The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis

Transcription

1 The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis

2 Acknowledgements Special thanks to Bill Taft, Executive Director, and Rachel McIntosh, Program Director, of Indianapolis LISC for their invaluable, early and ongoing assistance and support of this study. IFF thanks the following individuals for their assistance with this project: Study Advisory Committee Central Indiana Community Foundation Roderick Wheeler, Senior Grants Officer LaMont Hulse, Director of Community Collaborations Central Indiana Corporate Partnership Mark Miles, President and CEO City of Indianapolis Jason Kloth, Deputy Mayor of Education Beth Bray, Director of Charter Schools Indiana Charter Schools Association Russ Simnick, President Indiana Charter School Board Claire Fiddian-Green, Executive Director Indiana Non-Public Education Association John Elcesser, Executive Director School Choice Indiana Lindsay Brown, Executive Director Stand for Children Linda Erlinger, Executive Director Karega Rausch, Indianapolis Director The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice Robert Enlow, President and CEO The Mind Trust David Harris, Founder and CEO Patrick Herrel, VP of Education Initiatives United Way of Central Indiana Jay Geshay, Senior VP, Community Planning and Strategic Initiatives University of Indianapolis, Center for Excellence in Leadership David Dressler, EdD, Executive Director IFF Project Staff Joe Neri, CEO Trinita Logue, President R. Jovita Baber, PhD, Director of Research Cristina Silva, Research Project Manager Marc Brailov, VP, Public Policy and Communications John Kuhnen, Chief Administrative Officer Candice Koveleskie, Administrative Assistant Special thanks to: Dennis Brooks, EdD, Senior Advisor to State Superintendent Moira O Donovan Warnement, former Research Project Manager, IFF Cover Photo Credit: MSD of Wayne Township, photo of Ben Davis University High School Design: Sam Silvio IFF March 2013 The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis

3 Table of Contents 1 Preface 2 Brief Methodology 3 Executive Summary 3 Key Findings 4 Recommendations 5 Citywide Analysis 7 Education Policy and Practice Overview 7 Citywide Performing Capacity and Service Gap 8 The State s A-F System and School 9 School and Service Gap 10 The Top 11 Priority Areas 12 Demographics 12 Demographics and School 16 Demographics and School-Readiness 16 High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income 17 Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools 22 Grade Division Analysis 25 Grade K-8 35 Grade Recommendations 46 Priority Areas Profiles 48 Priority Area Rank 1: Area 37 (zip code in MSD Perry Township) 50 Priority Area Rank 2: Area 19 (zip code in Indianapolis Public Schools) 52 Priority Area Rank 3: Area 4 (zip code in MSD Washington Township) 54 Priority Area Rank 4: Area 16 (zip codes and in MSD Wayne Township) 56 Priority Area Rank 5: Area 3 (zip codes 46228, and in MSD Pike Township) 58 Priority Area Rank 6: Area 32 (zip codes and in MSD Warren Township) 60 Priority Area Rank 7: Area 14 (zip code in MSD Wayne Township) 62 Priority Area Rank 8: Area 25 (zip code in Indianapolis Public Schools) 64 Priority Area Rank 9: Area 35 (zip code in MSD Decatur Township) 66 Priority Area Rank 10: Area 27 (zip code in Indianapolis Public Schools) 68 Priority Area Rank 11: Area 30 (zip codes and in Indianapolis Public Schools) 70 Appendix: Detailed Research Methodology 70 Supply 71 Demand 71 Service Gap 71 Priority Areas 72 Student Commute 72 Data Sources iv

4 Preface The Shared Challenges of Quality Schools: A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis is a study conducted by the Research Department of IFF and funded by The Joyce Foundation and The Walton Family Foundation. IFF is a regional nonprofit community development financial institution. Since 1988, IFF has provided financing and real estate consulting to nonprofit corporations. Today, IFF provides comprehensive community development solutions in five Midwestern states and its Research Department consults to municipalities, foundations, associations and nonprofit corporations throughout the country and provides analysis that improves focus and resource allocation. Since 1996, IFF's Research Department has conducted needs assessments for school districts to identify where the greatest numbers of children need better access to performing schools. IFF school studies evolved out of a partnership with district leaders in Chicago Public Schools (CPS), which, in 2003, recognized a need to identify priority community areas in Chicago for the location of new performing schools. This allowed the district to focus their reform efforts and led to better distribution of choices for families. IFF s methodology has evolved and been adapted to guide school reform efforts in St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Denver, and Washington, D.C. IFF s school study is distinctive in its assessment of capacity based on performance and facilities, as well as its spatial analysis of performing capacity at a neighborhood level. This neighborhood-level approach helps education stakeholders focus investments where they will reach the greatest number of underserved children. In other cities, the data and analysis has informed such decisions as the disposal of vacant buildings, targeted investment in district schools, identification of schools for potential turnarounds, consolidation of underutilized buildings, investment in facilities modernization, locating magnet programs, solicitations for charter schools applications, selection criteria for charter schools, and targeted communication to particular neighborhoods or populations regarding school choice options. 1

