Lackawanna County Science Pssas 2009 Science Results

Lackawanna County Science PSSAs 2009 Science Results

March 2010 The Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development

A partnership among Keystone College, King’s College, Luzerne County Community College, Marywood University, Misericordia University, Penn State Wilkes-Barre, The Commonwealth Medical College, University of Scranton, & Wilkes University

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Table of Contents Introduction: ...... 3 Report Methodology ...... 3 Student Performance ...... 4 Lackawanna County Science Proficiency Results ...... 4 Lackawanna County School District Proficiencies and Rankings ...... 6 School District Science Results for 2008-2009 School Year ...... 8 School District Science Results: 2007-2008 ...... 9 Special Populations ...... 12 Students with Disabilities ...... 12 Economically Disadvantaged ...... 13 African- American Students ...... 15 Hispanic Students ...... 16 Conclusion ...... 17 References: ...... 18

Produced by The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development Senior Researchers Teri Ooms Sherry Murray

Research Associates Christina Miller

Coordinator Marla Doddo

Please contact The Institute for reprint permissions and appropriate citation of works.

Page | 2

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Introduction:

The purpose of the School Assessment Report (SAR) is to provide educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies in the public K-12 school system – the same system that trains our future workforce. Since local and regional economies are dependent upon the strength of the workforce, K-12 education is a strong economic development tool. To guarantee an adequate future workforce, within the next several years (through 2014), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ensure that each child is proficient in reading, mathematics, and the sciences – a goal that coincides with the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Moreover, parents, guardians and educators can mutually assist in student proficiency improvements if they take the necessary actions to help students learn and advance their skills.

The SAR measures and analyzes Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) science statistics from 2007 to 2009. Fourth, eighth, and eleventh grade student proficiencies are evaluated across Lackawanna County, and are compared with state and county averages. While the PSSA is broken down into four sections of proficiency – reading, writing, mathematics and science, this SAR specifically examines science proficiencies. The 2008-2009 school year marks the second year that Pennsylvania formally assessed science proficiencies. As such, the Pennsylvania Department of Education administered the science portion of the PSSA on a pilot basis only, seeking feedback that would allow it to revise the exam that will become part of next year’s regular statewide test. According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the science exam attempts to move beyond the testing of facts and superficial knowledge, a trend that has dominated U.S. science education for decades, towards assessment of student abilities to engage in critical thinking and make accurate, evidence-based predictions.

Report Methodology

This SAR is designed to summarize the performance and monitor the progress of Lackawanna County public schools with regard to science assessments. In doing so, this report aims to identify Lackawanna County’s strengths, as well as areas that require timely improvement. As this was the first year of science testing, the state viewed the assessment largely as a pilot study aimed at gathering data and making corrections for subsequent, full-scale testing. Given its pilot status, the state focused on a smaller population – specifically, students in grades four, eight and eleven. As such, the statistics and comparisons reported herein are reflective of the smaller group’s grades only and do not necessarily reflect the knowledge and skills of the county’s entire public school population.

Page | 3

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

PSSA scores, which serve as the foundation of the report, are found on the Pennsylvania Department of Education’s website at http://www.pde.state.pa.us. PSSA results are organized by county and divided into the following proficiency ratings: advanced, proficient, basic, and below basic. The total number of proficient scores is calculated by combining the number of PSSA test takers who scored advanced or proficient on the science section.

For clarification, those requiring an Individualized Educational Program are classified as “IEP” students. This category includes any student with a disability who requires a service and/or accommodation in addition to the standard educational approach used for non-IEP students. Usually, the term IEP refers to at least one of the following disabilities: autism, deafness, deaf-blindness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, learning disability, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health-impairment, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury or visual impairment including blindness.

Economically disadvantaged students comprise another subcategory. This group includes those who are eligible for free or reduced fee lunch. Data on this group is not available for each year since 2002, which introduces uncertainty in trend predictions for this group. Similarly, data for both African-American and Hispanic students is sparse at best, with information lacking for most school districts. For schools with fewer than ten students in the subgroup, data is not reported.

Student Performance

Lackawanna County Science Proficiency Results

During the 2008-2009 school year, 6,017 of Lackawanna County’s fourth, eighth, and eleventh grade students took the science PSSA. Of the total test takers in the study group (grades four, eight and eleven), 34.8% scored at least proficient in science. Fourth graders achieved the highest scores, with an average science proficiency score of 45.3%. Eighth graders achieved an average science proficiency score of 34.4%, while eleventh graders achieved an average science proficiency score 24.9%. Lackawanna County’s combined science averages for the 2008-2009 school year (34.8%) ranked above the state-wide science proficiency average (21.6%).

Page | 4

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Total of Students Grades Tested Advanced % Proficiency % Basic % Below Basic % County Total: Grade 4 2001 44.6 45.3 7.7 2.2 County Total: Grade 8 2056 21.4 34.4 24.3 19.7 County Total: Grade 11 1960 16.7 24.9 44.9 13.4 County Total 6017 27.5 34.8 25.6 11.7

Comparsion of 2007‐2008 and 2008‐2009 School Years: Lackawanna County Science Proficiency Results 2007‐2008 School Year 2008‐2009 School Year

85.7

56.1 45.3 34.4 33.1 24.9

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

It is the intent of No Child Left Behind to have all students capable of exhibiting scientific knowledge at a proficient level by 2014. In order to reach this goal, it is necessary for schools to systematically convert the number of students performing at a level considered to be basic or below basic to a proficient or advanced level. The graph below represents the number of students at each ability level in Lackawanna County during the most recent round of testing. Ideally, the number of students scoring proficient or advanced should be at a much higher level than the number of those scoring basic or below basic.

Page | 5

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Lackawanna County Science Results for 2008‐ 2009 School Year Advanced Proficienct Basic Below Basic 44.6 45.3 44.9

34.4 34.8 27.5 24.3 24.9 25.6 21.4 19.7 16.7 13.4 11.7 7.7 2.2

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade County Total

The county’s fourth graders have shown strong scientific aptitudes, with those scoring proficient or advanced significantly outnumbering those scoring basic or below basic. By contrast, the county’s eighth graders had a higher “proficency” rating than the other rating categories in the eight grade. Lackawanna County’s eleventh graders demonstrated the greatest disparity between levels of proficiency and non-proficiency; eleventh graders performed the poorest, with the highest percentage of those ranked “basic” in the county]. In Lackawanna County, as well as statewide, science proficiencies exhibit a trend of decreasing proficiencies with grade level progression.

Lackawanna County School District Proficiencies and Rankings

The table below details Lackawanna County’s test group scores, in order of proficiency ranking, as determined by the performance of all fourth, eighth and eleventh grade students within each school district.

Science Proficiency Scores for 2008-2009 School Year School Districts 4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Total Abington Heights SD 38.5 38.4 31.5 36.1 Carbondale Area SD 49.5 22.2 20.5 30.7 Dunmore SD 47.9 34.6 35.2 39.2 Lakeland SD 33.3 35.9 26.6 31.9 Mid Valley SD 44.7 34.8 28.6 36 North Pocono SD 43 37.2 21.9 34 Old Forge SD 60.9 36.8 14 37.2

Page | 6

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Riverside SD 37.3 30 24.2 30.5 Scranton SD 51.2 33.3 22.2 35.5 Valley View SD 47.3 41.7 24.5 37.8 Total 45.3 34.4 24.9 34.8

School District PSSA Science Performance: 2008-2009 School Year

% Basic % Advanced % Proficient Science % Below Basic School Districts Grades Science (2009) Science (2009) (2009) Science (2009) ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 4 56.5 38.5 5 0 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 8 26.6 38.4 20.7 14.4 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 11 24 31.5 37.1 7.5 ABINGTON HEIGHTS District SD Total 35.7 36.1 20.9 7.3 CARBONDALE AREA SD 4 40.5 49.5 9 0.9 CARBONDALE AREA SD 8 20.5 22.2 24.8 32.5 CARBONDALE AREA SD 11 17 20.5 37.5 25 CARBONDALE AREA SD District Total 26 30.7 23.7 19.4 DUNMORE SD 4 42.7 47.9 6.8 2.6 DUNMORE SD 8 19.6 34.6 24.3 21.5 DUNMORE SD 11 25.8 35.2 34.4 4.7 District DUNMORE SD Total 29.3 39.2 21.8 9.6 LAKELAND SD 4 59.5 33.3 4.8 2.4 LAKELAND SD 8 24.8 35.9 27.4 12 LAKELAND SD 11 24.8 26.6 36.7 11.9 District LAKELAND SD Total 36.3 31.9 22.9 8.7 MID VALLEY SD 4 39.4 44.7 13.6 2.3 MID VALLEY SD 8 16.7 34.8 28.8 19.7 MID VALLEY SD 11 10.1 28.6 49.6 11.8 District MID VALLEY SD Total 22 36 30.6 11.2 NORTH POCONO SD 4 51.7 43 3.9 1.3 NORTH POCONO SD 8 25.9 37.2 28.1 8.8 NORTH POCONO SD 11 13.9 21.9 47.8 16.3 District NORTH POCONO SD Total 30.5 34 26.6 8.8 OLD FORGE SD 4 31.9 60.9 5.8 1.4 OLD FORGE SD 8 16.2 36.8 17.6 29.4 OLD FORGE SD 11 18 14 48 20 District OLD FORGE SD Total 22 37.2 23.8 16.9 RIVERSIDE SD 4 50 37.3 8.8 3.9 Page | 7 RIVERSIDE SD 8 14.5 30 29.1 26.4

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

RIVERSIDE SD 11 8.1 24.2 55.6 12.1 District RIVERSIDE SD Total 24.2 30.5 31.1 14.1 SCRANTON SD 4 32.7 51.2 12.5 3.6

SCRANTON SD 8 17.6 33.3 24.5 24.7 SCRANTON SD 11 13.1 22.2 49.1 15.6 District SCRANTON SD Total 21.1 35.5 28.7 14.6 VALLEY VIEW SD 4 41.3 47.3 7.6 3.8 VALLEY VIEW SD 8 32.2 41.7 18.5 7.6 VALLEY VIEW SD 11 12.5 24.5 53.8 9.2 District VALLEY VIEW SD Total 28.6 37.8 26.6 6.8

According to the above data, the Dunmore School District performed the best on the science PSSA, with an average proficiency of 39.2%. Riverside School District performed the poorest, with an average proficiency of 30.5%.

Science PSSA Proficiency Scores for 2008-2009 School Year Total % of Proficiency Scores

39.2 36.1 36 37.2 35.5 37.8 30.7 31.9 34 30.5

School District Science Results for 2008-2009 School Year

The table below identifies Lackawanna County school district results for the 2008-2009 PSSA science assessment. The table illustrates proficiency results by grade level and provides the percentage of students at each level of attainment (advanced, proficient,

Page | 8

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

basic, below basic). Overall district averages are calculated at the bottom each district’s section within the table.

School District Science Results: 2007-2008

The tables below identify Lackawanna County school district results for the 2007-2008 PSSA science assessment. The table illustrates proficiency results by grade level and provides the percentage of students at each level of attainment (advanced, proficient, basic, below basic). Overall district averages are calculated at the bottom each district’s section within the table.

School District PSSA Science Performance: 2007-2008 School Year % Advanced Analysis of Attainment Level by District for Science % Proficient % Basic Science % Below Basic Science PSSA (2008) Science (2008) (2008) Science (2008) ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 4 56.3 35.1 5.6 3.0 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 8 17.7 47.3 24.3 10.7 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 11 9.9 26.4 48.5 15.2 ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD District Total 25.5 36.3 27.9 10.2 CARBONDALE AREA SD 4 27.6 56.3 11.5 4.6 CARBONDALE AREA SD 8 18.5 39.8 24.1 17.6 CARBONDALE AREA SD 11 11.1 14.8 42.6 31.5 CARBONDALE AREA SD District Total 18.5 35.6 27.1 18.8 DUNMORE SD 4 46.7 47.5 4.1 1.6 DUNMORE SD 8 10.7 43.4 31.1 14.8 DUNMORE SD 11 12.3 35.8 43.2 8.6 DUNMORE SD District Total 22.2 41.6 27.8 8.4 LAKELAND SD 4 50.0 38.0 7.4 4.6 LAKELAND SD 8 16.4 47.0 25.4 11.2 LAKELAND SD 11 10.2 38.9 42.7 8.3 LAKELAND SD District Total 23.1 41.4 27.3 8.3 MID VALLEY SD 4 29.5 58.9 9.3 2.3 MID VALLEY SD 8 9.4 41.4 28.9 20.3 MID VALLEY SD 11 2.3 15.5 51.9 30.2 MID VALLEY SD District Total 13.7 38.6 30.1 17.6

Page | 9

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

NORTH POCONO SD 4 47.2 42.7 6.9 3.3 NORTH POCONO SD 8 18.9 48.7 22.2 10.2 NORTH POCONO SD 11 9.1 29.2 49.4 12.3 NORTH POCONO SD District Total 24.7 40.4 26.2 8.7 OLD FORGE SD 4 41.4 39.7 13.8 5.2 OLD FORGE SD 8 9.8 58.5 23.2 8.5 OLD FORGE SD 11 11.6 39.1 34.8 14.5 OLD FORGE SD District Total 19.1 46.9 24.4 9.6 RIVERSIDE SD 4 46.2 39.6 12.3 1.9 RIVERSIDE SD 8 4.1 34.1 36.6 25.2 RIVERSIDE SD 11 4.4 25.7 52.2 17.7 RIVERSIDE SD District Total 17.3 33.0 34.2 15.5 SCRANTON SD 4 36.8 45.7 14.3 3.2 SCRANTON SD 8 9.6 37.8 29.7 22.8 SCRANTON SD 11 4.2 15.0 48.8 32.0 SCRANTON SD District Total 16.4 32.6 31.3 19.7 VALLEY VIEW SD 4 46.5 43.9 8.6 1.1 VALLEY VIEW SD 8 21.3 41.6 25.2 11.9 VALLEY VIEW SD 11 5.3 23.8 56.8 14.1 VALLEY VIEW SD District Total 23.7 36.1 30.9 9.2

Page | 10

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Science Results for all 4, 8, 11th grades combined in 2007-2008 School Year:

Science Proficient Results for 2007‐2008 School Year Science 77.8 72.2 71.4 69.3 66.7 65.3 60.9 60.5 56.3 52.3 58.3

Science Results for all 4, 8, 11th grades analyzed in 2008-2009 School Year

Science Proficient Results for 2008‐2009 School Year 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Total

Page | 11

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Special Populations

Students with Disabilities In this SAR, a student with a disability is defined as any student who requires the use of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to meet his/her educational goals. In Lackawanna County, 908 fourth, eighth and eleventh grade students with disabilities took the science portion of the PSSA during the 2008-2009 school year. Overall, this group achieved a 24.6% proficiency rating, although fourth grade scores differ drastically from eighth and eleventh grade results. It should be noted that although the scores of students with disabilities are often reported separately from the aggregated data, their scores are equally factored into each school district’s proficiency total and Annual Yearly Progression (AYP) goals.

Students with Disabilities Tested in the Science PSSA: 2008-2009 School Year

Students Tested Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic County Total: Grade 4 385 27.2 51.1 14.9 6.6 County Total : Grade 8 294 5.1 12.6 25.7 5.1 County Total : Grade 11 229 0.46 10.2 39 47.6 County Total 908 10.9 24.6 26.5 19.7

When compared with their peers, Lackawanna County’s students with disabilities performed at a lower level in eighth and eleventh grades. Fourth grade students with disabilities demonstrated a proficiency score of 51.1% whereas their counterparts in the regular fourth grade had an overall average proficiency score of only 45.3%, a 5.8% difference.

Page | 12

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

The following two charts provide science proficiency scores for students with disabilities and their peers in the 2008-2009 school year:

Proficiency Scores of Students with Disabilities in the 2008‐2009 School Year 90 80 70 60

Title 50 40

Axis 30 20 4th Grade 10 0 8th Grade 11th Grade

Proficiency Scores for All Students in the 2008‐2009 School Year 70 60 50 40 Title 30

Axis 20 10 4th Grade 0 8th Grade 11th Grade

Economically Disadvantaged

Economically disadvantaged students comprise another subgroup whose performance is monitored and analyzed via PSSA testing. The Pennsylvania Department of Education considers a student “economically disadvantaged” based on his or her participation in the free or reduced fee lunch program. Traditionally, students who are

Page | 13

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

raised in low-income environments tend to perform at a significantly lower level than peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.

In Lackawanna County, 2,017 participants of the science portion of the PSSA during the 2008-2009 school year in the fourth, eighth and eleventh grade classified as economically disadvantaged took the science portion. Overall, this subgroup achieved a 29.2% science proficiency score - although proficiency ratings varied widely among the three grade levels compared.

Science PSSA Scores for the Econ. Disadvantaged Students Total # of Below Grades Students Advanced Proficient Basic Basic 4th Grade 796 29.3 47.4 8.6 4.6 8th Grade 708 12 25.8 24.5 27.5 11 Grade 513 9.9 14.4 43.1 22.3 Total 2017 17 29.2 25.4 18.1

In regard to science proficiencies for the 2008-2009 school year, Lackawanna County’s economically disadvantaged students performed at a lower level at all grade levels when compared with their non-economically disadvantaged peers. It should be noted, however, that certain grade levels were outperformed only marginally in terms of overall score. For example, fourth grade economically disadvantaged students reported a 47.4% science proficiency score, compared with 34.8% for all Lackawanna County’s fourth graders.

