Nonprofit financial and real estate resources Where nonprofits come first Cleveland Performing Schools Study: Findings and Recommendations June 20, 2014
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Nonprofit financial and real estate resources Where nonprofits come first
Cleveland Performing Schools Study: Findings and Recommendations
June 20, 2014
About IFF • Nonprofit lender, real estate consultant, and community
developer serving the Midwest. Founded in 1988.
• Conduct research to assist nonprofits and government in making informed decisions about resource allocation and real estate investment.
• National leader in studies that measure the supply of and demand for performing schools in urban school districts—on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
• Research analyses have informed education reform in Chicago, Denver, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Washington, DC.
2
3
Methodology • Supply is the total capacity of performing district-run and
charter schools.
• Performing schools are schools that receive a grade of A or B using the state accountability measurement.
• Performing capacity is the total number of seats available in schools that receive a grade of A or B for each grade division.
• Demand is the total number of students currently enrolled in district-run and charter schools.
• Service Gap is the difference between supply (performing capacity) and demand (students enrolled in district-run and charter schools) for each grade division, K-8 and 9-12.
• Data is from the 2012-2013 school year.
District Overview
4
School Type Number of Campuses
Pre K Students
Enrolled in 2012-13
K-8 Students
Enrolled in 2012-13
9-12 Students
Enrolled in 2012-13
Total Percent
Students Enrolled
Dis
tric
t District, Neighborhood 77 1,110 23,415 8,635 33,160 56% District, Magnet / City Wide 25 157 2,837 3,918 6,912 12% District, Charter 8 - 1,559 535 2,094 3% Total 110 1,267 27,811 13,088 42,166 71%
Authorizers
No
n-D
istr
ict
Ch
arte
r
Ohio Council of Community Schools 8 - 3,913 1,247 5160 9% Buckeye Hope Foundation 10 - 2,136 - 2,136 4% Educational Resource Consultants of Ohio, Inc 7 - 611 783 1,394 2% Kids Count of Dayton, Inc 2 - 164 - 164 0.3% Richland Academy 1 - 116 - 116 0.2% St. Aloysius Orphanage 14 - 3,733 638 4,371 7% Thomas B. Fordham Foundation 1 - 159 - 159 0.3% Independent Chartering Board 15 - 3,168 726 3,894 7% Ohio Department of Education 1 - 156 - 156 0.3% Total 59 - 14,156 3,394 17,550 29% Grand Total 169 1,267 41,967 16,482 59,716 100%
Key Findings 1. K-12 district and charter schools provide 58,067 students
with 9,423 seats in performing schools (A and B rated).
2. Cleveland needs 48,644 more seats in performing schools to serve all of its K-12 students (service gap).
3. 57% of the performing seats needed (27,938 seats) are concentrated in 10 neighborhoods (Priority Areas).
4. 47% of performing seats are in district magnet/citywide schools (4,420 seats) and 36% from charter schools authorized by the district (1,208 seats) or Independent Chartering Board (2,158 seats).
5. Most district neighborhood and charter schools authorized by other entities do not provide performing seats.
5
Top 10 Priority Areas
6
District Schools (All Types)
7
8
Non-District Charters
Performance by School Type
9
School Type A B C D F Total
Schools Seats Schools Seats Schools Seats Schools Seats Schools Seats Schools Seats
Dis
tric
t
District, Neighborhood
Count - 3 1,450 4
2,825 55 38,919 12
7,275 74 50,469
Percent Within School Type
- 4.1% 3% 5.4% 6% 74.3% 77% 16.2% 14% 80%
District, Magnet/Citywide
Count 2 900 9
3,520 5 2,775 8
3,996 - 24 11,191
Percent Within School Type
8.3% 8% 37.5% 31% 20.8% 25% 33.3% 36% - 18%
District, Charter
Count - 5 1,208 1
75 - - 6 1,283
Percent Within School Type
- 83.3% 94% 16.7% 6% - - 2%
Total
Count 2 900 17
6,179 10 5,675 63
42,916 12 7,275 104 62,943
Percent Within School
Type 1.9% 1.4% 16.3% 9.8% 9.6% 9.0% 60.6% 68.2% 11.5% 11.6%
No
n-D
istr
ict
Ch
arte
r
Charter, Not-For-Profit
Count - 1 194 13
6,087 16 5,374 1
384 31 12,039
Percent Within School Type
6.7% 2% 46.7% 51% 40.0% 45% 6.7% 3% 74%
Charter, Independent Chartering Board
Count 2 896 4
1,262 2 470 6
1,250 - 14 3,878
Percent Within School Type
14.3% 23% 28.6% 33% 14.3% 12% 42.9% 32% - 24%
Charter, State Education Agency
Count - - - - 1 384 1 384
Percent Within School Type
- - - - 100.0% 100% 2%
Total
Count 2 896 5
1,456 15 6,558 22
6,625 2 769 46 16,301
Percent Within School Type
4% 5.5% 10.9% 8.9% 32.6% 40.2% 47.8% 40.6% 4.3% 4.7%
Initial Recommendations To triple the number of high-performing seats by 2019:
1. Fill seats in Cleveland’s top performing schools. About 13% of seats go to nonresidents. Also, some A and B rated schools are not at full capacity.
2. Close low-performing charter schools, especially those authorized by nonprofits, 90% of which do not perform.
3. Focus reform and resources on Top 10 Priority Areas. Develop a differentiated strategy for each based on the academic quality and building condition of schools there. • Replicate and expand high-performing schools • Improve academic performance of C-rated schools • Target for turnaround D- and F-rated schools in better building condition
• . 10
School Conditions in Priority Areas
11
2041
896 400 213
3490
1097
7090
1775
4144
1963
1316
254
2232
278
166
956
1903 294
230
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Excellent Satisfactory Borderline Poor unrated
Building Condition
A
B
C
D
F