5 Brief Methodology Executive Summary A careful reading of the methodology is advised to assist in a full understanding of the report, its terminology and mapping models. A brief discussion of the methodology is presented here. A more detailed description of the methodology is presented in the Appendix: Detailed Research Methodology. Methodologically, the study is a supply and demand needs assessment. Demand is the number of students living in a neighborhood. Supply is the capacity of high-performing schools. High-performing schools are schools that earned a grade A or B on the state accountability metrics (Public Law 221). This study calculates the Service Gap, the difference between the capacity of high-performing schools and number of students, for each of the 42 zip code based geographies (hereafter, called Areas) in Indianapolis. The study is predominately based on data from the academic year. However, because the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) introduced a new methodology in, which shifted the additive emphasis from cohort improvement to individual school growth, IFF calculated performing capacity for and. For each grade division (K-8 and 9-12), the study subtracts the number of children in each Area from the number of high-performing seats available to children in the same Area, for each year. The difference in demand and supply is the Service Gap. After calculating the service gap for each Area, the 42 Areas were ranked by their need for high-performing seats, from highest to lowest, for each grade division and for each year. The core ranking includes district and charter schools. A supplementary ranking that incorporates fully accredited and accredited-freeway 1 independent schools that report performance and enrollment data to IDOE is provided for reference. The Priority Areas are the Areas with the highest mean rank across the grade divisions and years. Various mean ranks were calculated to test the point of variance in the highest ranked Areas. The top 11 Priority Areas consistently and reliably remained the highest ranked Areas when various means were calculated, while the Area ranked 12th changed from year-to-year and across the grade divisions. The Shared Challenges of Quality Schools: A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis is a study about neighborhoods, children and access to highperforming schools. It identifies where the greatest number of children need better access to high-performing schools in order to enhance the focus of education reform. It provides data and analysis that is actionable to maximize the impact of resources. It assumes that all students should have access to a high-performing school regardless of school type in their neighborhood. At its heart lies the question, What areas in Indianapolis have the greatest need for high-performing seats? In providing an answer to this question, it aims to unite district, charter, and independent school leaders around the shared goal of providing quality schools for all children. Key Findings Marion County has 11 districts with 182 schools, 22 charter schools and 52 independent schools serving 154,000 students. To provide every child with a seat in a highperforming school, Marion County needs approximately 78,000 category A or B seats. Most of the citywide need is concentrated in the top 11 Priority Areas. Despite changes to the state accountability metrics, from to, Indianapolis consistently needs approximately 45,000 high-performing seats in the Priority Areas. Performing Capacity. The performing capacity of district and charter schools increased from 39,315 seats in to 59,032 seats in. Most of the change in performance was due to changes in the methodology of the state accountability metrics. Independent schools had the largest concentration of high-performing schools. They contributed approximately 15,000 high-performing seats across and. Of the 45 independent schools in, 93 percent were category A or B. In, 87 percent of independent schools were category A or B. 1. Fully Accredited public and independent schools must conform to all legal standards, and annually submit a three-year school improvement plan to IDOE each fall. Independent schools also have the option of being Accredited-Freeway Schools and have more flexibility on state regulations and legal standards, and a contract with the State Board serves as the school improvement plan. Charter schools had the second highest percent of highperforming schools. Of the 21 charter schools in and 23 in, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively, were category A or B. District schools had the highest number of category A and B schools across both years, but the lowest percent of high-performing schools. Service Gap. With the changes to the state accountability metrics, the citywide service gap dropped by 20 percent, from a need for approximately 98,000 high-performing seats in to 78,000 in. Despite the citywide change, the service gap remained concentrated in 11 Priority Areas. In, Priority Areas needed 45,306 high-performing seats, which constituted 46 percent of the citywide need. In, they needed 44,081 high-performing seats, which constituted 56 percent of the citywide need. The drop in citywide service gap intensified the concentration of need in the Priority Areas. Priority Areas. The Priority Areas are not concentrated in one school district. They are located throughout the city. The Priority Areas that the study identified are: 1. Area 37 (46227 in MSD Perry Township) 2. Area 19 (46222 in Indianapolis Public Schools) 3. Area 4 (46260 in MSD Washington Township) 4. Area 16 (46241 and in MSD Wayne Township) 5. Area 3 (46228, and in MSD Pike Township) 6. Area 32 (46229 and in MSD Warren Township) 7. Area 14 (46214 in MSD Wayne Township) 8. Area 25 (46218 in Indianapolis Public Schools) 9. Area 35 (46221 in MSD Decatur Township) 10. Area 27 (46201 in Indianapolis Public Schools) 11. Area 30 (46203 and in Indianapolis Public Schools) Demographics and School-Readiness. While the city center has seen a decline in school-age population, most of the townships have experienced an influx of children and, for many, a parallel increase of low-income children. In examining factors that influence school-readiness in children, the Priority Areas on average have a slightly 2 3

6 Citywide Analysis higher percent of students living in low-income households and a slightly lower educational attainment for adults (individuals over 25 years of age). The Priority Areas average eight percent more children living in low-income households, with 47 percent as compared to 39 percent citywide. Four percent fewer adults have a high school diploma (84 percent citywide and 80 percent in the Priority Areas), and eight percent fewer adults in these communities have attained a bachelor s or advanced degree. Otherwise, the Priority Areas have comparable rates of mobility; 19 percent of households change residence each year in the Priority Areas and in Marion County. A similar percent of individuals do not speak English well (six percent citywide as compared to seven percent in the Priority Areas). Priority Area Profiles. While the population in the Priority Areas is not significantly different from the demographic average for Marion County, the individual Priority Areas are quite distinct from each other. In four Priority Areas, 32 percent of children live in low-income households and, in another four, between 58 and 72 percent of children live in low-income households. While on average seven percent of the individuals in Priority Areas do not speak English well, in Area 19, it doubles to 13 percent. The Area Profiles at the end of the report provide demographic and school data. High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income. In light of the higher percent of children from low-income households, schools serving students in the Priority Areas may need strategies, programs, and resources that address the educational needs of low-income children. Although charter schools served fewer students, charter schools served a higher proportion of students from low-income households in category A or B schools than district or independent schools. In a closer analysis of individual schools that remained category A or B across and, Indianapolis has six district, five charter and six independent schools that successfully provided high-performing seats to a student body with an above average percent of students from low-income households. These 17 schools are an important resource. They provide models for Indianapolis reform efforts. Neighborhood Schools. In 2010-, 84 percent of students citywide attended a district school and, of these, 76 percent attended their assigned neighborhood school. Five percent of students attended a charter school and 11 percent attended an independent school. A reform strategy that focuses solely on expanding charter and independent schools, without investing to improve the schools that the vast majority of students attend, will not close the service gap. Priority Areas and. Nearly half of the students (20,121) in the Priority Areas attended a neighborhood school with a category C grade in. Directing public and private resources to improve the performance of neighborhood schools that consistently score just below category A and B can be an efficient and cost-effective strategy. Finally, nearly 19,000 students in the Priority Areas attend a neighborhood, magnet, or charter school that was a category D or F in. Utilization. With few exceptions, schools that remained category A and B in both and operated at full capacity. A few independent schools and several district schools in Franklin Township, Beech Grove, and Speedway have unfilled seats. Creating opportunities for children to attend high-performing schools that have open seats might positively benefit the Priority Areas. Recommendations 1. Set a goal and timeline for new performing seats. 2. Focus resources on the top 11 Priority Areas. 3. Develop a differentiated strategy to increase the seats in each Priority Area based on an assessment of the education needs of the communities, and the strengths and challenges of each school serving the community. 4. Create incentives for category A or B schools serving a higher-than-average percent of low-income students to replicate their schools, expand their programs and share their successes. 5. Complete an analysis for each persistently lowperforming school serving a Priority Area to inform a decision on potential reconstitution or closure. 4 5

