Stamford School Plan

A Better School Plan for Stamford

August 2008

2

A Better School Plan

In 1896, the first traffic accident happened in the United States when a Duryea motor wagon collided with a bicycle in New York City. The man on the bicycle was sent to the hospital. The driver of the car was sent to jail.

It must not have been easy to adjust to the changes brought on by the auto. Britain initially struggled. In 1895, the country passed a law that all autos must be accompanied by a person walking in front of the vehicle, blowing a horn and carrying a red flag. The nascent British auto industry suffered for years as a result, falling behind their German (Benz, Daimler) and American (Oldsmobile, Ford) competitors.

America did adjust, however. Today we have an elaborate transportation system that handles an incredibly complex set of problems for drivers with very different needs. While NYC commuters might still complain, no one would argue that the traditional model would better handle today’s traffic (nor would anyone want to walk along I-95 with a flag and a horn).

But that’s exactly what we’re doing with Stamford’s public schools. Stamford, the city, has changed greatly over the years. Today we reside in one of the most affluent small cities, but also one with a large number of families needing financial assistance, and a growing number who speak a different language at home. Our school system simply hasn’t changed enough to serve both constituencies: Families who need additional English language instruction and those who want their children to learn Mandarin.

Why We Need A Change

3


The evidence of our problems is overwhelming. Thirteen of our seventeen elementary and middle schools are classified as “failing.” This designation comes despite spending 21% more money per student than the state average. Stamford spends more per student than Darien, our neighbor. Yet we get much poorer results.

Middle-class families have fled the public schools in large numbers. Our student population is falling, and we’re being forced to close schools.

The achievement gap between the economically disadvantaged children and their middle-class peers remains stubbornly high. Yet, despite evidence that the economically-disadvantaged students perform much better at the magnet schools, we’re closing one magnet (Rogers) and considering redistricting plans that would take seats away from the others.

I would argue that it’s time to rethink our entire approach to how we educate our children. In the following pages, I advocate that Stamford adopt a system where all schools are K-8, and all are magnets. I believe that such a move would lift the achievement level of our students, particularly those coming from economically disadvantaged homes. Furthermore, the higher test scores and the popular parental choice feature would attract middle-class families back into the system. Thus bringing an end to the vicious cycle of sagging achievement levels, middle-class flight and declining enrollment.


4


I am not an expert on this matter. I have tried to take into account all of the variables I could think of, and to base my proposal on the available facts. My goal here is not to push an agenda, but to open a dialogue with other parents concerned about the direction of our schools. I would welcome any thoughts or comments, and would be thrilled to see alternative proposals. Some day soon, I would like to see many of our collective ideas become reality.


5


I A Better School Plan

II How it Would Work

III How to Transition

IV How to Achieve Balance

V Students with Special Needs

VI A Word About…

VII Appendix

Table of Contents


7


• 16 or 17 K-8 Magnet Schools.

(I don’t know if a middle school is slated for closing)

Main Features

• Schools Grouped into 4 Zones.

Zones determined by geography.

• Each Zone has 4-5 Schools, each with a different Curriculum.

• Families Choose Among Schools Within their Zone Via a Lottery.

8


Raise the level of achievement for all students.

Goals

Close the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students.

Foster closer neighborhoods by bringing families back to the public school system.

9


• Students at magnet schools score higher in the CMT across all categories and grades.

• Economically disadvantaged students perform much better at the magnets.

Advantages

• More equitable. Families would have an equal chance at their preferred school. Money spent per student would be similar.

• Parental choice has proven popular in Stamford and nationally. This feature could attract families back to the public schools.

• School balance could be achieved gradually via a lottery. No more massive redistricting.

10

• Magnets perform better across all categories, school years.

% 3rdReading4th 5th Avg 3rd

Writing4th 5th Avg 3rd

Math4th 5th Avg

ES Magnets 74 69 79 74 88 86 91 88 81 83 86 83

ES District Schools

61 58 68 62 76 78 86 80 73 70 78 74

Difference 13 11 11 11 12 8 6 8 8 13 7 10

Scofield 86 78 87 84 94 86 92 91 88 84 84 85

MS District Schools

66 70 68 68 81 76 76 78 75 69 71 72

Difference 21 8 19 16 13 10 16 13 13 15 13 14

CMT Scores, General Population (‘07)


11

• Magnets make a bigger difference for economically disadvantaged students.

% 3rdReading4th 5th Avg 3rd

Writing4th 5th Avg 3rd

Math4th 5th Avg

ES Magnets 59 51 58 56 80 80 79 80 78 77 77 77

ES District Schools

42 35 49 42 65 66 76 69 60 53 64 59

Difference 17 16 8 14 15 14 3 11 18 25 13 18

Scofield 74 58 68 67 88 75 82 82 79 71 68 73

MS District Schools

48 49 49 49 72 60 59 64 61 50 54 55

Difference 26 9 19 18 17 15 23 18 19 22 14 18

CMT Scores, Economically Disadvantaged Students (‘07)


12


• A large transition.

