0%

30.1% 30.1%29.9%

29.8%29.7%

Cambridge School Spending FY02-FY13As a Percentage of Total City Spending

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cit

y Bu

dget

Spe

nt o

n Sc

hols

School spending as a percentage of total city spending decreased from 35.4% in FY02 to 29.7% in FY13, suggesting a declining city commitment to the schools.

Per Pupil Spending

One of the reason’s Cambridge’s per pupil spending is so high is not because Cambridge is

lavish with its school budgets at the school level. It is because enrollment currently is

low. Though we have fewer teachers now than in 2000, we are still supporting the same

number of curriculum coordinators, central office administrators, and maintenance

workers, and heating almost the same number of buildings as we did when we had 7,500

students. Cambridge also includes many services in its school budget that other cities

include in their human services budget, such as preschool costs, which inflate its per

pupil spending statistics.

In addition, according to the Massachusetts Department of Elementary an Secondary

Education (DESE), Cambridge spends more on administrative costs ($1,204 per pupil in

2010-11) than comparable districts like Brookline ($750 per pupil) or Newton ($517 per

pupil).

Chicken or egg?

The decrease in school spending coincided with:

• The decrease in total enrollment

• The decrease in the percentage of Paid Lunch students

• The decrease in the percentage of white students

Q: Did enrollment decrease because Cambridge reduced its investment in its schools?

Q: Did Cambridge reduce its investment in its schools because middle class and white enrollment decreased?

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY1329.0%

30.0%

31.0%

32.0%

33.0%

34.0%

33.3%

34.0%34.1%

32.5%

32.6%

31.7%

31.0%

30.1% 30.1%29.9%

29.8%29.7%

Cambridge School Spending FY02-FY13As a Percentage of Total City Spending

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cit

y Bu

dget

Spe

nt o

n Sc

hols 7296

7111

6756

6450

6001

57975861

5950

61376202 6224

6336

Enrollment numbers and spending percentages declined simultaneously.

SPENDING %

TotalENROLLMENT

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY1329.0%

30.0%

31.0%

32.0%

33.0%

34.0%

35.0%

33.3%

34.0%

34.1%

32.5%

32.6%

31.7%

31.0%

30.1% 30.1%29.9%

29.8%29.7%

Cambridge School Spending FY02-FY13As a Percentage of Total City Spending

Perc

enta

ge o

f Cit

y Bu

dget

Spe

nt o

n Sc

hols

% whitestudents

The percentage of white students and spending declined together.

40%

39%

37%

36%

35% 35%

36%

37%

36% 36%

37%

39%

SPENDING %

Recent enrollment trends

Though CPS enrollment began to increase in 2008, the increases have been smaller than

predicted based on the 5-years-prior birthrate.

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-125700

5800

5900

6000

6100

6200

6300

6400

6228

6364

5950

6137

62026224

Last Year’s Enrollment (2011-12): Actual vs. as Predicted

FY 11 ProjectedFY13 Actual

Last year (2011-12), enrollment was 140 students fewer than had been predicted in the previous year’s budget.

Two years ago, (2010-11), enrollment was only 26 students fewer than had been predicted in FY11’s budget.

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

2016-17

2018-19

5600

5800

6000

6200

6400

6600

6800

7000

7200

7400

7600

57975861

5950

61376202 6224

5883 5906

6072

6217

6378

6604

63366395

64626553

6620

6746

6894

7078

7208

73407442

Cambridge and Brookline: 2007-2019

CPS Actual FY07-FY12Brookline Actual FY07-FY12CPS Projected in FY12 BudgetCPS Projected in FY13 BudgetBrookline Projected in FY12 BudgetBrookline Projected in FY13 Budget

Num

ber o

f Stu

dent

sAccording to Brookline and Cambridge data, Brookline is projected to have 23% more stu-dents in 2018 than in 2000, while Cambridge is projected to have 16% fewer students than in 2000.

The leading edge of the CPS enrollment increase is the Amigos Spanish immersion school. In 2013, for the second year in a row, Amigos was the number one choice of all kindergarten registrants and of Paid Lunch families.

Curriculum innovation, such as JK-5 world language instruction, could help keep middle-income families in the Cambridge Public School System. Brookline passed a property tax override in 2008 in order to implement a district-wide K-6 world language program, which is now in its 5th year.

07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-132%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

22%

The Growing Popularity of Amigos: Kindergarten 1st Choices from 2007-08 to 2012-13

AmigosBaldwinGraham & ParksHaggertyMorse

Perc

enta

ge o

f 1st

Rou

nd R

egis

tran

ts

Baldwin dropped in popularity from 15% of all first choices to 10%.

17% (97) of kindergarten 1st round registrants listed Amigos as their 1st choice. 84 were Paid Lunch. Amigos has 76 kindergarten spaces.

CONCLUSIONS

• Cambridge lost many middle class students in the early 2000s, and it wasn’t only because of increasing housing prices; i.e. it reflected a decision, on the part of some families with choices, not to live in Cambridge or, if they stayed in Cambridge, to enroll in private, parochial, or charter schools instead of the public schools.

• This middle class flight coincided with a decrease in city’s investment in the schools in what was probably a self-perpetuating cycle: the less investment, the more flight; the more flight, the less investment.

• Cambridge’s enrollment is now increasing, but not at the rate it has predicted, and not at the rate of its close competitor, Brookline.

Continued

CONCLUSIONS, continued

• Cambridge values schools that are racially and economically integrated and culturally and linguistically diverse. It cannot maintain this diversity and avoid racial and economic segregation if its enrollment doesn’t increase and if it doesn’t enroll a higher proportion of middle income students.

• Student achievement research suggests that low-income and middle-income students show lower achievement in schools with a high concentration of low-income students; i.e. middle income students are a valuable resource when it comes to academic achievement. Some studies define “high-poverty schools” as those with more than 50% Free/Reduced lunch students.

• Cambridge needs to pursue policies and practices that will maintain and increase enrollment while also increasing the quality of its schools and the racial and economic integration of the school populations. Curriculum innovations such as JK-5 world language instruction could help keep middle-income families in Cambridge, while providing a valuable advantage to low-income students in the district.

For information and resources on school integration issues, see: www.school-diversity.org

Thank you for your interest in public school enrollment in Cambridge.

If you have questions or comments about this analysis, please contact CPS parent Emily Dexter, Ed.D.: emilydexter@post.harvard.edu.