7 Citywide Analysis This study focuses on children in kindergarten to grade 12 and the public (district and charter) schools that serve them. However, as an important supplement, it also includes children in independent schools that report performance and enrollment data to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), namely fully accredited and freeway-accredited schools. 2 In essence, it includes the student population shown in red font in Table 1. Table 1: District schools serve 84 percent of Indianapolis students. School Type and Enrollment Numbers 2010 District Charter Independent Type of School Number of Campuses Pre-K Student Enrolled in In , approximately 154,000 school-age children enrolled in 256 schools. Enrollment numbers in -12 remained largely the same. Eighty-four percent of Indianapolis students attended a district school, and 76 percent of those students attended their assigned neighborhood school. Eleven percent of students attended an independent school, and five percent a charter school Enrolled in Enrolled Public Neighborhood ,174 32,735 97,670 Public Magnet ,220 4,798 28,118 Public Alternative Public Special Services Public Selective Enrollment Public Early Learning ,447-2, ,425 89,431 38, ,961 Catholic ,317 4,773 12,470 Lutheran Christian Other ,211 Independent Other Independent Special Services Independent-not reporting performance data ,637 6,250 16,409 11% Charter Mayor's Office ,633 1,703 6,351 Charter Ball State 4-1, ,958 Charter Ball State-Virtual ,523 1,869 8,407 5% Grand 256 1, ,591 46, , % Source: 2010 Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) enrollment data. K-8 Enrolled in Education Policy and Practice Overview The current education landscape in Indianapolis emerged over the previous decade. In 2001, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation to create charter schools in Indiana. Charter schools are independently operated public schools, which have more autonomy than district schools. In Indiana, school boards, four-year public universities, certain private universities, and the mayor of Indianapolis can authorize charter schools. The mayor's office and Ball State University have authorized the charter schools in this study. In, the Indiana legislature and governor established the Indiana Charter School Board, an independent state agency that can authorize schools statewide, including Indianapolis. As of , charter schools receive state per-pupil funding based on their enrollment counts and reimbursed at the rate of the district in which they reside. In Indianapolis, most charter schools have located in the Indianapolis Public School district, partially influenced by the higher per-pupil reimbursement rate in that district. In comparison, independent schools are located throughout Marion County. In the mid-1990s, when Indiana established freeway-accredited schools, many independent Corporation In-Study Enrollment Number of Grade A & B Schools schools began to report performance data as part of the state accreditation requirements. The majority of independent schools now are fully accredited or freewayaccredited schools. With the passage of the Choice Scholarship Program, in, these schools qualified for government-funded tuition vouchers for students from low-income and middle class families. Families with incomes below 185 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (185 percent FPL) receive a voucher for 90 percent of the per-pupil funding. Families with incomes that are 150 percent of 185 percent FPL (approximately $64,000 for a four-person household) receive a voucher for 50 percent of the per-pupil funding rate. Schools authorized to accept vouchers are included in this study. Citywide Performing Capacity and Service Gap Using the state accountability system, established by Public Law 221 (PL 221) in 1999, this study considers category A and B schools as high performing. To provide every child access to a high-performing school, Indianapolis needed approximately 98,000 additional seats in category A or B schools in The need for high-performing seats dropped to approximately 78,000 seats in -12. Table 2: To provide every child access to a high-performing school, Indianapolis needs at least 78,000 additional seats in category A or B schools. Citywide Service by Corporation Type Performing Seats Service Level Service Gap of Service Gap District & Charter K-8 97, ,513 37% 61,322 62% , ,802 7% 36,929 38% 137, ,315 29% 98, % Independent K-8 10, ,126 99% 148 0% , , % Grand 153, , , % 2. Fully Accredited public and independent schools must conform to all legal standards, and annually submit a three-year school improvement plan to IDOE each fall. Independent schools also have the option of being Accredited-Freeway Schools and have more flexibility on state regulations and legal standards, and a contract with the State Board serves as the school improvement plan. 6 - District & Charter K-8 97, ,148 42% 56,325 72% , , ,411 28% 136, ,032 43% 77, % Independent K-8 10, , ,445 1% , , % % Grand 153, ,863 49% 78, % Sources: 2010 and IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010 and student-level data from Corporations; and student performance data. 7