Comparsion of All Students Tested in Lackwanna County vs. Econ. Disadvantaged Econ. Disadvanaged All Students (Peers) 47.4 45.3

34.4

25.8 24.9

14.4

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

Page | 14

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

African- American Students

Lackawanna County’s African-American students, a subgroup also monitored by PSSA testing as dictated by NCLB, are its most underrepresented population - with only 222 students testing in science during the 2008-2009 school year. It should be further noted that only one district (Scranton School District) has an African-American population large enough to be independently reported (population greater than 10). As such, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available this year.

African American Students Tested in Science PSSA in 2008-2009

Total # of Grades Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic 4th Grade 84 20.2 52.4 21.4 6 8th Grade 55 1.8 32.7 27.3 38.2 11th Grade 40 2.5 7.5 65 25 County Total 179 8.1 30.8 37.9 23

According to the data available, African-American students achieved a science proficiency rating of 30.8% for 2008-2009 school year, compared with a 33.8% proficiency score in the prior year. African-American students’ science scores are comparable to their peers at all grade levels, whereas their non-African-American peers scored a 34.8% science proficiency rating.

Comparsion of African American Students vs. their Peers in 2008‐2009 Science PSSA's

African American Students All Students (Peers) 37.9 34.8 30.8 27.5 25.6 23

11.7 8.1

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

Page | 15

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Hispanic Students

In Lackawanna County, 241 Hispanic students took the science portion of the PSSA during the 2008-2009 school year and achieved a 31.2% proficiency score. Not all students at all grade levels within each school district are reflected, as grades with fewer than ten students in a particular subgroup are not measured. Like the African- American subgroup population, only one district (Scranton School District) had an Hispanic population large enough (population greater than 10) to be scored and reported. Again, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution, given the small amount of data available in this testing year.

Hispanic Students Tested in Science PSSA in 2008-2009 School Year

Total # of Grades Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic 4th Grade 104 21.2 52.9 23.1 2.9 8th Grade 76 7.9 27.6 31.6 32.9 11th Grade 61 14.8 13.1 44.3 27.9 County Total 241 14.6 31.2 33 21.2

Comparsion of Hispanic Students vs. their Peers in 2008‐2009 Science PSSA Hispanic Students All Students (Peers) 34.8 33 31.2 27.5 25.6 21.2 14.6 11.7

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

Page | 16

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Conclusion

The 2008-2009 school year marked the second round of PSSA testing in science. Overall, Lackawanna County’s fourth grade students exhibited a higher degree of scientific prowess, with over 45.3% of students scoring proficient. In both years of testing, fourth grade scores exceeded eighth and eleventh grade scores. With 2008- 2009 school year being only the second year of testing, there was a dramatic drop in the fourth grade scores in the most recent round of testing; in 2007-2008 school year, fourth graders achieved a science proficiency score of 85.7%, compared with 45.3% in the 2008-2009 school year. Many reasons may factor into this significant one-year drop. The county’s eleventh graders, however, require careful examination, as their scores ranked lower than the county’s fourth and eighth grade scores. The most recent data suggests that as students enter higher grade levels, their abilities to think and investigate scientifically regress. The causes for such drops across grade levels are worth careful consideration, warranting a review of the educational pedagogy and overarching curriculum guiding students through such critical transition periods.

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, future science testing will place a heavy emphasis on “inquiry-based learning,” a form of instruction that emphasizes abstract reasoning, thinking and prediction skills, rather than more traditional science curriculum rooted in fact and note memorization skills. This paradigm shift is reflective of our growing need to become more competitive and capable in an ever expanding global economy - particularly in terms of science and math proficiencies. The most recent results of the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), an assessment tool used to compare fifteen-year-olds from around the world, found that American students significantly trail most modern countries in science and math abilities, including: Finland, Japan, Canada, China, Australia, Germany and the United Kingdom. As such, the need for quality science instruction is paramount if the U.S. wishes to remain a leader in the global marketplace.

Science proficiency examinations have recently been added to the PSSA, and, in time, social studies examinations will also be added. Therefore, schools with reduced instruction time in these subjects to focus on mathematics, reading, and writing PSSAs may be doing themselves a disservice to meet today’s PSSA demands. It is critical for school districts to investigate best practices to ensure proficiencies in all subjects are met. Teaching specifically to the test should be avoided.

The education triad (administrators, teachers and parents) must form a more effective collaborative effort to ensure that real learning is taking place. For Pennsylvania, emphasis on improving higher education attainment and other continuing education is critical. The economic development success of any region is dependent upon the quality of its workforce, and quality training should begin in elementary school. Specifically, the best economic development strategy is one that maximizes the potential of the public Pre-K – 12 education system.

Page | 17

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Many successful school districts have found ways to achieve higher scores and better academic learning skills such as: ¾ Diagnosing student instructional needs and finding ways to provide appropriate instruction ¾ Adopting common pedagogical methods so that students can easily move from one classroom to another and apply the same skills ¾ Using a systematic approach through a scientific thinking process while giving students the ability to take time in and out of class to plan, think, write, confer, read, change their minds, and have fun while learning as well ¾ Stressing higher-order thinking skills ¾ Coaching and providing whole-group brainstorming and small-group response sessions ¾ Offering fun academic activities within the classroom ¾ Peer or teacher conferences ¾ Focusing on professional development on the teaching of scientific problem solving and thinking

Best practices from around the country can be evaluated for adoption in local school districts after appropriate research and analysis has been completed.

References:

PA Department of Education: (11/2/2009). 2008-2009 Science PSSA & AYP Results. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=150034.

U.S. Department of Education: (11/2/2009). 2008-2009 Science PSSA Testing. http://pde.state.pa.us/.

Page | 18

7 South Main Street, Suite 201 120 Wyoming Avenue, Third Floor Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701 Scranton, PA 18503 570.408.9850 570.207.0340 570.408.9854 fax 570.207.0340 fax www.institutepa.org [email protected]

Diversity Pre-kindergarten (pre-K) and kindergarten education

J o I n t U r b a n S t u d I e s C e n t e r S e p Jt U e Lm Y b e2 r0 0 2 6 0 0 6

7 South Main Street, Suite 201 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701

t: 570.408.9850 f: 570.408.9854 w: www.urbanstudies.org

Staff

Teri Ooms Marla Doddo Joseph Boylan Executive Director Development Coordinator Research Analyst

The Joint Urban Studies Center The Joint Urban Studies Center was established to provide essential research, analysis, and consultation to small and mid-size cities aiming for full participation in the new economy of the 21st century. The Center mobilizes the resources of regional institutions of higher education to engage communities in planning that is informed by research, energized by broad participation from stakeholders in the community, and validated by successful implementation. As the managing partner in the Center, Wilkes University is joined by Keystone College, King’s College, College Misericordia, Luzerne County Community College, Penn State Wilkes-Barre, and the University of Scranton.

Note The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of the educational partners, their offices, trustees or board members, or private businesses that fund the Joint Urban Studies Center (JUSC) or the staff of the JUSC.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the Joint Urban Studies Center Advisory Board for its time, effort and commitment to this region:

William P. Montague, Founder Jim DePolo Michael MacDowell, Ph.D. Mark IV Industries Commonwealth Telephone College Misericordia Enterprises, Inc. Tim Gilmour, Ph.D., Chairman Melanie Maslow Lumia Wilkes University Patricia Donohue, Ph.D. Maslow Lumia Bartorillo Luzerne County Community Advertising William B. Sordoni, College Vice Chairman Thomas J. O’Hara C.S.C., Ph.D. Sordoni Construction Company Rusty Flack King’s College Diamond Manufacturing Thomas Baldino, Ph.D., Scott Pilarz, S.J. Chairman Academic Council Jeffrey Folk, M.D. University of Scranton Wilkes University Geisinger Russell Roberts Edward Boehm, Ph.D. William Host, M.D. Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Keystone College Wyoming Valley Health Care Systems Thomas Romanowski John Cefaly MELRO Corporation Cushman & Wakefield Thomas E. Lawson Borton Lawson Eugene Roth Scott Dagenais Rosenn, Jenkins, and M&T Bank William Leandri Greenwald Huntsville Executive Search Charles Davis, Ph.D. Susan W. Shoval Penn State Wilkes-Barre David Lee GUARD Insurance Group

United Way of Wyoming Valley

Research Team Teri Ooms, Marla Doddo, Joseph Boylan, and Thomas Murtaugh

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Executive Summary 6

II. Why are Pre-K and Kindergarten Education Important? 8

III. Savings Associated with “High Quality” Pre-K and Kindergarten 14

IV. Economic Benefits of Pre-K and Kindergarten Education 16

V. Growing Government Support for High Quality Early Childhood Education 20

VI. Status of Pre-K and Kindergarten in Pennsylvania 22

VII. Status of Pre-K and Kindergarten in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties 24

VIII. Case Studies 27

Endnotes 34

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 6

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) and kindergarten education have received much attention in the last fifteen years. As a majority of parents are now enrolling three and four-year-olds in some form of Pre-K, preschool or daycare facility outside the home, a great deal of research has outlined and examined quality early education. Many advocacy groups have been formed in support of increased quality and care for these Pre-K age children. While research has recognized the tremendous social and economic gains that quality early childhood education provides a community, government, at all levels, has been slow to assist in the effort to improve early childhood education.

Following is a listing of the purpose, goals and accomplishments of this report: • The report’s purpose is to increase knowledge of the Pre-K and kindergarten research, trends and systems – providing recommendations for an approach to change the current status of early education through the Luzerne/Lackawanna County region; it should be noted, however, that the report does not provide directives.

• The report aims to provide a broad overview of the state of early childhood education throughout the United States, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, specifically, in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties.

• The report offers a regional approach to improving early childhood education in Luzerne and Lackawanna counties and advises that the two counties work in tandem for this venture.

• Through the provision of an overwhelming amount of research, the report exhibits the positive impact a quality early education has on its recipients - both in the short and long-run.

• The report describes and lists society and government’s long-term benefits of providing a good start for the community’s children. Specifically, the report identifies early education as an important economic investment and development tool, which the business community and local chambers of commerce should support.

• The report recommends how the current uncoordinated/unsupported early education system can become unified and comprehensive in delivering to the children of Luzerne and Lackawanna County the best quality early education possible.

• The report provides case studies on what other states have done to develop unified early education systems, which may serve as models for this region’s development.

Research on the effect early childhood education has on children and society has grown substantially over the last decade, in terms of scope and precision. Mounting evidence proves that “high-quality” early education programs provide short-term benefits to children, as well as long-term benefits that last a lifetime – in turn boosting all of society. Well educated children translate to tax savings in education, health and welfare, and the criminal justice system. Early childhood education also has a tremendous impact on local and national economies.

Early childhood education employs millions of providers and teachers nationwide, pays billions of dollars in wages, purchases billions more in goods and services, and generates even more in gross receipts. The National Child Care Association estimates that the industry employs over 900,000 people as providers and teachers, with another two million working as “family, friend and neighbor” child care providers.

Even with families’ increasing demands for Pre-K, government has been largely unresponsive, and only about 14% of four-year-olds are enrolled in public school-based general education Pre-K programs. Because of the lack of availability of Pre-K programs connected with public schools, families are forced to turn to either private or non-profit early education programs; it should be noted that only about 35% of public schools have Pre-K

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 7

programs available on campus. Major problems with the U.S. Pre-K system include the fact that it remains largely unfunded; the system is not assessed and uncoordinated with no specific standards; Pre-K programs provide different curriculums and different levels of teacher training; and available Pre-K programs are often unconnected to the local public school district. Yet in the last decade, there has been a growing effort to establish high-quality early education beginning at age three, if not for all children, then at least for poor, at-risk children. Many states have made strides with full-day kindergarten, and are beginning to fund and coordinate four year-old Pre-K programs.

At the federal level, the Bush Administration has supported early education programs by increasing Head Start’s funding by $750 million in the 2005 budget, and providing 50,000 Head Start teachers with early learning training. The Bush Administration also supports giving states greater opportunity to coordinate Head Start, state Pre-K programs, and child care programs. Also President Bush’s Reading First program has provided more than $2.5 billion to train over 73,000 teachers in effective reading instruction.

Only in the last few years has Pennsylvania recognized the importance of quality early education and the State has recently taken steps to improve and coordinate the existing non-system. Pennsylvania’s Pre-K programs remained completely unfunded by the Commonwealth until four years ago, when Governor Rendell set aside a $200 million Accountability Block Grant (ABG). Through the grant, money is given to school districts to invest funds in Pre-K and full-day kindergarten programs. As evidenced by the latest fiscal year budget, Governor Rendell continues his commitment to invest in Pre-K programs.

Only 51% of Pennsylvania’s kindergarten students are enrolled for the full day, compared with the national average of 65%; similarly, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, very few children are enrolled in high-quality public school Pre-K. The State’s 2004-2005 enrollment figures reflect that Luzerne County recorded no students age four or younger attending Pre-K, while Lackawanna County recorded only three four- year-olds and nine students under age four attending Pre-K. Neither County recorded students attending Pre-K in private or non-public schools.

Non-school based and non-Head Start early learning centers provide the majority of Luzerne and Lackawanna County’s Pre-K education. Although no accurate total of children enrolled in other center-based early learning environments exists, the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children reported that, at 10.9%, Lackawanna County has the third highest number of high-quality early learning centers. Although much lower, at 5%, Luzerne County’s availability of high-quality early learning centers surpassed the State’s 3.9% average.

High-quality early education is an economic driver. If Pre-K and kindergarten education is considered to be an economic investment, people will begin to view early education in a new light. Yes, early education is a wise economic development investment of public funds; it brings direct payoffs to the community by growing the economy to the benefit of businesses, taxpayers, communities, and families.

PAGE 8 WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION IMPORTANT?

II. WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION IMPORTANT?

U.S. pre-school attendance has risen tremendously in recent decades, yet gaps in enrollment between children from advantaged and disadvantaged families remain.1 In 2001, 66% of all four-year-olds were enrolled in a center- or school-based Pre-K program - up from 23% just thirty years prior.2 However, attendance among children from low-income families and with less educated parents remains low. Center-based programs are defined as an educational experience for children four years old or younger that prepares them for further schooling and usually applies educational standards. School-based Pre-K is associated and integrated within the local school district. Children whose mothers have a college degree are nearly twice as likely to be in center- based childcare arrangements as those whose mothers did not complete high school.3 Growing amounts of data from multiple sources continues to support the children who attend high-quality early education programs before entering kindergarten benefit from short- and long-term gains for themselves and society. So far, effects of early education have proven to be greatest for disadvantaged groups, raising the possibility that policies promoting Pre- K enrollment of children from disadvantaged families may help to narrow the school readiness gap.4

In 1990, concern regarding ongoing differences in school readiness among children from more and less economically advantaged families led government leaders to endorse the first of eight national educational goals as part of the “Goals 2000” national education policy. The policy states, "By the year 2000, all children should enter school ready to learn."5 One of the three objectives under this goal was that all children should have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate pre-school programs that help prepare them for school. To equalize access to high-quality early education opportunities for all children, there have been numerous calls to expand governmental support of programs for three- and four-year-olds.6 Research has shown that all students, but particularly children from impoverished backgrounds, who attend Pre-K, regardless of the type of program, perform better on cognitive (knowledge-based) assessments than those who do not attend Pre-K.7 However, other research has found that students enrolled in school-based Pre-K as a part of the public school system have benefited the most and performed better in reading and math skills through the spring of first grade than any other early education program.8 Concurrently, a study by Steven Barnett, from Rutgers [University], suggests quality is the most important factor in cognitive development and recommends low child-teacher ratios, highly qualified and well-paid teachers, intellectually rich and broad curricula, active parental participation, and starting programs no later than age three as characteristics of a “high-quality” Pre-K program.9

Facts on Pre-K and Kindergarten Education

Nearly 40% of the associations between economic disadvantage and young children's lower academic performance are explained by the lower quality of home learning environments.10 By age three, children in families receiving welfare had vocabularies that were half as wide as those of their more affluent peers - and the disparities persisted throughout childhood.11 The gap in Pre-K enrollment between low- and high-income four-year-olds was close to 25 percentage points in 2000 (50% vs. 75%).12 Children from low-income or less educated families may be "doubly disadvantaged" by being less likely to receive stimulating care at home and less likely to be enrolled in educationally-oriented care outside the home.13 Young children partaking in Early Head Start have stronger cognitive skills, better vocabularies, and more positive attitudes than those who are eligible to participate but do not.14 Studies have shown that center-based care during the third and fourth years of life is particularly beneficial for children's cognitive development and academic skills, and children with the lowest scores on a measure of cognitive ability gain the most from center-based care.15 In 2000, 39 states had Pre-K initiatives, but only six states have made substantial per capita investments - Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Oklahoma. Nationally, approximately, 14% of four-year-olds are enrolled in school-based, general education Pre-K programs.16 35% of public schools have on-campus Pre-K programs.17

WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION PAGE 9 IMPORTANT?