• Expenses such as teacher training and facility renovations.

• Busing would be more complicated, and potentially more expensive.

Disadvantages

How it Would Work

14

How it Would Work

• Zones would be organized geographically.

• Each school in a zone would be K-8, and teach a different curriculum.

• Families would choose among the schools in their zone via a lottery.

North Zone (4 Schools)Possible schools:Northeast, Scofield, Davenport, Roxbury

Central Zone (4 Schools)Possible schools:Springdale, Rippowam, Newfield, Turn of River, Dolan

Southwest Zone (4 Schools)Possible schools:Stillmeadow, Hart, Cloonan, Westover

Southeast Zone (4-5 Schools)Possible schools: KT Murphy, EMS, Stark, Toquam, Dolan

15

How it Would Work

• Each of the curriculum has proven successful in Stamford.

• The BOE would ultimately be responsible for choosing the best options.

• The programs are popular. Approx. 4 families typically apply for every magnet seat.

Four Suggested Curricula

16

How it Would Work

• Through the lottery, families would choose among schools within their zone.

• Some capacity to select a school in a neighboring zone.

• The lottery would balance schools for enrollment/demographics.

The Lottery

Lottery Criteria

• Family preference.

• Proximity (especially the ability to walk).

• Demographics.

17

How it Would Work –An Example

• Families would initially be districted to a school within their zone.

• Families would swap, via the lottery, spots in their respective schools according to their preference (subject to availability).

Scenario: A family districted for Roxbury would rather attend another school.

Options in the North zone (proposed):

Northeast – “Westover” program

Scofield – Math & Science

Roxbury – Bank Street

Davenport – IB

18

How it Would Work – An Example

• Rules: Families should only apply to schools that they would attend.

• Rules: 2/3 choices should be within the districted zone.

• Goal would be to get everyone into one of their top two choices.

Sample Lottery Card

Districted School: RoxburyDistricted Zone: NorthSecondary Zone: Central

Choice 1: Davenport Choice 2: Scofield Choice 3: Northeast

Any other siblings in the Stamford public schools? If so, where ________?Do you qualify for a lunch program/ELL/assisted housing? Y __ N__ Does your child have any special needs? Yes ____ No_____

19

• 30 economically disadvantaged families would switch between schools.

• 20 middle-class families would switch.

Example (simplified)

How it Would Work – An Example

Economically Disadvantaged Seats Available

40 Disadvantaged Seats 30

Roxbury Davenport

Middle-Class Seats Available 20 Middle-Class Seats 30

How to Transition

21

How to Transition

• Little disruption. Current middle school children not impacted.

• Elementary students were going to switch anyways.

• Disadvantage: Busing would be complicated. Especially during the transition.

The Plan

• Transition over three years.

• Open only a few grades to the lottery per year.

• Wait for the current middle school children to graduate before switching entirely.

• Keep school sizes the same.

The Advantages/Disadvantages

22

• Year 1: Lottery for 6th, 5th and K.


• Year 3: Lottery for 4th, 3rd and K.

• Ensuing years, only K.

EnrollmentGeneric Elementary School Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

8th -- -- -- 67

7th -- -- 67 67

6th -- 67 67 66

5th 100 67 66 67

4th 100 100 67 66

3rd 100 100 100 67

2nd 100 100 100 66

1st 100 100 66 67

K 100 66 67 67

Total 600 600 600 600

3 Year Transition – Elementary School

How to Transition

• The least disruptive.

• Elementary students were going to switch for middle school anyways.

• Busing during the transition could be complicated.

23

• Existing middle school students are not impacted.

• School sizes remain the same.

• Busing, again, would be complicated.

EnrollmentGeneric Middle School Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

8th 200 200 200 67

7th 200 200 67 67

6th 200 67 67 66

5th -- 67 66 67

4th -- -- 67 67

3rd -- -- -- 66

2nd -- -- -- 66

1st -- -- 66 67

K -- 66 67 67

Total 600 600 600 600

3 Year Transition – Middle School

How to Transition



• Year 3: Lottery for 4th, 3rd and K.

• Ensuing years, only K.

24

• Not politically feasible. Too many families would be disrupted.

• Middle school students would be forced to switch schools, but with little benefit.

• A gradual transition means more time for teacher training, facility upgrades.

Why Not All at Once?

How to Transition

How to Achieve Balance

26


• Achieves balance with reasonable bus rides.

• Keeps middle class families in the public schools.