8 Category A and B public (district and charter) schools provided 39,315 seats citywide in and 59,032 seats in, as Table 2 indicates. They enrolled 29 percent of kindergarten to grade 12 students in and 43 percent in. In both years, independent schools consistently provided approximately 15,000 high-performing seats. When independent schools are included in the analysis, students enrolled in high-performing schools increased from 29 percent to 36 percent in and from 43 percent to 49 percent in. The State s A-F System and School. The 20,000-seat increase in category A and B schools, between and, reflects changes in the state accountability system rather than whether Indianapolis schools improved or declined. From to, the percent of students testing at or above grade level in Marion County increased by only 1.69 percent. In, 59.5 percent of students in Marion County public schools passed both the English and Math components of ISTEP (Indiana State Test for Educational Progress). In, it increased to 61.5 percent. Since the passing of PL 221, the percent of students that score at or above grade level on the ISTEP or, student achievement has been the baseline of the state s accountability system. In , the state refined its accountability system by introducing a tiered system that raised or lowered a school s baseline category with a formula based on a school s improvement in student achievement over the previous years. Schools initially were categorized as exemplary progress, commendable progress, academic progress, academic watch and academic probation, and later by A, B, C, D or F grades. In, the state replaced the improvement component of the A-F system, as it is known, with the Indiana Growth Model. As of, a formula that examines each student's individual growth relative to his or her statewide cohort raises or lowers a school s grade. While achievement scores and ISTEP underlie the calculations for both and, replacing school improvement with individual student growth significantly transforms the A-F system. For most schools, their grade does not predict their grade because the methodology measures different qualities of performance. 3 The significant change in the A-F system, between and, prompted IFF researchers to run the full service gap analysis for both and performance data, as opposed to only data as initially planned (see Appendix 1: Detailed Research Methodology, for further discussion). Importantly, recognizing the differences between the A-F system in and can assist stakeholders in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Indianapolis schools. Variance in a school's category between and largely reflects schools performances in regards to improvement () or individual student growth (), as opposed to whether a school is better or worse. Schools that remained category A or B across and display their high performance in achievement (the baseline for both years), cohort improvement (the additive component in ) and individual student growth (the additive component in ). Thirty-seven of the 52 public schools (71 percent) remained category A or B across and (see Chart 1). Eight of 11 charter schools (73 percent), and 35 of 40 private schools (88 percent) that were category A or B in remained category A or B in. Some schools had sufficient achievement and improvement in to be category A or B, but did not have sufficient student growth in to receive the same high rating. For example, 15 of the 52 district schools (29 percent) that were category A or B in scored lower in. Conversely, 32 district schools improved from category C or below in to category A or B in To illustrate, there was only a 66 percent correlation (.664 correlation coefficient) between the categories derived from the two methodologies when test data ( test data) is held constant. In January, IDOE released an estimated category, which applied the methodology to the test data. The data analytics of the categories calculated for each school, using the distinct methodology, also reveals that only 45 percent (square of Pearson's R) of the variability between schools old and new categories could be explained by a consistent notion of performance. 4. While some of these changes reflect high individual student growth in, the state also capped schools at category C in if target student populations showed insufficient improvement. The cap was removed in, with the introduction of the growth model. School and Service Gap. Districts had 56 category A or B schools in and 68 in. Independent schools had the highest percent of high-performing schools relative to the total number of independent schools. Of the 45 independent schools in, 93 percent were category A or B. In, 87 percent of the 46 independent schools were category A or B. Charter schools had the second highest percent of high-performing schools. Of the 21 charter schools in and 23 in, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively, were category A or B. Overall, in, 106 of 242 (44 percent) of all schools were category A or B. In, this increased to 119 of 243 (49 percent) of all schools. Independent schools and charter schools have limited influence on the service gap because they are small and their student bodies are dispersed. Most independent and charter schools draw students from a median distance of 2.3 miles, with 90 percent of students traveling less than seven miles. The 15,000 high-performing seats in independent schools have limited affect on the service gap in most Areas. High-performing charter schools mostly influence the service level in the Indianapolis Public School district. Districts manage the largest number of schools, and have the largest number of high-performing schools. In, 56 of 176 schools (32 percent) were category A or B. In, 68 of 174 schools (39 percent) were category A or B (see Chart 1). While district schools have a lower percent of high-performing schools, they are large schools and thus serve the most students. Districts also have the largest number of category D and F schools, and the most schools that remained category D or F across both years. Schools that are category D or F in both and are low performing in achievement, improvement or student growth or all of these factors. Moreover, most district schools are large and predominately serve the children in a nearby neighborhood. Districts thus have the greatest impact on the service gap and the service level across the city, and in the specific geographic Areas. As the state continues to refine its accountability metrics, it is clear that there are high-performing district, charter, and independent schools. Likewise, to varying degrees, all school types have underperforming schools. Chart 1 Although districts have the most category A and B schools, independent schools have the highest percent of category A or B schools District Independent Charter District Independent Charter Grade in and (PL 221) A Exemplary B Commendable C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation Sources: and IDOE student performance data

9 Map 1 Priority Areas are distributed throughout the city: four are in the urban core and seven are in the townships. Priority Areas: Rank based on and Service Gaps The Top 11 Priority Areas This study helps to focus reform efforts by identifying and ranking the areas where an investment of resources will reach the greatest number of children. The citywide need for at least 78,000 high-performing seats is concentrated in 11 Areas, called Priority Areas. Accounting for the changes in the A-F system, this study calculated performing capacity and service gap for both and to identify and confirm the Priority Areas. In, 46 percent of the need for high-performing seats was concentrated in the identified Priority Areas, and in, the concentration increased to 56 percent. Despite the increase in the number of category A and B schools citywide, the need in the Priority Areas remained constant: they needed 45,306 additional high-performing seats in and 44,081 seats in, as Table 3 indicates. When independent schools are included in the calculations, the Priority Areas continue to need around 45,000 seats. The stability of need across years, despite the changes in the methodology, affirms the impact that focused reform efforts can have in Indianapolis. The top 11 highest need areas are located throughout the city; four Priority Areas are in IPS and seven are in the townships, as illustrated in Map 1. The Priority Areas, as indicated Table 3: See by Report the bold Text numbers for heading. Map 1, are the Areas with the See highest Report TExt mean for sub-heading. rank of need across the grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12). To test for consistency, different means were calculated, using single years and multiple years, and including and excluding independent schools. These 11 Areas remained constant as the top 11, while the Area ranked 12th varied. The ranking model is the mean rank of the two grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12) for district and charter schools, across and. The final rank for the top 11, in order of need, are: 1. Area 37 (46227 in MSD Perry Township) 2. Area 19 (46222 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools) 3. Area 4 (46260 in MSD Washington Township) 4. Area 16 (46241 and in MSD Wayne Township) 5. Area 3 (46228,46234 and in MSD Pike Township) 6. Area 32 (46229 and in MSD Warren Township) 7. Area 14 (46214 in MSD Wayne Township) 8. Area 25 (46218 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools) 9. Area 35 (46221 in MSD Decatur Township) 10. Area 27 (46201 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools) 11. Area 30 (46203 and in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools) Providing quality schools for all children is a citywide challenge, not the unique challenge of one district. Table 3: Up to 58 percent of the need for high-performing seats is concentrated in 11 Priority Areas. Top 11 Priority Areas Service by Corporation Type Corporation In-Study Enrollment Number of Grade A & B Schools Performing Seats Service Level Service Gap of Service Gap District & Charter K-8 40, ,346 25% 30,524 31% , % 14,782 15% 56, ,014 20% 45,306 4 Independent K-8 3, ,085 85% 548 1% , ,055 87% 312 0% Grand 62, , ,166 47% District & Charter K-8 40, ,955 24% 30,902 39% , ,315 15% 13,179 17% 56, ,270 22% 44,081 5 Independent K-8 3, ,785 71% 1,153 1% , ,140 92% 189 0% Grand 62, ,195 27% 45,423 58% Sources: 2010 and IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010 and student-level data from Corporations; and student performance data. Sources: 2010 and IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010 and student-level data from Corporations; and student performance data. Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation Traditional Public School Charter School Area Rankings for Grade K (Priority Areas) Study Geography School District Boundary Park Sources: 2010 Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) audited enrollment data; student-level data from Corporations; Student performance data. Area Number 10 11