Short- and Long-Term Benefits of “High-Quality” Pre-K and Kindergarten Research on the short- and long-term impact of early childhood education on children and society has grown substantially, in both scope and precision, over the last decade. Mounting evidence supports the fact that “high- quality” early education programs benefit children in the short-term and over the course of their lives. In turn, the impact of early childhood education benefits society by translating to tax savings in education, health and welfare, and the criminal justice system; further, high-quality early childhood education also has a tremendous impact on local and national economies.

Short-Term Benefits Over the last decade, an increased call for stronger government support of early childhood education has honed in research on its substantial short-term benefits. A study of more than 17,000 children by the National Center for Education Statistics, a research arm of the U.S. Department of Education, found that early exposure to books and literacy lessons boosts reading achievement.18 The study also reveals that children who attend full-day Kindergarten have the ability to demonstrate greater reading knowledge and skill than peers in half-day programs.19 Further, children who are exposed to literacy activities at a very early age, such as being read and sung to and having access to books and audio resources, are more likely to perform well in Kindergarten and first grade than peers without such exposure. This presents interesting findings and supports the idea that what happens to children prior to entering Kindergarten is critical to later success.

Another major study published in the spring 2004 issue of the American Educational Research Journal found that children who attended a center- or school-based Pre-K program in the year before school entry performed better on reading and math assessments upon entering Kindergarten. As considered in the study, center-based care includes Head Start, private and non-profit early education programs; school-based Pre-K is connected to and overseen by the local public school system; informal early education is home-based and provided by a relative, babysitter or nanny. This was a controlled study that reduced other/external factors (for example, demographics) associated with impacting high academic skills. As per the study, measures gained in reading and math by Pre-K attendees continued when the same group’s skills were tested in the spring of both kindergarten and first grade. Further, those who attended a center- or school-based Pre-K program were less likely to be held back in Kindergarten. Consistent with most other early education studies, the positive effects of Pre-K were greatest for at-risk or disadvantaged children.20 Such findings give more credence to the idea that promoting Pre-K enrollment for children of disadvantaged families might help to narrow the school readiness gap.

The study described above also considered the effect of different types of early education programs. Children participating in any type of center- or school-based early education program achieved higher reading and math skills than those cared for solely by parents. Out of all the types of center- and school-based programs, the benefits were the greatest for those attending Pre-K programs associated with the local public school district. Other center-based programs considered were divided into pre-school (specifically education oriented), and center-based day care (childcare oriented) for analysis. Public school Pre-K programs provided the greatest benefits, with pre-school programs providing about four fifths of the benefit and daycare programs providing about half the benefit.

PAGE 10 WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION IMPORTANT?

After a seven-year analysis of the Early Head Start program, further research, supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, reported that children who participate in Early Head Start have stronger cognitive skills, better vocabularies, and more positive attitudes than those who are eligible to participate but do not.21 Launched in 1995 for low-income families with infants and toddlers and for pregnant women, Early Head Start is a federally-financed program. Early Head Start allows for a continuum of support for children, from birth to age five, matching up with the regular Head Start program that serves three- and four-year-olds.22 Parents of children in Early Head Start were also found to be more likely to support their child’s learning, use positive parenting techniques, and improve their own education and job skills than those who did not receive the services.

While the Early Head Start Program utilizes a mix of home- and center-based support, the report also found that the program’s center-based aspect consistently enhanced cognitive development and reduced negative social behavior of participating children.23 Models that used both center- and home-based support were found to more profoundly impact the children’s language development, rather than their parents’ efforts to obtain employment. The findings regarding the benefits of Early Head Start also supports other research that has shown that increased early education, combined with strong parental involvement, provides the greatest benefits for disadvantaged children.

A school district study conducted in Montgomery County, Maryland, found that academically at-risk children who attended full-day kindergarten were reading at higher levels by the end of the school year than peers who were enrolled in half-day kindergarten. Approximately 71% of students from low-income or non-English- speaking families mastered fundamental reading skills after attending full-day kindergarten, while only 54% of those in half-day programs made the same progress. The study proves a logical assumption - that the more time spent in the classroom, the greater the potential for higher achievement and learning.

Pre-K’s overall pattern of favorable short-term effects is promising, particularly since some of the outcomes that the programs improves, such as language and math skills, are key indicators of subsequent school achievement and long-term success.

Long-Term Benefits Early childhood education’s long-term effects on development have been studied and known for some time - going back to the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project in the mid-1960s.24 Through the Perry Project, disadvantaged children in Ypsilanti, Michigan, attended a half-day of pre-school over the course of eight months. From 1962 to 1967, the program identified a sampling of 123 low-income, African-American children who were assessed to be at high risk of school failure.25 Of these children, 58 were randomly selected to attend a high- quality two-year early education program for 2- and 3-year-olds; the others did not attend a pre-school program.

Program teachers held Bachelor’s degrees and education certifications. Each teacher was assigned no more than eight students, and met with them for 2.5 hours/day, five days/week. Central to the program’s curriculum was the

WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION PAGE 11 IMPORTANT? children’s ability to plan and perform their own activities, and actively learning—individually, in small groups, and in whole-class groups. The final, and key, element of the program was that teachers made home visits once every two weeks.

Researchers at High/Scope Perry have since followed the two groups for the past 40 years. Their findings indicate that, within the control group, those participants who attended pre-school outperformed those who did not in education, economic performance, crime prevention, family relations, and health throughout their lifetime.

Specifically, the program group or those who attended preschool compared to those who did not attend preschool, conducted at age 40: • Was more likely to have earned high school diplomas or GEDs (71% vs. 44%); • Was more likely to be employed (76% vs. 62%); • Earned significantly higher median annual incomes ($20,800 vs. $15,300); • Included a higher percentage of home-owners (37% vs. 28%); • Was more likely to have savings accounts (76% vs. 50%); • Experienced fewer lifetime arrests (36% vs. 55% arrested five or more times) and spent significantly fewer months in prison by age 40 (28% vs. 52% sentenced).26

High/Scope Perry Preschool Program Public Costs and Benefits

Costs

Benefits

$0.00 $50,000.00 $100,000.00 $150,000.00 $200,000.00 $250,000.00

Educational Savings Taxes on Earnings Welfare Savings Crime Savings

Table obtained from: http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf

Evaluating return on investment, High/Scope Perry researchers concluded that 40 years after the pre-school experience, the public gained $12.90 for every dollar spent on the program. Much of the savings came from dollars not spent on incarceration; there were also savings to the public in lower special education costs; taxes paid to public coffers because of higher earnings; and savings in public assistance costs. As for participant

PAGE 12 WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION IMPORTANT? benefits, on average, they earned 14% more per person than they would have earned otherwise – which translates to approximately $156,490 more over their lifetimes. The cost of the two-year program was $15,166 per child.27

The Abecedarian Project was another early landmark study. Beginning in 1972, the project identified children at birth and provided them full-day care, fifty weeks a year, from birth until they entered school. The project focused on 112 North Carolina children, mostly African-American, whose family situations were believed to put the them at risk of poor intellectual and social development. During infancy, the children were randomly assigned to either a quality pre-school program, or to no program. Participants in the quality pre-school program received early and active stimulation from birth - progressively intensifying the level of interaction and stimulation as the children grew.28 Some children continued in the program until age eight, while others began an enrichment program after entering school.29 The most recent follow-up of the students, took place when they were 21 years old (in 1993).30

From the toddler years through age 21, those who participated in the quality pre-school program scored higher test scores in IQ and achievement. They were less likely to repeat grades and less likely to be placed in costly special education classes – which translates to real economic savings for taxpayers. The quality pre-school participants were more likely to complete high school, and by age 21, they had completed more years of education and were more likely to attend a four-year college.31 Subjects were also less likely to smoke marijuana and performed better on math and reading tests at ages eight and twenty-one with than those who simply attended regular school.32

The long-term cost/benefit analysis of the Abecedarian Project, conducted by Leonard Masse and Steven Barnett, differs from the High/Scope Perry analysis in that researchers looked not only evaluated the children, but also their mothers. Analysts found that because the children were enrolled for five years in high-quality, full-time care and education, their mothers had increased opportunities to obtain employment and training. As a result, mothers in the program group earned significantly more than those in the control group. Masse and Barnett estimate that the program mothers earned approximately $3,750 more per year more for each of the 21 years of the study than non program mothers – totaling $78,750 more in earnings over the course of the study.33

Since the Perry and Abecedarian studies, many other studies have been completed, which corroborate Pre-K’s long-term, lifetime benefits to participants - especially those of impoverished means. One major Chicago study also found that by age 21, early education programs result in higher high school completion rates, fewer participants repeating grades and lower crime rates among project participants.34 In a report on replicated studies of the Abecedarian Project, results from nine trials indicate that disadvantages experienced by high risk children can be substantially reduced through a high-quality early education program.35 Research confirms that children who experience early failures in school are more likely to become inattentive, disruptive, or withdrawn. Later, these same students are more likely to drop out of school; to engage in irresponsible, dangerous, and/or illegal behaviors; to become teen parents; and to depend on welfare and other public assistance programs. Evidence from recent scientific research also continues to show that what happens early on in a child’s development has lasting and important consequences.36

Approximately 70% of subjects in replicated Abecedarian studies were engaged in skilled jobs or enrolled in higher education, in contrast to only 40% of those in the control group. Early childhood education recipients were also three times more likely to attend a four-year college than were control-group children. Another advantage of early childhood education to young adults was the delay, of almost two years, of the birth of their first child; in addition, the frequency of repeating a grade, special education placement, teen pregnancy, smoking and drug use were all significantly lower than in the control group.

WHY ARE PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION PAGE 13 IMPORTANT?

Moreover, the resulting impact of the long-term benefits of high-quality early education is substantial and virtually eliminates disadvantages experienced by impoverished children during their early years, which establishes them for a lifetime of success. The savings to society produced by an early education investment for impoverished children can be viewed in the same light as investing in any public infrastructure – particularly as investments in human capital are increasingly more important in today’s economy.

Real “School Readiness” Gap The following findings on “school readiness” corroborate the tremendous benefit of early education to disadvantaged young children.

A number of studies indicate that children from disadvantaged families are entering kindergarten already behind their peers, because of the lack of educational stimulation in early life. Additionally, recent scientific advances in the fields of child development, neurobiology, and early childhood education affirm that the early years are a formative time of rapid growth and development. Collectively, such scientific findings indicate that learning and brain development are inter-related and that what happens early in development has lasting and important consequences.37

A 2002 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, reported that evidence of disparity between students from poor families and other students can be found in students’ achievement scores. The report used data from the U.S. Department of Education’s ongoing study of 16,000 children who entered Kindergarten in 1998. The research found that children in the highest socioeconomic group scored 60% higher in mathematics and reading than those in the lowest socioeconomic group. The report identifies examples of inequality - such as 20% of the poorest Kindergartners have a home computer, compared with 85% of those in the top income level. It also notes that children from poorer households spend more time watching television (18 hours/week), compared with those from the highest socioeconomic households (11 hours/week),. Further, the study found that Kindergartners in the lowest socioeconomic fifth came from families who owned just 38 books, compared with 108 books for the top socioeconomic fifth. The report’s authors note that poor children’s problems are also made worse by the mediocre schools they attend. This evidence suggests that the “achievement gap” starts prior to students even enrolling in K-12 education and translates to a very real school readiness gap. High-quality Pre-K programs combined with other support for poor families were among the Economic Policy Institute’s recommendations.38

Another study conducted by the Georgetown University Center on Health and Education found that the developmental disadvantages experienced by high-risk children can be substantially reduced through high quality Pre-K. The study demonstrated a strong correlation between children’s acquisition of language and their mother’s speech. The report found that by age two, children whose mothers speak to them frequently and responsively have vocabularies that are eight times greater than those of children whose mothers speak less frequently. Such an example proves the importance of providing high-quality, enriched learning environments for disadvantaged children. When given the right type and adequate amounts of language and cognitive experiences in a warm and responsive social environment, high-risk children show gains in intellectual and linguistic competence, the study further reported.

The study also found that high-risk children without a solid Pre-K educational foundation are likely to start kindergarten approximately two years behind peers. Also, children who are developmentally delayed will advance at the same rate of other school children—nine months developmentally in their cognitive and language skills - when they first enter school. Yet, this normal rate of learning when first entering school is still not enough to compensate for entry-level delays or to allow children to catch up. Thus, the focus of protecting high-risk children from school failure turns to prevention of the initial developmental delay.

PAGE 14 SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH HIGH QUALITY PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN

III. SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH “HIGH QUALITY” PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN

In today’s economy, where education and skill levels determine future earnings, the economic and social costs associated with not taking action to support early childhood education are too great to disregard, especially when the benefits far outweigh such costs. Estimates of social savings on investments in high quality early education programs range from $3 to as much as $17 for every $1 spent. While various organizations have touted returns on investment, all agree that quality early education delivers significant social and economic benefits. Even the more modest social and economic estimated returns of $3 to $7 for every $1 spent are worth the public’s serious attention.

Many diverse organizations conducting research on early childhood education have discovered the immense social and economic return of an initial investment in high-quality early education programs. A 2002 study released by Rutgers University’s National Institute for Early Education Research sites a $4 return on every dollar invested.39 The Rutgers Research showed that when young children receive nurturing care in small groups from well-trained teachers, their mothers are able to find better jobs and earn higher incomes. Children enrolled in high-quality education programs were: estimated to earn $143,000 more over their lifetimes, less likely to require special education programs, and less likely to smoke as adults - saving $164,000 in health costs over a lifetime. Steven Barnett, author of the cost-benefit analysis, believes that over time, offering all children a high-quality education doesn’t cost Americans a cent. He said, “America could vastly expand and improve early care and education while saving money in the long run.”40

Bringing the benefit of providing early childhood education to more tangible terms, a study conducted by an assistant professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, found that providing universal Pre-K in New York State could result in long-term savings to the state in costs related to students’ repeating grades and special education needs. According to the study, if New York spent $7,000 per child for Pre-K, and 80% of the state’s four-year- olds participated, repetition of a grade would fall 9.3% – resulting in savings between $22 million and $51 million over the course of the children’s education. Savings on special education programs would range between $241 million and $340 million. The Center for Early Care and Education in New York reported that a redistribution of those saved education funds alone would return between two-fifths and three- fifths of the investment, not to mention the other social savings such as in the criminal justice system, welfare, and healthcare – all of which result in an even greater return on the original investment.

A fact sheet released from the Pennsylvania Partnership for Children, an advocacy group supporting the health, education and welfare of Pennsylvania’s children, reported that children who attend high-quality Pre-K score higher on standardized tests like the PSSAs than those who do not. The organization also reported that a recent study conducted in Pennsylvania found that school districts investing in Pre-K could recoup as much as 78% of

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN PAGE 15 EDUCATION their investment, and some small school districts with high special education expenditures could recoup as much as $1.16 for every dollar invested.41

A 2004 study by the Economic Policy Institute reports that high-quality early education programs consistently generate benefit-cost ratios exceeding 3-to-1 - or more than a $3 return for every dollar invested. According to the Institute, even economists who are particularly skeptical about government programs make an exception for high-quality early education programs. Follow-up studies of poor children who have participated in such programs have found solid evidence of substantially better academic performance, decreased rates of criminal conduct, and higher adult earnings of non-participating peers, as has been previously demonstrated.42 The study also claims that if a comprehensive high-quality early education program were implemented for all poor children, the annual cost of the program would cost billions, but would create much larger budget savings over time; and by the 17-year mark, the net effect on budgets for all levels of government combined would turn positive. Further, within 25 years, the budget benefits would exceed costs by $31 billion (in 2004 dollars). By 2050, the net budget savings would reach $61 billion (in 2004 dollars).

A 2005 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Workplace Center and the Legal Momentum’s Family Initiative analyzing the economic impact of early childhood education reported that every dollar invested saves up to $13 in future costs.43 The Nebraska Department of Education issued a report on early childhood policy and found that the total benefit generated by a high-quality early education program was estimated to be as high as $17.07 for each dollar invested.44 A report in NEA Today, a periodical of the National Education Association, indicated that early education has a similarly high return of about $17 for every dollar invested.

IV. ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION

Economic impact is an aspect of quality early childhood education that is seldom considered. One reason to support early education, aside from the proof that it helps lead to short- and long-term success, is that it generates economic opportunity. When tax dollars are invested in high-quality early education programs, economic development is spurred in communities in the form of jobs and future tax dollars are saved. In essence, early childhood education is an industry that employs millions of providers and teachers nationwide, pays billions of dollars in wages, purchases billions more in goods and services and generates even more in gross receipts. The National Child Care Association estimates that the industry employs over 900,000 people as providers and teachers, with another 2 million working as “family, friend and neighbor” child care providers.45 Its conservative calculation of the licensed child care industry’s direct revenues in 2002 is $43 billion.46

Although it may be a surprise to state economic development planners and policymakers, the early care and education industry is often one of the largest employers and producers of revenues. In Massachusetts, for example, over 12,000 licensed small child care or early education businesses employ 30,000 teachers and providers, and generate $1.5 billion in gross receipts (total revenue). The industry’s gross receipts put it on par with data processing and pharmaceutical manufacturing, while its number of employees is similar to those in legal services and securities and commodities investment services. In addition, the ripple effects of the industry’s

PAGE 16 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION economic multipliers are felt in a myriad of ways. Goods and services purchased by early education centers and schools support manufacturing and local service industries. Employees spend their wages and pay taxes. Parents whose children are being safely cared for are better able to work; they earn and spend wages - increasing tax flow. Businesses benefit as parent employees are more productive, less often absent, and have fewer turnovers. Various chambers of commerce have also reported that the availability of adequate slots for young children may make the difference in a business’s decision to relocate. Like adequate highways and housing, early education is part of the infrastructure that supports businesses and parents’ ability to work.47

High-quality early education is an economic driver. If Pre-K and kindergarten education is thought of as other public economic investments are, taxpayers will see the education of young children in a different light. Education is a wise economic development investment of public funds; it brings direct payoffs to the community by growing the economy to the benefit of businesses, taxpayers, communities, and families.