• Gives more families a second chance at the curriculum of their choice.

• Disadvantages: Busing would be complicated.

Use the Central Zone as a Conduit between the North and South zones.

• Bus economically disadvantaged children to the Central zone from the South.

• Return middle-class children to the South from the Central zone.

• Bus economically disadvantaged students to the North from the Central zone.

• Return middle-class children to the Central zone from the North.

Advantages/Disadvantages

27


• Balance entails moving disadvantaged SE students northward. And vice-versa.

• Southwest and Central need limited balancing, if at all.

• (for ‘estimates w/out busing’, see Appendix)

The district average is 46.5%.

Acceptable range is 36.5% – 56.5%.

North ZoneEconomically Disadvantaged %: 41.7Estimated w/out busing: 36 %

Central ZoneEconomically Disadvantaged %: 43.6Estimated w/out busing: 38 %

Southwest ZoneEconomically Disadvantaged %: 43.6Estimated w/out busing: 49%

Southeast ZoneEconomically Disadvantaged %: 56.1 Estimated w/out busing: 61%

28


• Achieve balance by busing less than 9% of the students between zones (see appendix).

• Families in the N, C & SE zones would have a 2nd chance at a curriculum.

• Shorter bus rides. Fewer families leaving the public schools.

• If we attract non-district, middle-class students to the EMS (SE Zone), our busing needs fall.

Bus 274 disadvantaged students from the Southeast to Central. Return 274 non-disadvantaged students from Central to the Southeast.

Bus 163 disadvantaged students from Central to the North. Return 163 non-disadvantaged students to Central. (see appendix)

North ZoneEstimated economically disadvantaged %: 36New target %: 42

Central ZoneEstimated economically disadvantaged %: 38New target %: 42

Southwest ZoneEstimated economically disadvantaged %: 49New target %: 49

Southeast ZoneEstimated economically disadvantaged %: 61New target %: 51

29

• The bus rides would be long.

• Middle class, Northern families would likely not tolerate the long bus rides into an unfamiliar school zone.

Why Not Bus Directly Between the North and South?


Students with Special Needs

31

Students With Special Needs

• Each zone would have one school that would specialize in treating students with special needs.

• Each of these schools would offer a different curriculum.

• Families would help choose which school is right for their child.

The Plan

A Word About….

33

A Word about…

• We already bus a significant portion of our students across zones to achieve balance (have you seen our district map?), attend middle school, or go to the magnets.

• Better balance within the zones lessens the need to bus between them. Springdale has 52% of its population economically disadvantaged, while Newfield only has 31%. The schools are just 1.1 miles apart.

A Word about Busing

• My numbers show that balance between the zones can be achieved with limited busing.

• Longer bus rides, if need be, would be worth it. Especially if it was only temporary because of a transition period.

• The need for busing declines as we bring in out-of-district students.

34

A Word about…

• We could lessen the impact by gradually training teachers, spreading out the facility alterations.

• Couldn’t outside money help? For example, could GE’s math & sciences grant help pay to train our ‘Math & Sciences’ teachers?

A Word about Expenses

• Thinking outside the box, converting our system to magnet schools opens up the possibility of more out-of-district students.

• More out-of-district students means more state money.

• More out-of-district students would offset our declining enrollment.

• If we opened up our Southeast zone to outside students, it would reduce the need for busing.

• If we opened up our Southeast zone, we could ask the state to help pay to refurbish the facility at Rogers.

Appendix

Appendix

07 CMT ResultsEntire Student Body, ‘07 CMT

Reading Writing Math 3rd 4th 5th Avg 3rd 4th 5th Avg 3rd 4th 5th Avg

Hart 66 41 62 56 78 61 83 74 80 63 80 74Toquam 75 86 84 82 85 92 89 89 70 81 76 76Westover 90 81 88 86 100 98 97 98 93 96 95 95Rogers 65 67 82 71 87 91 96 91 82 91 91 88

Magnet Avg. 74 69 79 74 88 86 91 88 81 83 86 83

Newfield 63 72 65 67 90 82 87 86 79 74 65 73NorthEast 75 66 76 72 88 89 91 89 86 80 81 82Roxbury 68 61 73 67 81 83 81 82 69 68 74 70Springdale 58 55 68 60 77 78 81 79 72 67 82 74Stillmeadow 58 60 74 64 80 81 92 84 69 71 86 75Davenport 74 54 70 66 87 72 87 82 86 76 79 80Stark 45 58 62 55 53 74 87 71 49 65 83 66KT Murphy 49 38 57 48 51 62 79 64 77 55 75 69