10 Map 2 Areas with high concentrations of poverty radiate from the urban core out into the townships. Demographics Indianapolis has experienced notable demographic shifts over the past decade. Between the 2000 and 2010 decennial census, the density of school-age population shifted from the city center, especially the northern neighborhoods, to the townships, as illustrated in Maps 3 and 4. Between 2007 and, during the Great Recession, the percent of children living in low-income households (low-income in this report refers to incomes below 185 percent Federal Poverty Level (185 percent FPL)) increased by 10 percent, from 32 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in. 5 Similarly, in 2007, Marion County public schools (district and charter) reported that 56 percent of students qualified for the federal free or reduced priced lunch program, which uses the 185 percent FPL as an income threshold. Qualified students increased to 66 percent in. The density of low-income households with children is concentrated in the city center and radiates out to the adjacent Areas in the townships, as illustrated in Map 2. In essence, the evidence suggests that the increase in lowincome households accompanied a parallel shift of children from the city center out to the townships. While the city center has seen a decline in school-age population, most of the townships have experienced an influx of children and, for many, a parallel increase of low-income children. Demographics and School. While the largest number of low-income children attended district schools, charter schools served a higher percent of lowincome children. Sixty percent of students in district schools, and 69 percent of the students in charter schools reported household incomes below the poverty threshold. Of the 36 independent schools that reported data for the federal lunch program, only 13 percent of students were eligible. Chart 2 compares the percent of households above and below 185 percent of FPL, based on school-level data, for each corporation type. Citywide, 18,930 students living in households below 185 percent FPL attended a category A or B school. In 2010-, district schools provided 14,053 of those high-performing seats. Although charter schools served fewer students, a higher percent of charter students in low-income households attended a category A or B school Chart 2: See Report Text for chart heading. See Chart Report 2 Text for chart sub-heading Charter schools serve the highest percent of low-income students in category A or B schools. 10% 1% 28% 12% 9% Below 185% FPL 10% 1% 20% 4% 4% Above 185% FPL 38% 12% 13% 7% Below 185% FPL 11% 4% 4% 11% Above 185% FPL 2% 2% Below 185% FPL Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; student performance data. than district or independent schools. Thirty-eight percent of the children from low-income households who enrolled in a charter school attended a category A or B school. In contrast, for both district and independent schools, 11 percent of children in low-income households attended a category A or B school. Regardless of differences in numbers and percents, every corporation type has schools that successfully teach low-income students at grade-level or above. 5. ACS year estimates and ACS year estimates Decennial US Census, 2010 Decennial US Census, HHS Poverty Guidelines: 9% 79% 4% 4% Above 185% FPL District Charter Independent 12% 1% 25% 11% 8% Below 185% FPL Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; student performance data. 17% 1% 17% 4% 5% Above 185% FPL All Schools A- Exemplary B- Commendable C- Acad Progress D- Watch F- Proba on Density of Households with School-Age Children Below 185 of Federal Poverty Level Grade in (PL 221) of Population Under 185% FPL 0% 20% 21% 40% 41% 60% 61% 80% 81% 100% Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation School Type Traditional Public School Charter School Private School Study Geography School District Boundary Interstate Park Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2007-; IDOE student performance data

11 Maps 3 and 4 From 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census count, the high concentrations of school-age children shifted slightly from the urban core to the townships. Density of School-Age Children in Indianapolis, 2000 Density of School-Age Children in Indianapolis, 2010 School-Age Children (5-17) Per Square Mile ,000 >1,000 Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation School Type Traditional Public School Charter School Independent Schools Park School District Boundary Interstate Sources: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census; IDOE student performance data. Sources: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census; IDOE student performance data

12 Demographics and School-Readiness. As a group, the demographic statistics in the Priority Areas are not significantly different from the demographics for the rest of Marion County. In examining factors that can influence school-readiness in children, the Priority Areas average eight percent more children living in low-income households, with 47 percent as compared to 39 percent citywide. Eight percent fewer adults in these communities have attained a bachelor s or advanced degree, and four percent fewer have attained a high school diploma or beyond. While slight, when looking at the mean for each rank group, the Priority Areas have slightly higher levels of low-income households and slightly lower educational attainment. In two other areas, mobility and Englishlanguage 3: See proficiency, Report Text which for also Chart often heading. affect student Chart academic performance, the Priority Areas are essentially See Report Text for chart sub-heading. the same as the rest of the city. The percent of households that change residence each year in the Priority Areas is 19 percent. Likewise, in Marion County, as a whole, there is 19 percent mobility. Finally, six percent of individuals citywide do not speak English well in their home, while seven percent in the Priority Areas have limited English proficiency. Despite the similarities when compared to the mean of other Area rank groups and the city, the individual Priority Areas are quite diverse, as will be discussed in Priority Area Profiles. High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income. Although the Priority Areas have slightly higher rates of low-income households, that data does not support the conclusion that low-income households and underperforming schools correspond. In mapping schools by performance and type against the distribution of poverty, Map 2 reveals Chart 3: On average, the Priority Areas have slightly higher rates of low-income households and slightly lower educational attainment, compared to citywide means. 80% 87% 88% Citywide Average Rank 1-11 (Priority Areas) Rank Rank Rank Citywide Average Rank 1-11 Rank Rank Rank high-performing schools throughout the city, across most neighborhoods. Speedway, in particular, has neighborhoods with high concentrations of low-income households and high-performing schools. In a close analysis of schools that serve populations with an above average percent of low-income students, the study found six district, five charter and six independent schools that were category A or B in both and (see Table 4). By successfully maintaining a high rating, these schools have met achievement, improvement and growth standards for their students regardless of changing measurements. In light of the increase in low-income households in Indianapolis and the higher percent of children from low-income households in the Priority Areas, these local schools and districts are an important resource for improving schools across the city. Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools Examining student commute patterns provides insight into how current education policy shapes family decisions and student access to high-performing schools. Student commute analysis is provided in this citywide section and Table 4: See Report Text for table heading. in the Priority Area Profiles. Both provide an analysis based on student-level data. Indianapolis Public Schools, MSD of Decatur Township, MSD of Perry Township, MSD of Warren Township, MSD of Washington Township, MSD of Wayne Township, Speedway Schools, the mayor s office charter schools, Indiana Math & Science Academy, St. Joan of Arc School and Holy Name School provided student-level data. Because not all districts or schools provided student-level data, the data set is incomplete. To complement the student-level data, this section analyzes student commute patterns with IDOE data that documents students who attend a school outside their districts. Both data sets show that most students do not commute. According to the student-level data provided, 72 percent of students (72,693) enrolled in their assigned district neighborhood school and the remaining 28 percent of students (28,642) opted to commute to a district magnet, district selective enrollment, another district or a charter school. According to the IDOE data, 91 percent stay in their district. One percent of students leave their district to attend another district and eight percent leave to attend a charter school. Table See Report 4: High-performing Text for sub-heading. schools, of every school type, successfully serve populations with an above average percent of students from low-income households. High-Performing Schools with Above Average of Below 185 FPL 47% School Corporation Grades Area 2010 Audited Enrollment Grade Grade of in Households Below 185% FPL of in Households Below 130% FPL Andrew J Brown Academy Charter School K-8 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 79% 70% Ben Davis University High School MSD Wayne Township Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 63% 48% Carl Wilde School Indianapolis Public Schools PK-6 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 87% 82% Central Catholic School Independent PK-8 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 75% 65% Central Elementary School Beech Grove City Schools 2-3 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 64% 51% The Challenge Foundation Academy Charter School K-5 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 80% 62% Charles A Tindley Accelerated School Charter School 6-12 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 63% 50% Christel House Academy Charter School K-8 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 89% 72% Ernie Pyle School Indianapolis Public Schools PK-6 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 87% 79% Holy Cross Central School Independent PK-8 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 85% 75% Indiana Math & Science Academy Charter School K-10 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 74% 61% James A Allison Elementary School Speedway Schools K-6 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 6 5 Lutheran High School Independent 9-12 Area B- Commendable A- Exemplary 91% 91% Merle Sidener Gifted Academy Indianapolis Public Schools 2-6 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 68% 54% Providence Cristo Rey High School Independent 9-12 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 83% 58% Saint Philip Neri School Independent PK-8 Area A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 98% 94% South Grove Intermediate School Beech Grove City Schools 4-6 Area A- Exemplary B- Commendable 64% 51% 3 39% 33% 32% 31% 27% 18% 18% 20% 31% 31% 7% 7% 3% 5% high school diploma bachelor s degree Individuals who have changed residence in the past year Individuals who who do not speak English well Households with children between 5 and 17 years, with incomes below 185 Federal Poverty Level Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; and student performance data