As mentioned earlier, research shows that when children start school behind peers, they stay behind. Quality early education programs give them the social, language, and numbers skills they need; they prepare children for school - especially those at-risk. Such programs make children more likely to start Kindergarten ready to learn, and that “school readiness” means that the children perform better throughout their school years and the rest of their lives. As also previously stated, children who receive a good educational foundation are less likely to require expensive special education classes and more likely to graduate high school [and college]. When those children become adults, they are more likely to hold jobs and earn higher salaries; less likely to perpetrate crime; and less likely to receive welfare assistance. The economic multipliers indicate that taxpayers receive financial benefits from a stronger, better-educated workforce, which results in the creation of a higher tax base. In addition, direct savings result from less spending on remedial education programs, prisons, and welfare assistance.

Several prominent economists, including Rob Grunewald and his colleague Art Rolnick, both of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, and Nobel Prize winner James Heckman, have evaluated the public “return on investment,” and concluded that, viewed purely as an economic development strategy, the return on investment to the public of early childhood development programs “far exceeds the return on most projects that are currently funded as economic development,” such as building sports stadiums or relocating businesses. Rolnick and Grunewald view early childhood development programs, particularly for at-risk children, as an investment in the workforce, and conclude that “investment in human capital breeds economic success not only for those being educated, but also for the overall economy.”

Rolnick and Grunewald’s found that the public (not individuals in the program) reaped 80% of the return on investment - a 12% rate of return according to a 2003 evaluation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Primarily, such savings are attributed to reduced costs from lower crime, fewer welfare payments, and the reduced need for repeated grades and special education classes.

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN PAGE 17 EDUCATION

Economist and Nobel Prize winner James Heckman supports the investment of public dollars in early childhood education out of urgent concern about the U.S. workforce’s low skill level. He fears a continuing decline in skill level in the coming decades, and a disastrous loss of U.S. productivity and economic competitiveness. He concludes that “it makes sound business sense to invest in young children from disadvantaged environments,” since quality pre-kindergarten programs “generate substantial savings to society and promote higher economic growth by improving the skills of the workforce.” Heckman also argues that remediation programs in schools and for young adults who have failed in school, like GED certification and public job training, are both more costly and less effective than quality early learning programs. Therefore, money invested in early learning for at-risk children is more cost effective than money spent later to compensate for earlier disadvantages. In its influential 2002 report, Preschool for All: Investing in a Productive and Just Society, the Committee for Economic Development (CED), an independent research and policy organization of some 250 business leaders and educators, presented a business case for federal and state governments “to undertake a new national compact to make early education available to all children age 3 and over.” The CED report says that education should be viewed as an investment, not an expense, which will increase economic productivity and tax revenues, while diminishing crime. CED also argues that it is both morally and ethically unacceptable to fail to safeguard the health and wellbeing of all young children.

In 2003, two additional national business organizations, The Business Roundtable (TBR) and Corporate Voices for Working Families, joined forces to issue Early Childhood Education: A Call to Action from the Business Community. The report echoed CED’s findings in citing a solid return on investment of between $4 and $7 for every dollar spent on quality early childhood education. TBR and Corporate Voices cite additional business reasons for federal and state investment in early education. Like Heckman, they warn that America’s efforts to develop a first-class workforce for the future will be hampered without high-quality early education preparing children to enter school ready to learn. And, right now, employees who are parents - and therefore the businesses that employ them - benefit from the availability of good early childhood programs.

The benefits of early education don’t stop at the poverty line. High-quality Pre-K improves school readiness for all children. Steven Barnett points out that well-to-do parents are quite aware of its benefits: 78% of those who earn more than $100,000/year send their children to Pre-K, compared with fewer than half of those who earn less than $50,000/year (see chart below).

Table obtained from: http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf

PAGE 18 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN EDUCATION

The value of a quality early education is such that in New York City a few years ago, tabloids were filled with reports of a powerful businessman who allegedly engaged in shady financial dealings as a favor to his boss, who he hoped would use his influence to help the businessman’s twins into one of the New York’s best pre-schools. While his actions were extreme, many parents sympathized with his desire! What’s more, as the benefits of quality early education become more widely known, the increase in the numbers of children attending pre-school from families with a mother not in the workforce has risen at a rate strikingly similar to those of children whose mothers are in the workforce. However, quality pre-school is often financially unavailable to the middle class; those families with the fewest percentage of children enrolled earn between $40,000 and $50,000 annually. While, economically, not sending their children to pre-school may be the only choice that middle-income parents have, that decision turns out to be short-sighted. Educational failure is not restricted to poor children; it is common among the middle class as well. Middle-class children often have the same problems that quality early education reduces for poor children. While repeating grades and dropping out of school occurs in higher percentages among poor children, in real numbers, most children who fail and drop out are from families living above the poverty level.

This raises the question of what the effects would be of making quality early education available to all – which was analyzed by several professors from Georgetown University who constructed a study using students in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to test the impact of universally available Pre-K. At 63%, Oklahoma has the highest proportion of four-year-olds enrolled in Pre-K of any state in the union. The quality of education in Oklahoma is high – as teachers must have earned a Bachelor’s degree; there are no more than ten students assigned to each teacher; and teachers are paid on the same scale as public-school teachers.

The Georgetown study compared two groups of children of nearly the same age, one of which had attended Pre-K and the other of which had not. The first group of five-year-olds had just missed the birthday cut-off for Pre-K and the other had made it. Thus, the first group of five-year-olds were about to start Pre-K; the other group of five-year-olds - just slightly older - had experienced one year of Pre-K and were now starting kindergarten. Since the children were literally just days or weeks apart in age, one might expect them to have similar skills - unless the Pre-K experience made a difference. Pre-K did make a difference. In three cognitive exams, letter-word identification, spelling, and applied problems, students who had completed Pre-K substantially outperformed those who had not. Statistically, significant differences were found among the students’ races (Black, Hispanic, Native American and White), and among every socioeconomic group (determined by those who received free lunch, subsidized lunch, or paid for full-price lunch).

Utilizing models developed in evaluating the 40th-year High Scope/Perry study, but being more conservative in assumptions about economic gains, Steve Barnett created an estimate of the economic gain over a 40-year period that would have been produced from having children of all socioeconomic groups in quality pre-school (see charts on next page). There would be substantial financial payoff for taxpayers, even if poor students across the country produced only half the benefits that the Perry pre-school children did, and if middle class students produced only one quarter of the benefits that the Perry pre-school children produced. While a universal program serving all

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN PAGE 19 EDUCATION three- and four-year-olds would cost approximately $50 billion, over the next 40 years it would create over $213 billion in value – resulting in a net gain of $163 billion. And even if middle class children generated only 10% (instead of 25%) of the economic benefits experienced by poor children, universal quality pre-school would still pay off; with a cost of $49.9 billion, at 10% the economic benefit to society would be $136.5 billion, for a net gain of $86.6 billion.

In New York State, researcher Clive Belfield of Columbia University Teachers College, found similar substantial savings for taxpayers from reductions in special education, grade repetition, and reduced abuse and neglect of young children. He posed the question of the economic impact on the state from investment in universally available quality early education programs. Measuring what he calls “medium-term” cost savings - meaning the impact during the K-12 years, not the adult years beyond - Belfield estimates cost savings ranging from $2,591– $9,454 per program participant.

The combination of social savings and economic drivers provides immediate and future benefits to society, bettering the health and well-being of more individuals along with increasing the economy’s health and vitality – ensuring that it remains competitive. By investing in human capital through investment in high-quality early education, an economy can remain highly inventive and productive keeping that economy in the forefront and ahead of the competition.

PAGE 20 GROWING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HIGH-QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

V. GROWING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HIGH-QUALITY EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

The U.S. has a long tradition of resisting major government intrusions into the early years of education because such intervention would suggest a failure on the part of the family. Many Americans have long detested public institutions taking on roles belonging to the family and especially dislike “big government” telling them what’s good for them and their children. The debate over family versus public responsibility of Pre-K education continues today; however, if actions speak louder than words in America’s twenty-first century changing society, in 2001, 66% of all four-year-olds were enrolled in a center- or school-based Pre-K.48 The majority of American families are now voluntarily delegating the responsibility of Pre-K education to non-family institutions. Yet, according to MIT’s Workplace Center and the Legal Momentum’s Family Initiative, less than half of families who make less than $50,000/year send their four-year-olds to Pre-K, with the fewest enrolled being middle-class families making $40,000 - $50,000/year. Families with less income are most likely choosing to keep their children out of Pre-K because of their financial instability. As the benefits of high-quality Pre-K have become better known, the increasing number of children from families with stay-at-home mothers attending pre-school has risen at a rate similar to that of children whose mothers are in the workforce.49

Even with increasing demand for Pre-K from families, government has been largely unresponsive and only about 14% of four-year-olds are enrolled in public school-based general education Pre-K programs.50 So few children are enrolled in Pre-K programs connected with their local school district primarily because only 35% of public schools have such programs located on campus. This causes families to turn to either private or non-profit early education programs.51 Major problems with the U.S. Pre-K system include: that it remains largely unfunded; it is not assessed and uncoordinated with no specific standards; it offers different curriculums and varying levels of teacher training; and it is usually unconnected to the local public school district. Yet in the last decade, there has been a mounting effort to establish high-quality early education beginning at age three, if not for all children, then at least for poor, high-risk children. Efforts have been made in many states with regard to full-day kindergarten and four-year-old Pre-K programs.

Although government efforts to expand early education programs have been slow moving, in the last decade each government level has made strides and, if considered together, more resources are being directed to early education. The first form of government support for Pre-K education began with the 1964 formation of Head Start. Developed by a panel of child development experts to help communities meet the needs of disadvantaged Pre-K children, the original program began as an eight-week summer session offered by the Office of Economic Opportunity; its goal was to help break the poverty cycle. In the first few years, many summer-only programs became nine-month, half-day programs; such programs have since continued to expand.52

Today, at the federal level, the Bush Administration has supported early education programs by increasing Head Start’s funding by $750 million in the 2005 budget and providing 50,000 Head Start teachers with early learning training. The Bush Administration also supports the effort to give states greater opportunity to coordinate Head Start, state Pre-K programs, and child care programs. Also the President’s Reading First program has provided more than $2.5 billion to train over 73,000 teachers in effective reading instruction.53

It is not just the federal government that has realized the importance of early childhood education, as states have supported the belief that high-quality early education establishes students for lifelong success. A 2005 report by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) detailed the status of preschool nationally, updating the individual progress of all 50 states. NIEER is a research based institute that supports early childhood education by providing objective, nonpartisan information to policy makers. The Institute also offers independent research-based advice and technical assistance to policy makers, journalists, researchers and educators, with the hope of advancing the cause of early education for every American child beginning at age three. In 2002, the Rutgers’ Center for Early Education Research (CEER) was merged with NIEER to create a larger pool of support for early childhood education.54

GROWING GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR HIGH-QUALITY PAGE 21 EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

NIEER’s 2005 report focused on analyzing states’ performance on access to Pre-K programs, program quality and government spending.55 According to the report, in the 2004-2005 school year, 38 states offered state-funded Pre- K. Across those states, 48 distinct Pre-K initiatives existed, since some states funded multiple initiatives. Twelve states did not offer any state-funded Pre-K program in 2004–2005, including: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. However, Florida has since started a Pre-K initiative.56

The NIEER report also found that in the 2004-2005 school year, the percentage of four-year-olds enrolled in state funded Pre-K increased by three percent over the 2001–2002 school year, with 17% of the nation’s four-year-olds enrolled in 2004–2005. At just 3%, the number of three-year-olds enrolled in Pre-K remained steady during this time period. From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2005, state spending actually decreased by $278 per child enrolled, in inflation-adjusted dollars. A total of 801,902, three- and four-year- olds were enrolled in state Pre-K initiatives in 2004–2005. Not surprisingly, quality standards varied from state to state, and just more than half of the state Pre-K initiatives met the important benchmark of requiring all lead teachers to have a Bachelor’s degree. Funding for state Pre-K totaled about $2.8 billion during the 2004–2005 school year. Although some state Pre-K initiatives also reported financial support from local and federal sources, per-child spending in state Pre-K was still much less than total state, local, and federal spending in grades K-12.57

The NIEER report also found that, nationally, 61.3% of three-year-olds attend no Pre-K program; 7.3% attend Head Start; 3.9% attend some special education program; 24.8% attend some other outside the home early education or day-care program; and only 2.7% attend state funded Pre-K. Four-year-olds faired better, with only 31.6% not attending any Pre-K; 17.3% attending state Pre-K; 11.3% attending Head Start; 6.2% attending a special education program; and 33.6% attending some other outside the home early education program. The average state spending per child enrolled is $3,351, while the federally-funded Head Start program’s per child spending is $7,222 and the average K-12 education per child spending is $10,092.58

Overall, in the last decade states have shown much more Pre-K education support. Yet, although much progress has been made when considered on a national scale, when analyzing individual states, it is clear that progress has been uneven.

In 2004–2005: • 38 states funded a pre-school education program. • The state-funded programs served 801,902 children, increasing enrollment by 109,507 children (a 20% increase in age four students and an 8% increase in age three students) over 2001–2002 enrollment of 692,395. • Of the 38 states with programs, 26 increased enrollment during the period. • State preschool programs served more than 17% of the nation’s four-year-olds, making states an even larger provider than the federal Head Start program, which served 11% of all four-year-olds. • Pre-school special education programs served another 6% of the nation’s four-year-olds • 35% of all four-year-olds were served by some public education program – an increase of four percentage points over the 2001-2002 time period.59

Beyond national averages, however, lies a complex picture. Oklahoma is the only state that can truly be said to offer virtually all children pre-school education. In 2004–2005, over 90% of Oklahoma’s four-year-olds enrolled in a state preschool program (including pre-school special education) or Head Start. Georgia followed suit with 67% of its four- year-olds attending a public pre-school program during the same program year. Remarkably, six of seven states providing more than 30% percent of their four-year-olds with state Pre-K are in the Southern U.S. – as defined by the U.S. Census.

Few state Pre-K programs have yet to focus on three-year-olds, and, as a result, state programs enroll only 3% of the population of children this age. By contrast, Head Start enrolls 7% of the nation’s three-year-olds, and another 4% are in special education, yielding a maximum of 14% of all three-year-olds. Trends over time suggest that

PAGE 22 STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN PENNSYLVANIA

Head Start has at least slightly shifted its emphasis toward three-year-olds as state programs have served more children at age four. Statistical analysis indicates that a ten percentage point increase in a state’s pre-school enrollment of four-year-olds is associated with a two point increase in the percentage of a state’s Head Start enrollment devoted to three-year-olds.60

The seemingly small progress being made overall and by individual states represents important increases that give hope for future Pre-K program support. In 2005–2006, with no prior program, Florida is estimated to have added about 100,000 four-year-olds to the total noted above. State-funded Pre-K is on the increase, raising the prospect that in the near future, state Pre-K enrollment will exceed federal Head Start enrollment at all ages. Despite difficult times for state budgets, state spending on pre-school education grew by 7.5% - even after adjusting for inflation - and neared $3 billion.61

VI. STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN PENNSYLVANIA

Pennsylvania Pre-K programs were completely unfunded by the State until four years ago, when the Rendell administration set aside a $200 million Accountability Block Grant (ABG). The ABG enabled school districts to invest funds in Pre-K programs and full-day Kindergarten, and allowed individual school districts the flexibility to use the funds for a range of purposes other than Pre-K, including full-day Kindergarten and reducing class sizes.62 Hundreds of school districts in the Commonwealth chose to invest in various early education programs to ensure students enter school ready to learn. For the 2004-2005 school year, Pennsylvania also for the first time expanded federal Head Start Pre-K program funding with $15 million in state funding. The following year, the State doubled Head Start funding to $30 million - providing high-quality Pre-K to an additional 4,700 children.63 In next year’s approved budget, funding for such purposes was increased by another $15 million, which will permit the State to enroll an additional 6,250 children in Head Start.64

According to a 2006 fact sheet produced by Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, during the 2005-2006 school year, 318 school districts spent more than $117 million of the $200 million ABG to serve 58,318 children in full- day kindergarten. The fact sheet also reported that since the ABG began, 183 school districts have begun offering full-day Kindergarten. In the same year, 40 school districts used ABG funds to place 3,052 children in high- quality in-school Pre-K, through which 17 school districts offered Pre-K.65 In next year’s budget, ABG funding will increase an additional $50 million - to $250 million.66

Despite Pennsylvania’s progress in supporting early education over a short period of time, other states remain largely ahead. Only 51% of Pennsylvania’s Kindergarten students are enrolled in full-day Kindergarten, compared with 65% nationally.67 According to NIEER, about a third of the State’s school districts voluntarily provide Pre-K education to four-year-olds. Program participants are included in districts’ daily membership counts for public school attendance and are partially funded through the State’s basic instructional subsidy formula. Additional funding is provided through local taxes, Title I, or Head Start partnerships. Pre-K programs for four-year-olds are not required to follow any specific State early childhood standards whatsoever. NIEER ranked Pennsylvania 30th out of 38 states that offer Pre-K in terms of access for four-year-olds, and 19th in terms of three-year-old access. Pennsylvania was ranked 25th in terms of providing resources for Pre-K programs. Access to Pre-K was based on the number of children enrolled in the program, compared with the total number of children that age who are not enrolled. Resources are dependent on the amount of money spent per child enrolled that includes state funding, federal funding and local funding.