District Avg. 61 58 68 62 76 78 86 80 73 70 78 74

Difference 13 11 11 11 12 8 6 8 8 13 7 10Source : CMT, greatschools.net

36

Appendix

07 CMT Results

Entire Student Body, ‘07 CMT

Reading Writing Math

6th 7th 8th Avg 6th 7th 8th Avg 6th 7th 8th Avg

Scofield 86 78 87 84 94 86 92 91 88 84 84 85

Cloonan 65 67 70 67 77 75 79 77 74 68 69 70

Dolan 63 73 73 70 81 74 82 79 78 69 75 74

Rippowam 65 77 66 69 81 77 72 77 71 72 71 71

Turn of River 69 63 63 65 86 77 70 78 76 68 70 71

District Avg. 66 70 68 68 81 76 76 78 75 69 71 72

Difference 21 8 19 16 13 10 16 13 13 15 13 14

Source : CMT, greatschools.net

37

Appendix

07 CMT ResultsEconomically Disadvantaged Students, ‘07 CMT

Reading Writing Math 3rd 4th 5th Avg 3rd 4th 5th Avg 3rd 4th 5th Avg

Hart 49 33 45 42 64 49 68 60 73 55 74 67Toquam 62 65 44 57 74 85 62 74 77 75 56 69Westover 74 42 68 61 100 96 92 96 87 88 87 87Rogers 50 63 73 62 82 89 95 89 75 91 89 85

Magnet Avg. 59 51 58 56 80 80 79 80 78 77 77 77

Newfield 29 43 22 31 77 68 70 72 58 55 37 50Northeast 54 37 60 50 77 79 85 80 73 60 63 65Roxbury 43 21 41 35 67 70 57 65 43 33 49 42Springdale 30 34 44 36 60 64 67 64 54 58 67 60Stillmeadow 40 38 66 48 72 71 90 78 58 48 71 59Davenport 58 30 56 48 76 54 79 70 78 61 67 69Stark 39 45 57 47 41 64 86 64 46 52 78 59KT Murphy 43 31 48 41 49 59 73 60 73 53 76 67

District Avg. 42 35 49 42 65 66 76 69 60 53 64 59

Difference 17 16 8 14 15 14 3 11 18 25 13 18


38

Appendix

07 CMT Results

Economically Disadvantaged Students

Reading Writing Math

6th 7th 8th Avg 6th 7th 8th Avg 6th 7th 8th Avg

Scofield 74 58 68 67 88 75 82 82 79 71 68 73

Cloonan 54 47 52 51 66 54 65 62 66 45 49 53

Dolan 47 52 59 53 73 61 64 66 65 52 58 58

Rippowam 45 56 44 48 70 63 54 62 55 51 55 54

Turn of River 45 41 41 42 77 63 54 65 56 50 55 54

District Avg. 48 49 49 49 72 60 59 64 61 50 54 55

Difference 26 9 19 18 17 15 23 18 19 22 14 18


39

Appendix

Busing for BalanceMy guess. School regions without current busingOriginal Data from Stamford BOE. My guess is my own. (cont. on next pg.)

MyGuess

(ex-busing) New New New DisAd MC DisAd MCNet Chg

Actual Actual Guess Guess Tgt TgtStudent

s StudentsStudent

s Students Students +/-

North Enrollmt DisAd DisAd DisAd DisAd DisAd Moved +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

Scofield 604 34.3% 207

Northeast 814 40.7% 331

Davenport 514 52.5% 270

Roxbury 651 41.2% 268

2583 41.7% 1077 36.0% 930 42.3% 1093 163 -- -- 163 -163 163

Central

Springdale 567 51.8% 294

Newfield 630 31.4% 198

Rippowam 811 47.0% 381

Turn of River 612 44.2% 271

2620 43.6% 1143 38.0% 996 42.3% 1108 113 274 -274 -163 163 111

40

Appendix

Busing for Balance

My guess for the school regions without current busing, cont…

Original Data: Stamford BOE. My guess is my own.

Guess ex-busng New New New DisAd MC DisAd MC Net Chg

Actual Actual Guess Guess Tgt Tgt Students Students Students Students Students +/-

Enrollmt DisAd DisAd DisAd DisAd DisAd Moved +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

Southeast

Toquam 453 38.2% 173

Stark 591 59.9% 354

KT Murphy 545 68.8% 375

Rogers/EMS 527 64.8% 341

Dolan 624 47.2% 295

2740 56.1% 1538 61.0% 1671 51.0% 1397 -274 -274 274 -- -- -274

Southwest

Hart 417 61.8% 258

Cloonan 594 43.3% 257

Westover 633 32.0% 203

Stillmeadow 586 43.4% 254

2230 43.6% 972 49.0% 1093 49.0% 1093 0 -- -- -- -- 0

10173 46.5% 4730

Students Moved 874

% 8.6%

41

Sports

Stamford School Plan