13 Chart 4: See Report Text for chart heading. Citywide, according to the student-level data, nearly half of the students who attend their neighborhood schools (48 percent) attended a category C school in (see Chart 4). Improving neighborhood schools that consistently score just below category A and B would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for improving the educational opportunities for Indianapolis students. A higher percent of students (34 percent) who commute out of their neighborhood attend a category A or B school; only 21 percent of those who stay in their neighborhood school have that option. However, nearly half (42 percent) of the students who commute out of their neighborhood attended a category D or F school. In further analyzing the student-level data, attending category A or B school in one's neighborhood school was more difficult for students in the Priority Areas. Of the reporting districts and charter schools, 50 percent of the students lived in a Priority Area. Only 14 percent (5,365) of the students enrolled in neighborhood schools in the Priority Areas attended a category A or B. This percent doubled for those who enrolled in schools outside their neighborhood to 28 percent (3,600). Similar to the rest of the city, the largest proportion, 53 percent (20,121), of the students enrolled in a neighborhood school attended a category C school in. The largest proportion of students who opted out of a neighborhood school in the Priority Areas, 44 percent (5,657) attended a category D or F school. According to the IDOE data, 43 percent of students who commute out of district attend a category A or B school, but 35 percent attend a category D or F school. In examining specific districts, the largest numbers of students commute out of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS). Of the 7,824 students who leave IPS, 46 percent (3,616) attend a category A or B charter school and 26 percent (173) attend a category A or B township school. If they had stayed in IPS, only 11 percent of students would have attended a category A or B School. The second highest numbers of students (707 students) who commute out of their district leave Lawrence Township. For Lawrence, those who left the district and those who stayed attended a high-performing school at about See Chart Report 4 Text for chart sub-heading. Nearly half of the students in the Priority Areas attend a category-c neighborhood school. 4,315 1,050 20,121 5,204 7,082 Rank 1-11 Priority Areas 1,617 7,723 1,535 4,978 Rank ,665 4,177 1, Rank , ,128 1, A end Neighborhood School Rank , ,658 2,529 3,128 Rank 1-11 Priority ( ) ( Areas) 2,445 1,801 1,089 1,875 Rank , Rank , , Rank Do Not A end Neighborhood School Sources: 2010 IDOE student-level data from Corporations; student performance data. Sources: 2010 IDOE student-level data from Corporations; student performance data. the same rate. Forty-one percent of the 574 students who enrolled in a charter school attended a category A or B school, and 42 percent of the students who stayed in a Lawrence district school attended a category A or B school. The third highest numbers of students (597 students) who commute out of their district leave Pike Township. In Pike, those who left attended a category A or B school at a higher rate. Fifty-one percent of the 477 students who enrolled in a charter school enrolled in a category A or B school, Grade and in only (PL 15 percent 221) of those enrolled in a Pike A- Exemplary district school attended a category A or B school. B- Commendable Maps 5 and 6 show the category of schools attended by children who commute out of their home district. The size C- Acad Progress of the pie charts represents the number of students D- Watchcommuting out, and the color and size of each pie slice F- Proba on reflects the proportion of students attending schools of each category. This district-level analysis complements the student-level commute analysis. Likewise, the maps and data provided in Priority Area Profiles, at the end of this report, further detail the commute patterns for all the children living in the top 11 Priority Areas. This commute analysis, in the context of local knowledge and goals, should inform the differentiated strategies developed for each district and for each Priority Area