In the 2005-2006 school year, Pennsylvania enrolled in Head Start a total of 33,864 children age three and four by combining State and federal dollars. An additional 2,351 children up to age two participated in the Commonwealth’s Early Head Start program. The total cost of Head Start in Pennsylvania was about $260 million with the State contributing $30 million of the cost.68

STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN PAGE 23 PENNSYLVANIA

What remains unknown about Pennsylvania’s early education system are the number of children enrolled in early education centers outside the home and the number of those receiving no Pre-K. NIEER figures do tell us that 1% of three-year-olds are enrolled in State-funded Pre-K, 7% are enrolled in Head Start and 5% are enrolled in a special education program. 5% of four year olds were enrolled in state Pre-K programs, 11% in Head Start and 7% in special education. The national average for four-year-olds enrolled in state-funded Pre-K is 17% and 3% for three-year-olds placing Pennsylvania below average in state funding.69 Out of the 87% of three year olds and 77% of four year olds not enrolled in any of these programs, it is not known how many attend school district supported Pre-K, or other outside the home early education centers and how many receive no high quality Pre-K education experiences.70 However, a 2001 national survey by the National Center for Education Statistics found that about 57% of three- year-olds do not attend center- or school-based Pre-K, while about 44% of four-year-olds do not.71 Even if Pennsylvania’s statistics are close to the national average, it still means about half of the State’s three- and four-year-olds receive no formal Pre-K education.

Child care arrangements of preschool children, by age and race/ethnicity: 2001 Percent in nonparental arrangements Non- Center- or Percent with Relative relative school- based parental care Characteristic care care programs1 only Total 22.8 14.0 56.4 26.1 Age 3 years old 23.6 14.7 42.8 33.8 4 years old 22.5 13.6 65.9 20.4 5 years old 20.9 13.1 73.0 18.0 Race/ethnicity White, non- Hispanic 19.6 16.5 59.1 25.3 Black, non- Hispanic 36.7 8.5 63.1 15.1 Hispanic 22.8 11.3 39.9 39.0 Other 22.8 10.8 61.8 23.7

Table obtained from: http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4

One effort in Pennsylvania that is not specifically aimed at early education based centers or school Pre-K programs but rather at the child-care industry is “Keystone STARS,” which seeks to improve the quality of early learning in day-care facilities without any direct financial support from the government. STARS is a voluntary program that recognizes regulated child care providers who exceed state health and safety certification requirements. STARS provides a quality rating system through which each STAR designation has its own

PAGE 24 STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN LACKAWANNA AND LUZERNE COUNTIES research-based performance standards or benchmarks linked to improving learning outcomes for children. STARS focuses on providing quality environments that contribute to increased social and emotional development, learning skills and school readiness.72 STARS is the largest, most comprehensive voluntary quality rating in the nation. In its first full year, 60% of Pennsylvania’s child care centers enrolled and demand continues to grow. The Commonwealth offers intensive technical assistance and financial incentives to support staff development and increased staff compensation. Credential- and degree-granting programs and a career lattice are now being created.73 The STARS system provides concerned consumers with standards to select child care centers and indirectly raise the quality of early childhood education.

Pennsylvania has also developed early childhood teacher certification requirements. In addition, the State has recently implemented early childhood education standards and assessments, which link with Pennsylvania’s existing standards. Through workshops, Pennsylvania also intends to better train early education practitioners.74

The State’s Build Initiative works as a multi-state partnership helping to construct a coordinated system of programs, policies and services that are responsive to the needs of young children and their families. It supports individuals and groups who set early education policy, provide services and advocate for children from birth through age five to ensure they are safe, healthy, eager to learn and ready for school. The Build Initiative serves as a catalyst for change and as a national resource on early childhood education. Pennsylvania is one of five partner states involved in The Build Initiative. The State’s Build Initiative team is comprised of representatives from the Commonwealth’s executive branch and education partners, including the Governor’s Office; the Departments of Education, Public Welfare and Health; and Head Start.75 The Build Initiative has issued a number of reports advocating ways to bolster and expand the State’s early childhood education.

VII. STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN LACKAWANNA AND LUZERNE COUNTIES

Pre-K

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, very few children are enrolled in high-quality public school Pre-K. The 2004-2005 enrollment figures reflect that no four-year-old students are recorded as attending Pre-K in Luzerne County, and only three four-year-old children were recorded as attending Pre-K in Lackawanna County. In addition nine children in Lackawanna County who were younger than age four were also recorded as attending Pre-K. Neither county reflected any students attending Pre-K in private or non-public schools. According to NIEER, about 17% of four-year-olds in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are enrolled in school- based general education Pre-K programs. NIEER also reported that only 5% of Pennsylvania’s four-year-olds attend state-funded, school-based Pre-K, which probably indicates that Pennsylvania is below the national average in offering school-based Pre-K. Pennsylvania’s total Pre-K enrollment is unknown. Approximately 1,065 three- and four-year-old children in Lackawanna County are enrolled in the regular Head Start program, 382 of which are financed by the State’s supplemental funding; 52 children are enrolled in the Early Head Start Program. In

STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN LACKAWANNA PAGE 25 AND LUZERNE COUNTIES

Luzerne County, approximately 836 three- and four-year-old children are enrolled in the regular Head Start Program, 96 of which are funded by the supplemental state grant; 96 children participate in the Early Head Start program.

Non-school based and non-Head Start early learning centers provide the majority of Pre-K education in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties. Although there does not exist a precise number of children enrolled in other center-based early learning environments, Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children reported that, at 10.9%, Lackawanna County has the third highest number of high-quality early learning centers in Pennsylvania. At 5%, Luzerne County has more high-quality early learning centers than the State average of 3.9%. Quality was determined by accreditations received by either the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC) or the achievement of the highest rating (four stars) through Pennsylvania’s Keystone STARS program.

According to the 2000 census, there are approximately 7,046 children in Lackawanna County between the ages of three and five, about 86% of which are enrolled in nursery school, pre-school or Kindergarten. In Luzerne County, there are approximately 10,070 children between the ages of three and five, about 79% of which are enrolled in nursery school, pre-school or kindergarten. Luzerne County’s outside the home early learning and Kindergarten rates match the State’s average attendance – approximately 79%. If it is assumed that nearly 100% of children attend kindergarten, then the percentage of three- and four-year-olds attending some kind of outside the home early education drops significantly. Based on Lackawanna County’s population of three- and four-year-olds and the number of children attending an early education program outside the home, about 75% of three- and four-year-olds are enrolled. In Luzerne County, enrollment for three- and four-year-olds is only 66%, a full 2% lower than the State average of 68%. Based on this estimate, both counties faired much better than the national average provided by the National Center for Education Statistics, which estimates only about 54% of three- and four-year-olds attend outside the home early education programs.

If traditional public school systems and other government agencies do not pick up the slack of educating the remaining three- and four-year-olds, and especially disadvantaged children, then other non-profit social agencies such as the United Way and the Child Development Council will have to continue efforts to bolster school readiness for those left behind. Important programs targeting early education, health care, and social and emotional development in children aim to service children prior to entering kindergarten. The United Way of Lackawanna County’s “Success By 6” initiative seeks to improve the quality of early learning child care centers by helping them meet accreditation requirements.76 The Child Development Council, which operates several locations in Luzerne County, is a member agency of United Way and attempts to provide the highest-quality early learning environment possible.

Kindergarten

As would be expected, all public school districts in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties offer kindergarten. Yet, there is a great disparity between the counties in the number of students who attend half- versus full-day kindergarten. In Luzerne County, all but one school district provides full-day kindergarten and 94.4% of kindergarten students attend for a full day. Conversely, in Lackawanna County, although seven of 11 school districts offer full-day kindergarten, only 52.6% of students attend for a full day. In the Scranton School District,

PAGE 26 STATUS OF PRE-K AND KINDERGARTEN IN LACKAWANNA AND LUZERNE COUNTIES

Lackawanna County’s largest district, 39.7% of eligible students are enrolled in full-day kindergarten, while 60.3% of eligible students are not. If Scranton were to offer full-day kindergarten to all students, the percent of children in Lackawanna County enrolled in full-day kindergarten would jump from 52.6% to 73.9%.77 Although Lackawanna County’s percentage of classrooms offering full-day kindergarten is low, it is remains slightly higher than the State average of 51% but below the national average of 65%.78

As previously indicated, small class size has a proven positive impact on early education quality. According to statistics provided by the Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, the mean percentage of students in Pre-K through third grade who are in classes with 17 or fewer students is 23.8%; in Luzerne County, it is 7.9%.

Luzerne County is well on its way to offering universal full-day kindergarten and Lackawanna County is slightly above the Pennsylvania average in offering full day kindergarten, but still below the national average. The trend of full-day kindergarten should only increase, as increased progress reflects success in readying students for school and preparing them for long-term success (not to mention increased benefits to working parents). Fortunately, increased state funding made available for early education through the ABG has allowed local school districts to expand and improve the quality of kindergarten.

The national trend is to strive toward universal Pre-K through the public school system for four-year-olds first and then for three-year-olds. Doing so through the public school system makes sense because Pre-K prepares students to start school ready and there’s no better place for a child to begin school than to do so in the school district he will be entering. Also, school-based Pre-K ensures a standard of high-quality because teachers will be required to have at least a Bachelor’s degree in early childhood education. Learning standards for Pre-K can also be easily integrated and monitored within the public school system. Teachers will be able to expand their knowledge and keep up with the latest methods by attending in-service programs. Also, many states already impose minimum class size requirements that are proven to increase quality. And various support services, such as health screenings, meals, social and emotional development, are already built in to the public school system. Although no public schools in either county offer Pre-K in mass, three-quarters of children in Lackawanna County and two- thirds of children in Luzerne County attend some kind of out of home center-based early education. With 66% of parents enrolling their children in center-based early education, the demand is clearly palpable for high-quality Pre-K to be provided through the public school system. Government support is all that is needed to provide an adequate Pre-K system.

Like the rest of the nation, the non-public school system has created a mix of various Pre-K options, which differ in quality, quantity and cost. It remains that parents are children's’ first best teachers and should maintain discretion over which early learning is best prior to age five. However, most parents are choosing with their dollars and judgment that center- or school-based early education is best. Above the desire to give their children the best, most parents are working full-time jobs and are not able to keep children by their side while on the job; additionally, most jobs do not provide pre-school as a benefit. A handful of states have recognized the demand and trend toward center-based early education and have worked toward offering it to every child; to date, they have succeeded in taking the first steps toward that goal.

CASE STUDIES PAGE 27

VIII. CASE STUDIES

The first large project aimed at developing and implementing a practical high quality early education system was coordinated by the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE).79 An early childhood education network was formed between NASBE and six states - Wyoming, Illinois, Kansas, Ohio, Louisiana, and Massachusetts - to design coordinated, coherent systems that ensure all children start school ready to learn.80 The project required states to implement a results-oriented process to guide state planning around how to achieve the goal of school readiness. The states collaborated to address a range of issues including: designing and communicating the state’s vision for an early childhood education system; the development of Pre-K through 3rd grade standards based on early learning research; assessing program performance; and increasing training and professional development of early education practitioners.81

Taking the information compiled in the first phase of the effort to implement a high quality early education system, the six network states began a second phase focusing on teacher quality using state board authority to adopt new early childhood teacher standards, certification rules and professional development criteria to align Pre- K education with the existing kindergarten through grade three education system. The NASBE report describes how each Network state began building the structure to create and manage a cohesive early education system and an overview of the early education system each state implemented as a result of early efforts with NASBE.82

NASBE also points out that although efforts to increase investment in early education have stepped up in the last decade, few programs have sought to ensure improvements of quality. It was also found that more money has been spent without any coherent state-wide planning and without using research-based knowledge of effective pre-school environments. As a result of such uncoordinated funding efforts, NASBE has found the outcome in many states to be a “patchwork of programs and services that are at best inaccessible or mediocre (or both).”83

Illinois Illinois has a strong record of providing quality, free early education and services to three- and and four-year-olds. In 2004, the National Institute for Early Education research awarded the state nine out of ten benchmarks it uses to assess quality of Pre-K programs. Through partnerships, Illinois has been working to develop a cohesive infrastructure for all early childhood programs. In order to increase access to quality programs for its neediest children, the state has encouraged agencies outside the public school system, such as childcare centers and Head Start, to compete directly for state funding. The incentive works to improve overall quality as in order to receive state funds, agencies must comply with the same quality standards that apply to public schools.84

For its participation in the NASBE network, Illinois focused on ways to further improve its well established, quality Pre-K system. In the first phase of the network project, Illinois decided to partner its State Board of Education with the Division of Early Childhood and Special Education, the Illinois Department of Human Services, Bureau of Child Care and Development, Head Start, and the Governor’s Office. In phase one, the partnership developed an initiative to increase access and equity for children with disabilities and their families. The outcome was a guidebook to be used by special education providers and child care directors to expand the implementation of high quality inclusive practices and a training curriculum that provides rationale, strategies and resources for inclusion of children with disabilities in natural environments. In the second phase, the initiative supported higher education early childhood faculty in preparing personnel to work with children with special needs and other diverse populations.85

As a result of developing partnerships across the state focusing on a statewide comprehensive plan for improving early childhood education, since 2001 Illinois has trained 275 individuals on inclusion strategies for children with disabilities into the state’s existing Pre-K system. Those trained represented agencies like Head Start, school districts, Ounce of Prevention, ARC, Easter Seals, Boys and Girls Club, Jane Adams Hull House, YMCA, Jewish Children’s Bureau, and various health departments. Higher education faculty members from around the state were mentored on using different methods, models, and materials that include children with disabilities in normal

PAGE 28 CASE STUDIES

Pre-K education environments. A strategy was also developed to work with administrators and special education directors to expand inclusive pre-school options for young children with disabilities.86

Kansas In 1998, Kansas began a state-wide program that serves children with risk factors such as developmental delay, migrant status, and eligibility for free lunch. The number of children served by the program has doubled since its inception. The at-risk program serves four-year-olds and operates in the public schools. Kansas has also focused on child and family investments with widespread support. The Kansas Department of Education has also developed certain criteria for school readiness, a single set of teaching standards, and readiness indicators that apply to Head Start, childcare, public and private pre-school programs and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) programs.87

In phase one of its participation in the NASBE network, Kansas successfully tackled problems of fragmentation across many early childhood projects and policies launched in the 1990s. The state brought together policymakers, the Department of Education, higher education, Head Start, and private and public practitioners to create readiness indicators and new early childhood teaching standards. The group also developed a series of informational materials designed to help families find and receive services across different programs and agencies. Licensing standards for early childhood and early special education were merged into a unified teacher licensure for early childhood teachers of children up to age eight.