14 Map 5 Most students commuting out of a district to another district s schools do not attend a category A or B school. Commute out of District to District Schools by Grade of School Attending Map 6 Most students commuting out of a district to a charter school do not attend a category A or B school. Commute out of District to Charter Schools by Grade of School Attending Table 5: See Report Text for table heading. Table 5: See Report Text for table heading. Pair with Map 5 Pair with Map 5 Table 6: See Report Text for table heading. Table 6: See Report Text for table heading. Pair with Map 6 Pair with Map 6 in Category A Category B in Category C Category D Category F in Category A Category B in Category Category C A Category Category D B Category Category F C Category D Category F Corporation District Corporation Schools District District District Schools District District District Corporation District Corporation Schools Charter Charter District Schools Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter Charter M S D Decatur Township M 6,316 S D Decatur Township , M S D Decatur Township M 6,316 S D Decatur Township , Franklin Township Community School Franklin 7,506 Township Community 38 School 16 7, Franklin Township Community School Franklin 7,506 Township Community 33 School 11 7, M S D Lawrence Township M 14,788 S D Lawrence Township , M S D Lawrence Township M 14,788 S D Lawrence Township , M S D Perry Township M 14,448 S D Perry Township , M S D Perry Township M 14,448 S D Perry Township , M S D Pike Township M 10,783 S D Pike Township , M S D Pike Township M 10,783 S D Pike Township , M S D Warren Township M 11,620 S D Warren Township , M S D Warren Township M 11,620 S D Warren Township , M S D Washington Township M 11,041 S D Washington Township , M S D Washington Township M 11,041 S D Washington Township , M S D Wayne Township M 15,988 S D Wayne Township , M S D Wayne Township M 15,988 S D Wayne Township , Beech Grove City Schools Beech 2,714 Grove City Schools 0 1 2, Beech Grove City Schools Beech 2,714 Grove City Schools 8 1 2, Indianapolis Public Schools Indianapolis 31,761 Public Schools , Indianapolis Public Schools Indianapolis 31,761 Public Schools 3, ,761 1,3733,609 1, ,5281,373 1,307 1,528 Speedway Schools Speedway 1,624 Schools 0 0 1, Speedway Schools Speedway 1,624 Schools , Sources: IDOE commute out; performance data. Sources: IDOE commute out; performance data

15 Grade Division Analysis Grade Division Analysis To support stakeholders in developing differentiated strategies for each Priority Area, this section presents a series of maps and tables that detail the service gap and commute analysis for each grade division. The and maps for each grade division (K-8 and 9-12) for public (district and charter) schools is the detailed data that underlies the top 11 Priority Areas. The Priority Area ranks presented in the previous section provide information in a format that can enhance the focus of educational reform efforts. The grade division analysis and maps, in this section, reveal nuances to inform differentiated strategies. A close examination of the grade division analysis will reveal whether an Area needs high-performing seats in grade K-8 or 9-12 or both. A comparison of the map and table without the independent schools, and the map and table with the independent schools will illustrate the influence of school types on the service level and service gap. The tables and maps across the years reveal slight variances in rank from year-to-year. Finally, some schools in an Area performed better when assessed with an improvement model than with a growth model or vice-versa. High-performing schools perform well under both models. There are nearly 98,000 K-8 students and almost 40,000 grade 9-12 students in district and charter schools. To provide every student with a seat in a category A or B school, Indianapolis needs approximately 56,000 additional high-performing K-8 seats and 22,000 additional high-performing 9-12 seats. Several Areas not ranked in the top 11 Priority Areas have a zero-percent service level. These Areas have low student density. The ranks, which are based on numbers of students that need access to high-performing schools, do not capture these Areas. Nonetheless, they should not be ignored. In many cases, a low-density Area with zero percent performance can close their service gap with a single high-performing school. There are four maps for each grade division. The first map illustrates the service gap data for public schools in. The second map presents the service gap data for. The third integrates independent schools into the analysis. For each of these maps, the Areas are color-coded to indicate their rank and the shape and color of the schools indicates their type and their A-F category. The accompanying tables provide detailed data on the demand, service gap and service level of each school. Additionally, to understand how location affects access, the fourth map presents student commute patterns. It shows the category of schools attended by children in each Area. The size of the pie charts represents the number of students, and the color and size of each pie slice reflects the proportion of students attending schools of each category

16 Map 7 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in Grade K-8 A comparison of the tables and maps reveals slight variances in rank across the years in schools serving grade K-8. For example, in, Area 11 in Lawrence Township ranked in the top 11 for K-8, but moved to rank 27 in (see Maps 7 and 8). Conversely, Area 35 in Decatur Township ranked 18 in and eighth in. These changes in service gap rank predominately reflect changes in the state accountability methodology. Some schools rated higher when improvement was rewarded and others benefited from the introduction of the growth model. There were 88 category A and B schools serving children in kindergarten to grade 8 in and 102 in. With the largest increase among district schools, in, there were 49 category A or B district schools, and in, there were 60. Concurrently, the number of category C district schools declined from 48 in to 30 in. Area 37 in Perry Township is also unique. In, all elementary schools serving students in K-5 in Area 37 were category A or B. Under the new methodology, in, several dropped to category C, D and F. The schools serving grade 6-8, however, were category C and below both years. Because of the school categories and the density of school-age population, Area 37 ranked in the top 11 for both years, despite its successful elementary schools. In, it ranked third; and in, it ranked first. In comparing the maps and tables with and without the independent schools, there is little change in the service gap rank of Areas but a notable increase in service level when independent schools are included in the analysis. The need for performing K-8 seats remained relatively stable across and. In, 50 percent (30,524 of 61,322) of the need for highperforming seats was in the Priority Areas. In, this increased slightly to 55 percent (30,902 of 56,325). Table 5: See Report Text for table heading. See Report Text for sub-heading. Table 5: Number of Schools Serving in Grade K-8 in Each Category Table Service 8: See Gap, Report District Text and for table Charter heading. Schools, Grade K-8 in (Place with Map 7) K-8 Need Rank Area Number K-8 Demand K-8 Service Gap K-8 Service Level 1 Area 19 4,661-3,810 18% 2 Area 16 3,976-3,589 10% 3 Area 37 5,389-2, Area 30 3,360-2,930 13% 5 Area 4 3,380-2,893 14% 6 Area 25 3,276-2,830 14% 7 Area 27 3,030-2,698 11% 8 Area 14 2,799-2,538 9% 9 Area 11 2,454-2, Area 3 4,181-2, Area 32 4,349-2,247 48% 12 Area 13 2,715-2,030 25% 13 Area 18 2,581-1,980 23% 14 Area 24 2,050-1,970 4% 15 Area 23 2,143-1,888 12% 16 Area 35 2,470-1,785 28% 17 Area 22 2,030-1,757 13% 18 Area 9 1,903-1,745 8% 19 Area 15 1,714-1,655 3% 20 Area 34 1,604-1,591 1% 21 Area 10 1,765-1,577 11% 22 Area 12 1,374-1, Area 6 1,951-1,198 39% 24 Area 2 2,101-1,175 44% 25 Area 1 2,014-1,142 43% 26 Area 20 1,490-1,071 28% 27 Area 8 1,168-1,062 9% 28 Area 28 1, % 29 Area % 30 Area % 31 Area 33 1, % 32 Area 7 1, % 33 Area 40 2, % 34 Area 38 1, % 35 Area 39 1, % 36 Area 31 1, % 37 Area 29 1, Area 5 1, % 39 Area 17 1, % 40 Area 42 1, % 41 Area 41 1, Area 36 3, % A- Exemplary B-Commendable C- Academic Progress D- Watch F- Probation District Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation Traditional Public School Charter School Area Rankings for Grade K (Priority Areas) Study Geography School District Boundary Park Independent Charter Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; student-level data from Corporations; Student performance data. 24 Source: and IDOE audited enrollment data. Source: and IDOE audited enrollment data. 25