In phase two, the state focused on sustaining partnerships among multiple stakeholders to improve the quality of early childhood education teachers and childrens’ school readiness skills by having them participate in quality early childhood education programs. Early childhood standards were developed for children up to age five that were consistent with K-12 standards. By considering policy issues across organizations, a shared definition of quality early childhood programs was established. To ensure the common standards were understood, presentations and other information materials were given to school boards, administrators, principals, and special education administrators. To measure how all these efforts impacted the early education system, the state hired graduate students to collect observational data on Kindergarten classrooms that will be used to further refine school readiness indicators.88

Louisiana Louisiana’s main early childhood program is the “LA 4” voluntary pre-school initiative. Administered by Louisiana’s Department of Education, “LA 4” serves four-year-olds from low-income families through local school districts. “LA 4” provides ten hours of service – comprised of six hours of pre-school and four hours of before- and after-care enrichment activities. The state has begun consolidating other state Pre-K initiatives such as “Starting Points”, which provides six hours of Pre-K to four-year-olds. Along with increasing access to early education, Louisiana has focused on upgrading the quality of its programs. The state approved the Louisiana Standards for Four-Year-Old Children in line with guidelines established by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, the Council for Exceptional Children, Division of Early Childhood, and the Head

CASE STUDIES PAGE 29

Start Performance Standards. The state has implemented grade level expectations that add specificity to the early learning standards and now several systems to collect data on the programs offered and their effectiveness.89

For its participation in the NASBE network, Louisiana created inter-agency groups among Head Start, legislators, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, and higher education to address state and local policies that dealt with the birth to eight population. Through a competitive grant process, the state implemented the “LA 4” pre-school program in eleven parishes (counties). The state worked on-site with each parish to coordinate local public and private services systems. Many of the Pre-K programs shared funding from other sources, such as “IDEA Part B-619”, to provide children with disabilities with programs and services in inclusive settings. The state also developed standards for all Pre-K programs that incorporated research-based instructional practices. Louisiana continued its partnerships to support a special education training effort, since many children served in community settings and Head Start programs have special needs. Teachers receive training on how to design developmentally appropriate activities that incorporate early learning standards. The state focused on training practitioners from Head Start and childcare centers because neither program requires the same level of pre-service training as practitioners in the “LA 4” Pre-K program.90

Louisiana focused on professional development tailored to current practitioners unmet training needs. It worked with practitioners to develop effective classroom environments and methods of developmentally appropriate teaching practices for math, science, language, and social studies. Further, Louisiana administered information on effective classroom management and appropriate strategies for classrooms serving children with disabilities.91

Massachusetts Massachusetts has recently been focusing on laying the foundation for a comprehensive and accessible, high- quality system of programs and services for young children and their families. The state has identified the need to create a single set of standards for all programs that address health, safety, and education. Early Childhood Program Standards and Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences was approved by the Massachusetts Board of Education in 2003 and applies to all early childhood programs that accept state funding. A Department of Early Education and Care was formed to integrate existing early education and care functions into the new agency.92

In phase one of the network activities, like other states, Massachusetts also focused on working with various state agencies to identify the best plan of action. As part of the NASBE grant to coordinate early childhood education and services, the state convened forums to examine models to promote a seamless transition to a new early childhood system that integrated children with disabilities. The final plan resulted in the development of a guidebook - Best Practices in Early Childhood Transitions Guide. The state then approved Early Childhood Standards and Guidelines, which requires all newly hired teachers to attain a college degree, a minimum of an Associate’s degree, by 2010 and a Bachelor’s degree by 2017. The Early Childhood Program Standards and Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences was disseminated to all partners involved in early childhood education. Through IDEA, Massachusetts then began seeking ways to coordinate programs and providers.93

In phase two, activities focused on integrating initiatives across all colleges and universities, state agencies, vocational high schools, and other early childhood training sites. Materials were distributed, training sessions were held, professional development core competencies were advanced and an Associate’s degree accreditation project was launched in selected institutions. As a result, 23 institutions of higher education have been certified to offer the new cohesive early childhood education certification program.94

Ohio Prior to 2001, public schools, vocational schools, educational service centers, and federally-funded Head Start received direct funding from general revenue sources that targeted services to children from low-income families. When general revenue was no longer available for state-funded Head Start, Ohio redirected Temporary Assistance

PAGE 30 CASE STUDIES

for Needy Families (TANF) funding. In 2004, Head Start Plus was created to provide full-day, full-year education and care services. The state also began to move toward integrating state-funded subsidized child care and Head Start services.95

In phase one, Ohio formed a collaborative panel that included child care providers, government departments, higher education, legislators, and local practitioners. The panel produced a report that outlined a plan of action. The plan called for funding for state-of-the-art professional development pre-service and in-service opportunities for early education and child care professionals. Amending rules across state agencies to increase access to services and coordinate grants and legislation to blend funding streams were suggested. Including the participation of families in all levels of the decision-making process was also recommended. Training for current practitioners in community-based programs was also suggested in order to better educate and care for children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment.96

In phase two, a policy framework for the roles, responsibilities and performance indicators of practitioners was developed and guidance for higher education training programs and professional development was designed. As a result of the planning, Ohio has developed curriculum materials and designed train the trainer models for in- services professional development. A faculty institute on pre-service training was developed and a website that serves as a resource for practitioners was established.97

Wyoming Wyoming does not have a separate state-funded Pre-K program, but does provide $1.5 million/year in federal funding through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to augment pre-school quality. [Yet, the state’s Department of Education, in collaboration with the Children’s Action Alliance, higher education, the Department of Family services, and local providers have systematically addressed critical areas to enhance early education quality, such as examining gaps in statewide data collection, developing early learning standards, and designing higher education early childhood endorsement programs.] In 2004, an early childhood endorsement program was established and a pre-school certification program implemented.98

In phase one, Wyoming created an early childhood education team comprised of representatives from four agencies to address the development of an early education infrastructure. A statewide report emphasized the need to create a common systems approach to assessment, indicators, and diagnostic evaluation in order to ensure that early childhood education promoted school readiness. In phase two, Wyoming designed a collaborative strategy to implement an early childhood birth-to-five endorsement program. The program targets students enrolled in a Bachelor’s degree program in child development; allows post-graduate students in elementary education, child development, and related fields to take the required courses at a graduate level; and provides extensive online coursework to serve the needs of trainees scattered throughout the state. As part of the endorsement program, Wyoming has since successfully launched a training program for children birth to five years of age.

The similarity in the approach of each of the six states to take first steps toward a statewide high-quality early childhood education system is worth noting. It is a plan of action that can be duplicated by other states and even on a regional level. First, a diverse group of interested parties was formed to set goals. Such goals were then used to develop a plan of action. Many of the states opted to first develop education standards and a better-trained, professional practitioner workforce. Creative funding was utilized and many states used inclusionary planning for students with disabilities as many government funding streams now require. Getting all stakeholders on the same page and working in the same direction towards better early childhood education was the successful accomplishment of each state and the most important objective of any comprehensive system.

RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 31

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS

For System Development Partnerships: Government, non-profit, and private partnerships are essential in developing a comprehensive and innovative plan for improving early childhood education in Lackawanna and Luzerne Counties. As was exemplified by the six National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Network states, collaboration is essential in the creation of a working cohesive system. Intergovernmental cooperation between federal, state, and local agencies is essential for any comprehensive plan to work well. Including non-profit groups, such as higher education, the United Way, Boys and Girls Club, and the YMCA, increases community collaboration and support. Reaching out to local chambers of commerce and the business community brings another perspective and often helpful financial support. PNC Bank already has established a Grow Up Great program, which could be integrated with any system. United Way in both counties has launched a Success by Six campaign, with much the same aim as Grow Up Great. Pooling resources toward the same effort would be much better than working separately and without communication.

Any collaborative effort would require a conference to merge various stakeholders to outline goals and develop committees to create a plan in line with such goals. Bringing together various stakeholder representatives with early childhood education providers during the planning stages promotes that each organization remains onboard throughout the process.

Complete Local Plan: Lackawanna and Luzerne counties do not have to wait for Pennsylvania to develop a comprehensive Pre-K and kindergarten education plan. The counties are already very similar in their demographics, social services organizations, and businesses; in essence, the counties form a distinct metropolitan region. Lackawanna and Luzerne counties are also home to resource-rich state, community and private colleges and universities, many of which are willing to assist in some capacity. Although the noted case studies are based on statewide models, the actions taken by the six states fit well for Pennsylvania, because the state has already completed some work that encourages local planning for an augmented early education system. For instance, local school districts could utilize increased state ABG funds to start school-based Pre-K for four-year-olds, while the local Head Start could use its increased state funding to enroll more three-year-olds in quality Pre-K.

The Pennsylvania Department of Education has already developed early learning standards for Pre-K and kindergarten and an early childhood assessment for children from birth to age eight. With implementation of the Build Initiative, the Commonwealth has offered its first workshop to train the trainers, through which those trained will in turn train early childhood practitioners on newly developed standards. Local higher education institutions that teach early childhood education would also be able to assist in the professional development of current practitioners. Pennsylvania has also developed program standards for Head Start.99

Cohesive System: A patchwork of unconnected and uncoordinated programs and efforts for better early childhood education is the “non-system” that exists today in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties. What is needed is a unified effort to establish, promote and manage a single early childhood education system. That system should be guided by already-established standards, and it should capitalize on funding, training, and support offered by the Commonwealth. Such a well-managed local system could become a model for other regions in the state, lowering the overall state expenditure for quality early childhood education.

Creative Funding: Pennsylvania’s new fiscal year budget already provides for funding that promotes early education; yet, perhaps the state could be persuaded to use more creative revenue streams for early education – such as tobacco settlement money or federal TANF and IDEA funds. Each of the various groups may not have raw funds to offer, but may propose other valuable services. The reality is that neither national nor state governments will be funding universal Pre-K for three- and four-year-olds, thus a comprehensive early education system for Lackawanna and Luzerne counties will have to rely upon creative funding methods.

Professional Development: Quality early education is linked to practitioners’ professional development. High-

PAGE 32 RECOMMENDATIONS

quality practitioners who are knowledgeable and well- trained provide students with a higher quality of early education. Local higher education institutions will play a central role in practitioners’ professional development. Professional development workshops on early education currently being developed by the state will also assist in the process. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania STARS initiative also promotes practitioners professional development and quality.

Curriculum Standards: Curriculum standards are necessary for a unified system that meshes with the rest of Pennsylvania’s K-12 education standards. Because the state has already developed standards for early education, those standards should be used to guide curriculum development in Lackawanna and Luzerne counties’ regional plan.

Program Assessment: Monitoring of any new system created by the Lackawanna and Luzerne Early Education Partnership should be ongoing as the system gets up and running. It is important to measure whether or not the Pre-K system implemented is effective in making more students ready to learn as they enter kindergarten and early elementary grades. Perhaps higher education departments of education could make graduate students and faculty available to carry out such research. Inviting outside researchers to study the program may also work.

Lobby State: Invite various early education stakeholder groups at the state level to assist the Partnership in developing and implementing a comprehensive system. Develop an awareness and lobbying committee to advocate that the state do even more to support early education. The committee can also increase support for the region’s early education system.

For High-Quality Early Education System Low Child-Teacher Ratios: Many researchers have noted that low child-teacher ratios are important factors in delivering high-quality early education. Any system developed for three- and four-year-old Pre-K students should have a class size of 20 or less, with a staff-child ratio of 1:10 or better, as recommended by NIEER.

Highly Qualified Teachers: The lead practitioner in any early childhood classroom should be professionally-trained and knowledgeable. The Commonwealth already has in place extensive certification procedures and requirements for early childhood education teachers. An early childhood teacher certification would be the highest qualification an early childhood education practitioner would receive and a comprehensive system should strive for increasing the region’s number of early childhood certified teachers.

Rich Curricula: Using the Pennsylvania Early Education Academic Standards should guarantee a solid and consistent curriculum, as it has been designed to prepare Pre-K students for meeting the K-12 Pennsylvania standards.

Parental Participation: Any sound education system involves parents in their children’s learning and development. Parents act as children’s’ first best teachers and need to be active participants in any comprehensive early childhood education system. This report demonstrates that children learn and develop better when parents are actively involved in their education.

Support All-Day Kindergarten: Research shows that children who attend all-day kindergarten perform better in language and math skills in the early grades, which helps them gain more confidence and perform better in later years. Luzerne County nearly has universal full-day kindergarten, while Lackawanna County lags behind. The

RECOMMENDATIONS PAGE 33

first objective of a comprehensive system is to instate universal full-day kindergarten.

Continue Support and Expansion of Voluntary Pre-K for Four-Year-Olds: Increasing enrollment in high quality Pre-K for four-year-olds should be the second priority in a comprehensive system. When enrollment is limited, preference should first be given to at-risk and underprivileged children, as research shows they receive the greatest benefit. Middle-income children should be given next preference, as this income group currently enrolls the fewest percentage of children in high-quality Pre-K.

Voluntary Early Education Beginning at Age Three: Many researchers claim that the greatest benefit children receive happens when they enter high quality early education at age three. Again, evidence suggests that at-risk and underprivileged children receive the greatest benefit because their home environment is less stimulating with fewer resources.

Internet Resources

National Websites

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) http://nces.ed.gov/

The National Child Care Information Center (NCCIC) http://www.nccic.org/

The National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) http://nieer.org/about/

The National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) http://www.nasbe.org/

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) http://www.naeyc.org/

Pre-K Now http://www.preknow.org/

Pennsylvania Websites

Pennsylvania Department of Education http://www.pde.state.pa.us/pde_internet/site/default.asp?g=0

The Build Initiative http://www.buildinitiative.org/

Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children http://www.papartnerships.org/

Pennsylvania Child Care Association http://www.pacca.org/About_PACCA.htm

PAGE 34 ENDNOTES

Endnotes:

1. Katherine A Magnuson, Marcia K Meyer, Christopher J Ruhm, Jane Waldfogel. “Inequality in Preschool Education and School Readi- ness,” American Educational Research Journal, Washington: Spring 2004. Vol. 41, Iss. 1, p. 115-157: obtained via Proquest. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Regena Fails Nelson. “The Impact of Ready Environments on Achievement in Kindergarten,” Journal of Research in Childhood Educa- tion, Olney: Spring 2005. Vol. 19, Iss. 3, p. 215-221: obtained via Proquest. 8. Magnuson et al. 9. W. Steven Barnett, “Early Childhood Education”. http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/documents/EPRU%202002-101/Chapter%2001-Barnett-Final.htm 10. Magnuson et al: obtained via Proquest. 11. Ibid. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid. 14. Linda Jacobson. “Study: Early Head Start Children Outpace Peers,” Education Week, Washington: Jun 12, 2002. Vol. 21, Iss. 40, p. 10: obtained via Proquest. 15. Ibid. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibid. 18. Kathleen Kennedy Manzo, Erik W Robelen. “Study: Full-day kindergarten boosts reading achievement,” Education Week, Washington: Jun 11, 2003. Vol. 22, Iss. 40, p. 9: obtained via Proquest. 19. Ibid. 20. Magnuson et al: obtained via Proquest. 21. Jacobson. “Study: Early Head Start Children Outpace Peers”: obtained via Proquest. 22. “Early Head Start,” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services: Administration for Children & Families, June 15, 2006. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/programs/ehs/ehs.htm 23. Jacobson. “Study: Early Head Start Children Outpace Peers”: obtained via Proquest. 24. Gerald W. Bracey, Authur Stellar. “Long-term studies of preschool: Lasting Benefits far outweigh costs,” Phi Delta Kappan. Blooming- ton: June 2003 Vol. 84, Iss. 10 p. 780-783, 797: obtained via Proquest. 25. Leslie J. Calman, Linda Tarr-Whelan. “Early Childhood Education for All: A Wise Investment,” Legal Momentum’s Family Initiative; MIT Workplace Center, New York, NY: April 2005, p. 11-12. http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf 26. Ibid. p. 12. 27. Ibid. p. 12-13. 28. Bracey et al: obtained via Proquest. 29. Ibid. 30. Bracey et al: obtained via Proquest and Calman et al. 31. Ibid. 32. Jacobson. “Study: Early Head Start Children Outpace Peers”: obtained via Proquest. 33. Bracey et al: obtained via Proquest. 34. Ibid. 35. Craig T Ramey, Sharon L Ramey. “Early Learning and School Readiness: Can Early Intervention Make a Difference?” Merrill - Palmer Quarterly. Detroit: Oct 2004.Vol. 50, Iss. 4; pg. 471, 21 pgs. 36. Ibid. 37. Ramey et al: obtained via Proquest. 38. Linda Jacobson. “Kindergarten study links learning deficits to poverty,” Education Week. Washington: Oct 2, 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 5, p. 10: obtained via Proquest. 39. Linda Jacobson. “Early Years: A Good Return,” Education Week. Washington: Dec11, 2002. Vol. 22, Iss. 15; pg. 12: obtained via Pro- quest. 40. Ibid. 41. “Pre-K and Full Day Kindergarten in Pennsylvania 2006 Fact Sheet,” Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children. http://www.papartnerships.org/pdfs/factsheet_prek06.pdf 42. Robert G. Lynch, “Exceptional Returns,” Economic Policy Institute: 2004 http://www.epinet.org/books/exceptional/exceptional_returns_(full).pdf 43. Leslie J. Calman, Linda Tarr-Whelan. http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf 44. “Nebraska Early Childhood Policy Study Report Summary,” September 23, 2005. http://www.nde.state.ne.us/ech/EC_PolicyStudy_0106.pdf 45. Leslie J. Calman, Linda Tarr-Whelan. http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf

ENDNOTES PAGE 35

46. Ibid. 47. Ibid. 48. Magnuson et al: obtained via Proquest. 49. Leslie J. Calman, Linda Tarr-Whelan. http://web.mit.edu/workplacecenter/docs/Full%20Report.pdf 50. Ibid. 51. Ibid. 52. “Head Start History: 1965-Present”. http://www.paheadstart.org/UserFiles/File/General_History.pdf 53. President George W. Bush Record of Achievement, “Improving American Education”. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/chap12.html 54. “The State of Preschool 2005” The National Institute for Early Education Research, p. 2. http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 55. Mission Statement, The National Institute for Early Education Research. http://nieer.org/about/ 56. The State of Preschool 2005, p. 2. http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 57. Ibid. p. 3. 58. Ibid. 59. Ibid. p. 5. 60. Ibid. p. 4. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. p. 126. http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 63. “Early Childhood Education,” Edward G. Rendell: Governor, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. http://www.governor.state.pa.us/governor/cwp/view.asp?a=1114&q=437902 64. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2006-2007 Budget in Brief, Budget Highlights, p. 6. http://www.budget.state.pa.us/budget/lib/budget/2006-2007/bib/2006_07_Budget_In__Brief.pdf 65. Pre-K and Full Day Kindergarten in Pennsylvania 2006 Fact Sheet. http://www.papartnerships.org/pdfs/factsheet_prek06.pdf 66. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2006-2007 Budget in Brief, Budget Highlights, p. 6. http://www.budget.state.pa.us/budget/lib/budget/2006-2007/bib/2006_07_Budget_In__Brief.pdf 67. Ibid. 68. Pennsylvania Head Start Association, “Overview: Headstart in PA”. http://www.paheadstart.org/index.cfm?mm_id=2&page=28 “PA's Head Start Programs' Federal and State Funded Enrollment 2005-2006” http://www.paheadstart.org/index.cfm?mm_id=2&page=61 69. “The State of Preschool 2005”, p. 2. http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 70. “The State of Preschool 2005”, p. 127 http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 71. National Center for Education Statistics, “Child care arrangements of preschool children, by age and race/ethnicity: 2001”. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=4 72. Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, “Keystone Stars Child Care Quality Initiative”. http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/Child/ChildCare/KeyStoneStarChildCare/ 73. “The Build Initiative in Pennsylvania”. http://www.buildinitiative.org/BuildFactSheets05/PennsylvaniaFactSheet_05.pdf 74. Pennsylvania Department of Education, “Standards, Curriculum and Assessment for Early Childhood Education”. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/early_childhood/cwp/view.asp?A=179&Q=101706 75. “The State of Preschool 2005”, p. 2. http://nieer.org/yearbook/pdf/yearbook.pdf#page=8 76. “Success Initiative Gets Off to Strong Start” Staff Report, The Times-Tribune: November 11, 2003. http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=10494104&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=8 77. Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, School Readiness Indicators - 2005. http://www.papartnerships.org/sr/Indicators.pdf 78. Pre-K and Full Day Kindergarten in Pennsylvania 2006 Fact Sheet. http://www.papartnerships.org/pdfs/factsheet_prek06.pdf 79. “From Planning to Practice: State Efforts to Improve Early Childhood Education,” National Association of State Boards of Education, 2005, p. 4. http://www.nasbe.org/projects/From_Planning_to_Practice.pdf 80. Ibid. 81. Ibid. p 4-5. 82. Ibid. p 5. 83. Ibid. p. 8. 84. Ibid. p. 17.

PAGE 36 ENDNOTES

85. Ibid. p. 19. 86. Ibid. p. 20. 87. Ibid. p. 21. 88. Ibid. p. 23. 89. Ibid. p. 25. 90. Ibid. p. 27. 91. Ibid. p. 28. 92. Ibid. p. 29. 93. Ibid. p. 31. 94. Ibid. p. 32-33. 95. Ibid. p. 34. 96. Ibid. p. 36. 97. Ibid. p. 37. 98. Ibid. p. 38. 99. Pennsylvania Department of Education, “Standards, Curriculum and Assessment for Early Childhood Education”. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/early_childhood/cwp/view.asp?A=179&Q=101706

7 South Main Street, Suite 201 Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania 18701 t: 570-408-9850 f: 570-408-9854 w: www.urbanstudies.org

J o I n t U r b a n S t u d I e s C e n t e r S e m p t e m b e r 2 0 0 6

Lackawanna County School Assessment 2010 Report

The School Assessment Report (SAR) provides educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information Writing regarding student proficiencies.

May 2010

1 | Page

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 4 Report Methodology ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 Education Reform Since 2000 ...... 6 Adequate Yearly Progression ...... 6 Proficiency Trends 2005-2009 ...... 9 Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 10 Number of Students Tested ...... 10 Proficiency Changes 2005-2009 ...... 10 Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 12 Proficiency in Subgroups ...... 13 Students with Disabilities ...... 13 Specially Designed Instruction ...... 14 Economically Disadvantaged...... 15 African-American Students ...... 15 Hispanic Students...... 16 Conclusion ...... 17 Appendix: Lackawanna County School Proficiency Scores ...... 19 Abington Heights School District ...... 19 Carbondale Area School District ...... 20 Dunmore School District ...... 21 Lakeland School District ...... 22 Mid Valley School District ...... 23 North Pocono School District ...... 24 Old Forge School District ...... 25 Riverside School District ...... 26 Scranton School District ...... 27 Valley View School District ...... 28

2 | Page

List of Figures

Figure 1: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency Results 2005-2009 ...... 10 Figure 2: County-wide Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009 Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 3: IEP Student Writing Proficiency ...... 13 Figure 4: Economiccally Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency ...... 14 Figure 5: African American Writing Proficiency 2005-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 6: Hispanic Writing Proficiency 2005-2009 ...... 15 Figure 7: Abington Heights SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 20 Figure 8: Carbondale Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 16 Figure 9: Dunmore SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 10: Lakeland SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 17 Figure 11: Mid Valley SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 12: North Pocono SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 19 Figure 13: Old Forge SD: Writing Proficiency ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 14: Riverside SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 15: Scranton SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 16: Valley View SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Tables

Table 1: Students Tested in Writing 2008-2009 ...... 10 Table 2: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.-12 Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009 ...... 11-13 Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Produced by: The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development Senior Researchers Teri Ooms Sherry Tracewski

Research Associates Jeff Monshein Kyle Gilligan

Administrative & Outreach Coordinator Marla Doddo

3 | Page

Executive Summary

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2006‐2008 population estimate, Lackawanna County has a population of approximately 209,194. Moreover, the county’s median annual per capita income is $23,568 (2008 inflation adjusted) and its median household income is $42,126 (2008 inflation adjusted). Both income levels rank below the national averages. The county includes ten school districts, which, in 2008‐2009, reported an 83.2‐97.6% graduation rate.

There is often a link between educational attainment and poverty; poverty rates steadily decrease with higher educational attainment levels. Lackawanna County reported a 13.1% of individuals below poverty rate.

It is important to remember that a student’s performance reflects the collective effort of schools and their communities. Research has shown that the education levels and contributions of parents are critical factors that impact a child's academic performance. To help all students reach their full potential, it is necessary that they, along with their teachers, families, and communities collectively engage in efforts to improve student performance.

State test proficiency by subject provides an overall summary of school, school district, or state performance in a particular subject and includes students at all grade levels tested. Proficient is the minimum level of academic performance that all students are expected to attain under the No Child Left Behind Act; however, each state may administer its own exam and set its own proficiency standards.

It should be noted that student performance data displayed may differ slightly from state reported data due to rounding differences.

This SAR’s group (fifth, eighth, and eleventh graders) consisted of more than 6,099 Lackawanna County students, including 750 students with disabilities who completed PSSA testing during the 2005‐2006 school year. During 2006‐2007 school year, 6,224 students were tested which included 877 students with disabilities. During 2007‐2008 school year, 6,261 students were tested which included 862 students with disabilities. The most recent year’s data was from the 2008‐2009 school year, where 5,973 students took the PSSA, including 867 students with disabilities. Since 2005‐2006, Lackawanna County experienced a decrease of 126 students taking the test but an increase of 117 students with disabilities.

4 | Page

Report Methodology

This document is designed to summarize the performance and monitor the progress of Lackawanna County public schools writing PSSAs since the 2005‐2006 school year. NCLB was enacted in 2002. In doing so, this SAR aims to identify Lackawanna County’s strengths as well as areas that require timely improvement. It should be noted that the goal of this particular study is to evaluate the performance of students in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades only. As such, statistics and comparisons reported herein are reflective of those grades only and not necessarily the entire population being tested.

The total number of proficient scores is calculated by combining the number of PSSA test takers who scored advanced or proficient on the test’s writing section. (Note: There are a few inconsistencies in data arrangement for earlier years in which PSSA scores were recorded. For example, student population figures were not recorded, and some state averages were missing. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has since organized recent PSSA data in a more consistent manner).

For clarification, those students requiring an Individualized Educational Program are classified as “IEP” students. This category includes any student with a disability who requires a service or accommodation in addition to the standard educational approach used for non‐IEP students. Usually, the term IEP involves at least one of the following disabilities: autism, deafness, deaf‐ blindness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, learning disability, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health‐impairment, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury or visual impairment including blindness.

Economically disadvantaged students comprise another subcategory. This group includes those who are eligible for free or reduced fee lunch. Data on this subcategory is not available for each year since 2002, which introduces uncertainty in the subcategory’s trend predictions.

Similarly, data for both African American and Hispanic students is sparse at best, with data lacking for most school districts. For schools with fewer than ten students in the subgroup, data is not reported.

5 | Page

Introduction

The purpose of the School Assessment Report (SAR) is to provide educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies in our public K‐12 school system – the same system that trains our future workforce. Since local and regional economies are dependent upon the strength of the workforce, K‐12 education is a strong economic development tool. To guarantee an adequate future workforce, within the next several years (through 2014), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ensure that each child is proficient in reading and mathematics – a goal that coincides with the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provisions. Moreover, parents, guardians and educators can mutually assist in student proficiency improvements if they take the necessary actions to help students learn and advance their basic writing skills.

The SAR measures and analyzes Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) statistics from 2006 to 2009, and reports on the efficiency and progress of Lackawanna County’s public education system. Fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade student proficiencies are evaluated across Lackawanna County and are compared with state and county averages. While the PSSA is broken down into four sections of proficiency – reading, writing, mathematics and science, this SAR examines the writing proficiency only.

Education Reform Since 2000

The Federal government enactment for NCLB occurred in 2002. NCLB aims to ensure that American students are equipped with the necessary tools for future success.

NCLB attempts to: • Gear school curriculum toward PSSA tests and essential skills needed to succeed in school and out. • Use the latest technology to improve PSSA scores. • Narrow proficiency gaps between students with disadvantages and those without. • Strengthen standards for incoming teachers to improve education quality. • Create competition among schools in their drive to succeed.

6 | Page

Adequate Yearly Progression

NCLB requires student proficiency in mathematics, reading and writing by 2014. To meet the goal of achieving 100% proficiency, the Federal government has developed for each state Adequate Yearly Progression (AYP) goals.

AYP goals are measured by three indicators:

School Attendance (for schools without a high school graduating class): Target of 90% or any improvement from previous year.

Achieving Proficiency (Performance): To meet the performance target required for AYP, schools and every measurable subgroup in each school must have at least 56% tested students achieve a score of proficient or higher on the mathematics assessment and 63% of tested students achieve a score of proficient score or higher on the reading assessment.

Taking the Test (Participation): At least 95% of students overall and within each measurable subgroup must take the PSSA.

AYP goals are intended to move schools toward full proficiency and make them more accountable to students, parents, teachers and the community. AYP measurements can positively affect schools that consistently miss their targets. The results allow schools and districts to evaluate their students’ progress to make full proficiency a reality. It is hard to believe that today’s seventh graders will be 11th graders by the year 2014 when full proficiency will be reached.

Pennsylvania’s 2008 AYP goals were 56% of students scoring proficient or higher in mathematics, and 63% of students scoring proficient or higher in reading. For 2009, the mathematics AYP goal increases to 61%, while the reading AYP goal rises to 75%. Targets increase annually until 2014, when schools are required to reach 100% proficiency in both subjects.

If a school meets its AYP goals in all areas, it will not be identified as needing improvement. The school must apply strategic interventions to its special education program and providers. Such interventions include investments in curriculum and instruction. If a school fails to achieve its AYP goals within two years, NCLB sanctions will be implemented.

For a school to meet AYP, all AYP targets must be met. However the total number of targets used for AYP can vary. This occurs mainly because the targets associated with subgroups that have fewer than 40 students in the school do not apply. Therefore, schools with fewer than 40 students are still accountable and are evaluated when the scores have been completed and processed.

7 | Page

School district targets are assessed at three grade levels: fifth, eighth, and eleventh. To meet AYP goals in academic performance or test participation, the district must achieve all targets for both subjects in one grade span only. All school districts must meet both targets in school attendance and graduation in order to be considered.

NCLB legislation was to be re‐authorized by the Federal government in 2008; however, the legislation was tabled for a number of reasons. The emergence of a Democratic administration suggests that NCLB may be repealed or re‐written. A number of NCLB components must be revisited in order for the act to be truly effective.

Following are some specific NCLB criticisms/concerns:

Students with disabilities who require Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are mandated by law to take the same standardized test as regular education students, and their scores are equally factored into a school’s overall proficiency score. The fact that students with disabilities are required to take the same standardized test as regular education students contradicts earlier Federal mandates requiring students with IEPs to receive individualized educational instruction and assessment. In addition, their scores may unfairly skew a school’s overall proficiency score.

Students who are new to the English language (ELLs—English Language Learners, or LEP—Limited English Proficiency) are largely subject to the same standardized test as regular education students. The test is written and must be completed in English. These scores are also equally factored into a school’s overall proficiency score. An exception to this involves students who are in their first year in the school district and have had limited or no exposure to the English language. In such instance, these students may be permitted to take a Spanish language version of the standardized mathematics test and their scores are not included in the district’s overall AYP. The test’s reading and writing portions are optional. While the reading and writing tests are in English, students are permitted to use word‐to‐word dictionaries that translate native language to English or English to native language. It should be noted, however, that certain restrictions apply on types of dictionaries allowed and their use. In addition, interpreters may also be used. Students may take Spanish test versions for the first three years of their enrollment in the U.S. school system.

Schools in urban areas typically include higher percentages of IEP, ELL, or LEP, and economically disadvantaged students. Based on the overall proficiency scores for these schools, one may assume that these districts are not scoring as well as their suburban or rural counterparts (as suburban and rural schools’ AYPs are not greatly negatively impacted by such factors).

8 | Page

to conduct repeated practice exercises in order to train students to perform well on the standardized test. Essentially, teaching to the test stifles teachers’ abilities to implement project‐based learning, creative hands‐on experiences, and critical thinking exercises. Is this federal or district mandated. Many argue that if teachers just teach the curriculum well, that the student learns and therefore does well on the test.?

Proficiency Trends 20062009 In Lackawanna County, and statewide, since 2005‐2006 students have displayed a decrease in writing proficiencies. Since 2005‐2006, Lackawanna County’s writing proficiencies have slowly declined, but have stayed consistently higher than state averages. Overall, each Lackawanna County school district has experienced some setbacks in the writing portion of the PSSA over the past four school years. The county’s IEP students have also had some difficulties making improvements with the writing portion of the test. The county’s economically disadvantaged students have had a steady decrease of between 2% and 4%. Hispanic and African‐American students also demonstrated similar inconsistencies, scores varied from year to year mainly decreasing but with a positive spike in 2007 for both subgroups.

In the 2005‐2006 school year, Lackawanna County students averaged a 76.6% writing proficiency score, compared with 60.8% statewide. By the 2006‐2007 school year, Lackawanna County students achieved a 76.2% writing proficiency score, compared with 65.7% statewide. In 2007‐2008 school year, the county’s students achieved 74.7% writing proficiency score, compared with 64.1% statewide. In the 2008‐2009 school year, the county’s students achieved a 71.6% writing proficiency score, compared with 61.5% statewide.

Figure 1: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency Results 2005‐2009

77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Lackawanna County writing proficiency scores have fluctuated between 2005 and 2009, but have shown an overall decrease for the time period. In 2005, Lackawanna County fifth, eighth,

9 | Page

and eleventh grade students averaged a score of 76.6%. By 2009, this average score decreased to 71.6%.

Proficiency Results by School District for 20082009 Number of Students Tested The table below shows the number of students tested in each school district in 2009.

Table 1: Students Tested in Writing 2008‐2009

Table 3: Number of Students Tested in Writing 2008-2009 School District 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 241 271 271 CARBONDALE AREA SD 95 118 111 DUNMORE SD 128 102 131 LAKELAND SD 115 118 107 MID VALLEY SD 134 135 120 NORTH POCONO SD 249 273 254 OLD FORGE SD 63 69 50 RIVERSIDE SD 109 111 102 SCRANTON SD 612 644 643 VALLEY VIEW SD 195 212 190 Total by Grade: 1,941 2053 1979 County Total: 5,973

Proficiency Changes 20052009 In terms of writing proficiency scores, there have been changes at each grade level between the 2005‐2006 and 2008‐2009 school years. In terms of changes between 2005‐2006 and 2006‐ 2007, the eighth grade students from Carbondale school district made remarkable strides with a 17.2% positive change in writing proficiency since the prior year. On the other hand, eleventh grade students from Old Forge SD showed the largest decrease within the year of 23%. The changes between the school years 2007‐2008 and 2008‐2009 showed decreases as well. The overall county average change for fifth graders was ‐5.2%. Fifth graders from the Mid Valley SD performed the worst bringing their writing proficiency down to 17.9% from 47.4% in the prior school year. Lakeland SD fifth graders performed very well this past year; they raised their writing proficiency score by 21.7% to 67.8%.