17 Map 8 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in Table 9: See Report Text for table heading. (Place with Map 8) Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in K-8 Need Rank Area Number K-8 Demand K-8 Service Gap K-8 Service Level 1 Area 37 5,389-3,871 28% 2 Area 19 4,686-3,717 21% 3 Area 4 3,388-3,268 4% 4 Area 16 3,985-2,906 27% 5 Area 32 4,372-2,902 34% 6 Area 3 4,075-2,862 30% 7 Area 27 3,034-2,611 14% 8 Area 35 2,470-2,439 1% 9 Area 14 2,809-2,175 23% 10 Area 25 3,287-2,085 37% 11 Area 30 3,361-2,065 39% 12 Area 24 2,063-1,910 7% 13 Area 2 2,250-1,801 20% 14 Area 1 2,043-1, Area 34 1,604-1,591 1% 16 Area 15 1,719-1,545 10% 17 Area 36 3,081-1,499 51% 18 Area 13 2,722-1, Area 18 2,603-1,466 44% 20 Area 22 2,038-1,332 35% 21 Area 23 2,156-1,295 40% 22 Area 28 1, % 23 Area 6 1, % 24 Area 38 1, % 25 Area 20 1, % 26 Area 41 1, % 27 Area 11 2, % 28 Area 9 2, % 29 Area % 30 Area 31 1, % 31 Area 42 1, % 32 Area 7 1, % 33 Area 10 1, % 34 Area 12 1, % 35 Area 39 1, % 36 Area 8 1, % 37 Area 29 1, % 38 Area % 39 Area 5 1, % 40 Area 33 1, % 41 Area 17 1, Area 40 2, % Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation Traditional Public School Charter School Area Rankings for Grade K (Priority Areas) Study Geography School District Boundary Park Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; student-level data from Corporations

18 Map 9 Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade K-8 in Table 10: See Report Text for table heading. (Place with Map 9) Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade K-8 in K-8 Need Rank Area Number K-8 Demand K-8 Service Gap K-8 Service Level 1 Area 19 4,973-3,851 23% 2 Area 16 4,072-3,445 15% 3 Area 37 6,101-3,183 48% 4 Area 30 3,924-3,137 20% 5 Area 4 3,871-3,122 6 Area 27 3,438-2,863 17% 7 Area 25 3,676-2,823 23% 8 Area 14 2,871-2,553 11% 9 Area 11 2,929-2,507 14% 10 Area 3 4,493-2,273 49% 11 Area 32 4,513-2,182 52% 12 Area 18 2,674-2,030 24% 13 Area 13 2,764-2,016 27% 14 Area 22 2,535-2,009 21% 15 Area 24 2,133-1,988 7% 16 Area 23 2,407-1,915 20% 17 Area 15 1,763-1, Area 35 2,572-1, Area 9 2,074-1,584 24% 20 Area 34 1,604-1, Area 10 2,001-1,419 29% 22 Area 12 1,509-1, Area 20 1,826-1,157 37% 24 Area 1 2,018-1,062 47% 25 Area 2 2,265-1,062 53% 26 Area 6 2,228-1,042 53% 27 Area 8 1, % 28 Area 28 1, % 29 Area 21 1, % 30 Area 7 1, % 31 Area 39 2, % 32 Area 40 3, % 33 Area 38 1, % 34 Area % 35 Area 33 1, % 36 Area 31 2, % 37 Area 5 1, % 38 Area 29 1, % 39 Area 17 1, % 40 Area 42 1, % 41 Area 41 2, % 42 Area 36 3, % Grade (PL 221) A Exemplary Progress B Commendable Progress C Academic Progress D Watch F Probation Traditional Public School Charter School Independent Schools Area Rankings for Grade K (Priority Areas) Study Geography School District Boundary Park Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; student-level data from Corporations; Student performance data

19 Map 10 In, 50 percent (66,723) of K-8 grade students who attended a district school commuted to a failing (category F) school. Fifteen percent (20,017) commuted to a category C school. 6 Grade of District School Attended by Living in Each Area, Grade K-8 Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending Pair with Map 10 District, by Area and of School Attending Area Number Category A K-8 District Category B K-8 District Category C K-8 District Category D K-8 District Category F K-8 District K-8 District Area Area Area Sources: student-level data from Corporations. Area , ,236 3,283 Area Area ,771 Area ,319 Area Area Area Area Area Area , ,431 Area , ,558 Area , ,689 Area , ,636 Area 17 1, ,016 Area ,109 2,090 Area , ,795 Area ,353 Area Area ,685 Area ,071 1,846 Area ,270 Area , ,278 3,110 Area Area , ,937 Area ,185 Area ,309 Area , ,298 Area ,743 Area 32 1, ,167 Area ,370 Area , ,564 Area , ,421 Area 36 2, ,081 Area 37 2,599 1, , ,387 Area ,250 Area 39 1, ,894 Area Area Area The MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships did not provide student-level data. Data in Map 10 for Areas 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 40, 41 and 42 reflect students that commuted out to other district schools in The Maps and Tables do not reflect students from MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships

20 Map 11 In, 50 percent (6,098) of K-8 grade students who attended a charter school commuted to a failing (category F) school. Twenty-seven percent (3,303) commuted to a category C school. Grade of Charter School Attended by Living in Each Area, Grade K-8 Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending Pair with Map 10 Table 12: Charter, by area and performance of school attending Pair with Map 11 Charter, by Area and of School Attending Area Number Category A K-8 Charter Category B K-8 Charter Category C K-8 Charter Category D K-8 Charter Category F K-8 Charter K-8 Charter Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Area Sources: student-level data from Corporations