10 | Page

Table 2: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency 2005‐2009

Grade 5 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 76.9 80.2 3.3 73.6 78.4 4.8 CARBONDALE AREA SD 42.0 34.3 -7.7 34.3 20.0 -14.3 DUNMORE SD 64.7 66.9 2.2 68.5 56.3 -12.2 LAKELAND SD 66.0 53.7 -12.3 46.1 67.8 21.7 MID VALLEY SD 34.7 38.8 4.1 47.4 17.9 -29.5 NORTH POCONO SD 57.6 68.811.2 63.1 78.715.6 OLD FORGE SD 59.3 56.9 -2.4 28.3 15.9 -12.4 RIVERSIDE SD 84.1 79.0 -5.1 80.9 71.6 -9.3 SCRANTON SD 43.4 39.4 -4.0 41.0 31.2 -9.8 VALLEY VIEW SD 52.5 39.4 -13.1 49.5 43.0 -6.5 County Average 58.1 55.7 -2.4 53.3 48.1 -5.2

Grade 8 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 92.6 97.5 4.9 95.7 91.8 -3.9 CARBONDALE AREA SD 61.6 78.8 17.2 77.8 65.3 -12.5 DUNMORE SD 95.1 95.7 0.6 86.1 95.1 9.0 LAKELAND SD 95.0 96.1 1.1 91.9 72.0 -19.9 MID VALLEY SD 69.2 85.3 16.1 77.0 79.3 2.3 NORTH POCONO SD 81.8 81.2 -0.6 85.7 85.0 -0.7 OLD FORGE SD 80.0 67.7 -12.3 75.0 71.0 -4.0 RIVERSIDE SD 66.1 73.0 6.9 72.3 64.0 -8.3 SCRANTON SD 76.1 84.2 8.1 78.7 80.3 1.6 VALLEY VIEW SD 67.4 68.0 0.6 70.6 89.6 19.0 County Average 78.5 82.8 4.3 81.1 79.3 -1.7

11 | Page

Grade 11 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 94.7 93.6 -1.1 95.3 97.8 2.5 CARBONDALE AREA SD 82.5 88.7 6.2 88 90.1 2.1 DUNMORE SD 93.2 95.4 2.2 91.4 91.6 0.2 LAKELAND SD 96.8 89.6 -7.2 93.2 91.6 -1.6 MID VALLEY SD 93.4 88.4 -5.0 81.5 90 8.5 NORTH POCONO SD 96.5 95.2 -1.3 92.1 85.1 -7 OLD FORGE SD 92.0 69 -23.0 77.4 64 -13.4 RIVERSIDE SD 96.6 89.9 -6.7 91.8 87.3 -4.5 SCRANTON SD 93.7 94.9 1.2 91.9 90.5 -1.4 VALLEY VIEW SD 91.5 94.9 3.4 94.7 84.7 -10 County Average 93.1 89.96 -3.1 89.73 87.27 -2.46

Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 20082009

This SAR reports the progress of certain distinct Lackawanna County classes, the 2005‐2006 fifth grade class – and their scores as eighth graders in the 2008‐2009 school year. Overall, this class increased their writing scores in eighth grade; going from 58.1% to 79.3%. Mid Valley Area and Valley View Area demonstrated the largest increases with 44.6% and 37.1% respectively. The four years of data does not allow us to analyze this class as eleventh graders yet.

Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005‐2009

12 | Page

NORTH POCONO SD 57.6 85.0 27.4 OLD FORGE SD 59.3 71.0 11.7 RIVERSIDE SD 84.1 64.0 -20.1 SCRANTON SD 43.4 80.3 36.9 VALLEY VIEW SD 52.5 89.6 37.1 County Average 58.1 79.3 21.2

The figure below demonstrates the county average writing scores for this class in fifth and eighth grades.

Figure 2: County‐wide Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005‐2009

90 80 70 60 50 40 Writing 30 20 10 0 2005‐2006 (5th Grade) 2008‐2009 (8th Grade)

Proficiency in Subgroups The tables below show the number of students in each subgroup tested in 2009.

Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup

Subgroup Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11 IEP 340 303 224 Economically 780 713 514 Disadvantaged Black 92 57 41 Hispanic 122 95 63 Asian 24 21 23 Multi-Ethnic 11 25 0

13 | Page

Students with Disabilities For the purposes of this report, a student with a disability is defined as any student that requires the use of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to meet his/her educational goals. In Lackawanna County, 867 fifth, eighth and eleventh grade students with disabilities took the writing portion of the PSSA during the 2008‐2009 school year. Students with disabilities demonstrated a steady decline in their writing scores in the past four years. Their score in the 2005‐2006 school years 44.6% and the most recent school year they reported a score of 38.2%. It should be noted that although the scores of students with disabilities are often reported separately from the aggregated data, their scores are factored equally into each school district’s proficiency total and AYP goals. When compared with their peers in Lackawanna County, students with disabilities performed at a lower level in all grade levels in writing. This is particularly evident in the eighth and eleventh grades, when writing proficiency scores are generally lower than those in the fifth grader scores. Obviously there are times when students with disabilities have a harder time succeeding their educational purposes and many things then occur, including:

• Modifications to the content of the program • Lowered success criteria for academic success • Increased emphasis on daily living skills and decrease on educational assignments • Alternative state assessments, such as off‐grade level assessments

Specially Designed Instruction

IEP students scored lower than all students as a whole in all school years examined except 2008‐2009 school year where the African‐American subgroup scored 16.5% which was less than the IEP score of 19.8%. The trends, however; are the same with fifth grade scores being the lowest and eleventh grade scores being the highest. For writing, IEP students scored lower in 2009 in all grades examined.

Figure 3: IEP Student Writing Proficiency

14 | Page

80 72 70 59.2 58.8 60 56.9

50 42.9 38.4 39.4 37.9 40

30 23.3 20.8 22.4 19.8 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Economically Disadvantaged

Economically disadvantaged students constitute another subgroup whose performance is monitored and analyzed via PSSA testing. The Pennsylvania Department of Education categorizes a student as “economically disadvantaged” based on his or her participation in the public school system’s free or reduced fee lunch program. Traditionally, students who are raised in low‐income environments tend to perform at a significantly lower level than peers from a higher socioeconomic background.

In Lackawanna County, 2,007 fifth, eighth and eleventh grade students classified as economically disadvantaged took the writing portion of the PSSA during the 2008 ‐2009 school year. The state average for this subgroup is 51.2%.; overall this subgroup has not achieved the lowest scores. The average writing proficiency score for Lackawanna County during the 2008‐ 2009 school year was 59.1%.

Students that fall into the economically disadvantaged population trended similar to all students as a whole. Scores remained somewhat consistent in each grade but normally on the lower side of the average with fifth and eleventh graders showing slight decreases over the four school years and eighth graders experiencing a minor gain.

Figure 4: Economically Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency

15 | Page

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

87.3 82.4 81.8 72.9 76.8 66.6 68.9 67 49.1 42.2 40.1 33.5

Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

AfricanAmerican Students

African‐American students comprise another subgroup also monitored by PSSA testing, as dictated by NCLB. Just 190 African‐American students in Lackawanna County were tested in the writing section of the PSSA during the 2008‐2009 school year. It should be noted that only two districts (Mid Valley and Scranton) included schools with African‐American populations large enough to be scored and independently reported (population greater than 10). Furthermore, given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years the overall analysis may vary depending on each district.

African‐American students achieved proficiency ratings of 58.7% in writing. Lackawanna County’s African‐American eighth and eleventh grade students performed well with similar results to other subgroups. However, the fifth graders performed poorly and received the lowest score during the 2008‐2009 school year. African‐American students are competitive with their non‐African‐American peers at some grade levels and subjects (i.e., eighth grade math), however the majority of grade levels show vast performance discrepancies, in some cases by as much as 40%.

African American students scored lower than the average of all students as fifth and eighth graders in all four school years from 2005‐2009. The trends show the fifth grade scores being significantly lower than the average of all students and the eighth graders scores being slightly below average. The eleventh graders performed exceptionally well in all school years examined with scores higher than average each year. Overall, there has been a decline in writing proficiency scores over the past four school years in all three grades. From 2008 and 2009 school years, the decline in scores for 5th, 8th and 11th graders has been 23%, 3.5% and 6.7% respectively.

Figure 5: African American Writing Proficiency 2005‐2009

16 | Page

120 100 97.7 94.5 100 87.8 77.8 75.4 80 73.9 71.9

60 35.4 39.5 40 33.2 16.5 20

0 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Hispanic Students

In Lackawanna County, 280 Hispanic students took the writing portion of the PSSA during the 2008‐2009 school year. This group of testers earned a writing proficiency score of 57%. Not all students at all grade levels in each district are included in PSSA results, as grades with fewer than ten students in a particular subgroup are not measured. Like the African‐American subgroup population, only four districts had Hispanic populations large enough to be scored and independently reported (Mid Valley, Scranton, Riverside and North Pocono). Again, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available both in these four testing years and in prior years.

As the data suggests, Hispanic students in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades are having a difficult time competing with peers in writing, with total proficiency scores trailing by more than 25% at some grade levels. Hispanics were below the average of all students in 5th, 8th and 11th grades during all four school years that were examined except in 2006‐2007 where the fifth and eleventh graders were slightly above the average by no more than 1%.

Hispanic students did not show any obvious trends among the three grades besides increasing their scores significantly during the 2006‐2007 school year. However, the fifth grade scores have decreased by a lot since the spike in 2006. Hispanic students performed lower overall in writing when compared to all students tested.

Figure 6: Hispanic Writing Proficiency 2005-2009

17 | Page

100 90.3 83.4 85.7 77.6 81 80 65 67.8 56.7 60 46.9 38.3 40 27.1 22.6 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Conclusion

Overall, Lackawanna County’s public education system has shown improvements since the 2002 inception of NCLB. Five of ten school districts experienced declines in fifth grade writing scores in all four school years from 2005‐2009. In the transition from fifth to eighth grade (2005‐2008), students experienced a 21.2% increase in writing proficiency scores. Unfortunately, the data for these same students in 11th grade is not yet available. None of Lackawanna County’s school districts reported a 100% proficiency rating at any grade level in writing during 2006, 2007, 2008 or 2009 – as students largely vary by academic proficiency level and subgroup. There are many reasons for a decline in performance, which must be considered in order to make improvements. Such issues may require adjusting the current curriculum, remediating students and tracking their progress. More teachers, classroom aides, and tutors could be considered to guide students toward academic success. Also, smaller class sizes, homogeneous class structures, and other teaching methods could be employed depending on a school’s specific issues.

Achieving or exceeding state targets should be the primary goal, since Pennsylvania’s average proficiencies in the 2008‐2009 school year reached only 61.5% for writing, compared with 64.1% in the 2007‐2008 school year, 65.7% in 2006‐2007 and 60.8% in 2005‐2006 school year. While goal percentages increase annually to reach NCLB’s end proficiency goal of 100% by 2014, school districts must continually aim to exceed state targets and show consistent improvements each year. Moreover, if school districts fail to meet target levels, they are subject to penalties and sanctions, or may be mandated to develop improvement plans, provide tutoring or be taken over by the state.

Proficiency examinations in other subjects have recently been added (science and social studies) and may continue to be added over time. Therefore, schools that have reduced instruction time in those subjects to focus on mathematics, reading, and writing PSSAs may be doing themselves a disservice. It is critical for school districts to determine best practices to ensure proficiencies in all subjects are met, while avoiding teaching to the test. 18 | Page

The education triad (administrators, teachers, and parents) must form a more effective collaborative effort to ensure that real learning is taking place. It is especially critical for parents and families to stress to their children the importance of education. Studies show that students with encouraging parents/families have a higher chance of succeeding in their academic progress than those from families who do not support their educational advancement. For Pennsylvania, emphasis on improving higher education attainment and other continuing education is critical. The economic development success of any region is dependent upon the quality of its workforce. That quality training begins in elementary school. Specifically, the best economic development strategy is one that maximizes the potential of Pre‐K – 20 education.

Appendix: Lackawanna County School Proficiency Scores Abington Heights School District

Abington Heights School District’s writing scores remained relatively consistent between 2006 and 2009. Only eleventh grade students saw a consistent increase specifically since 2007 and gaining 4.2%. Both fifth and eighth grades showed increases and decreases during the four school years.

Figure 7: Abington Heights SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

19 | Page

120 97.5 97.8 100 92.6 95.791.8 94.793.695.3 76.980.2 78.4 80 73.6 2006 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Carbondale Area School District

The Carbondale Area School District’s writing proficiency scores were below the county’s average for all grades and years examined except the eleventh grade score of 90.1% in the 2008‐2009 school year which was 2.83% higher than the county average. Fifth graders performed poorly; their scores were below average and decreased each year. Eighth graders performed exceptionally well during 2007 and 2008 school years; however, their scores decreased by more than 10% during the recent 2008‐2009 school year.

20 | Page

Figure 8: Carbondale Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 88.7 88 90.1 90 82.5 78.877.8 80 70 61.6 65.3 60 2006 50 42 2007 34.3 40 34.3 2008 30 20 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Dunmore School District

Students in the Dunmore School District performed exceptionally well in the past four school years. All three grade levels examined achieved scores higher than the county averages from 2006 through 2009. While fifth grade scores decreased, the district’s eighth graders remained consistent except for a 10% drop in 2008 that was quickly recovered the following year with a 95.1% proficiency score. Eleventh graders also remained very consistent with their scores besides a slight decrease of 3.8% from 2007 to 2008.

Figure 9: Dunmore SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

21 | Page

120

95.1 95.7 95.1 95.4 100 93.2 91.4 91.6 86.1 80 68.5 64.7 66.9 2006 56.3 60 2007 2008 40 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Lakeland School District

The writing proficiency scores for Lakeland School District varied by grade. The trend of fifth grade scores was decreasing for three consecutive years; however, during the 2008‐2009 school year their scores increased significantly by more than 20%. On the other hand, eighth grade scores were consistent for three consecutive years and then dropped 19.9% in 2009. Eleventh graders scored the highest in the county in 2006 and then continued to perform exceptionally well above county averages.

Figure 10: Lakeland SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

22 | Page

120 95 96.1 96.8 100 91.9 89.6 93.2 91.6

80 72 66 67.8 2006 60 53.7 46.1 2007 40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Mid Valley School District

Students in the Mid Valley School District performed poorly on the writing portion of the PSSA test. Their scores were below county averages in the past four school years for 5th, 8th and 11th graders. Eighth graders in 2007 and eleventh graders in 2009 were they only ones to score above the county averages by no more than 3%. The fifth graders are having the most difficulty with the writing portion of the PSSA; they scored the lowest in the county during the 2008‐2009 school year.

Figure 11: Mid Valley SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

23 | Page

100 93.4 90 85.3 88.4 90 81.5 77 79.3 80 69.2 70 60 2006 47.4 50 38.8 2007 40 34.7 2008 30 17.9 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

North Pocono School District

Fifth and eighth grade students in the North Pocono School District did rather well in terms of their writing proficiency scores. Since 2006, they have each achieved positive increases of 21.1% and 4% respectively. Although the eleventh graders’ score decreased each year and overall it declined 11.4% during the four years, they still achieved scores higher than the county averages.

Figure 12: North Pocono SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

24 | Page

120 96.5 100 95.2 92.1 85.7 85 85.1 78.7 81.8 81.2 80 68.8 63.1 2006 57.6 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Old Forge School District

The Old Forge School District’s writing proficiency scores were below the county’s average for all grades and years examined except for fifth and eighth grade scores in 2006 and fifth grade scores in 2007. There was a decrease in scores for fifth, eighth, and eleventh graders from the 2006 writing proficiency scores to 2009 of 43.7%, 9% and 28% respectively.

Figure 13: Old Forge SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

25 | Page

100 92 90 80 77.4 80 75 67.7 71 69 70 64 59.356.9 60 2006 50 2007 40 28.3 2008 30 2009 20 15.9 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Riverside School District

The Riverside School District’s writing proficiency scores varied with each grade that was analyzed. Fifth graders performed well by achieving scores higher than the county averages every year; however, in the past school year their scores declined by 9.3%. Eighth graders performed poorly with scores below Lackawanna County’s average from 2006 through 2009. Eleventh grade scores did not vary much but overall, fifth, eighth and eleventh grade scores have decreased since 2006.

26 | Page

Figure 14: Riverside SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

120 96.6 100 89.991.8 84.1 87.3 79 80.9 80 71.6 73 72.3 66.1 64 2006 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Scranton School District

The Scranton School District’s writing proficiency scores varied by grade with low fifth grade scores, eighth grade scores around county averages, and consistent high eleventh grade scores. With the fifth grade scores all below the Lackawanna County averages and still declining, action needs to be taken in order for these students to receive the attention that is required for them

27 | Page

to reach state testing standards. In four years, eleventh grade scores were consistent with at least 90% proficiency and only a ‐.2% change from 2006 to 2009.

Figure 15: Scranton SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

94.9 100 93.7 91.990.5 90 84.2 78.780.3 80 76.1 70 60 2006 43.4 50 39.4 41 2007 40 31.2 2008 30 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Valley View School District

28 | Page

and have remained below the state and county averages of 61.5% and 48.1% respectively in the most recent 2008‐2009 school year. The eighth graders have been increasing their scores since 2006 and performed exceptionally well in the past 2008‐2009 school year where their scores increased by 19%. Eleventh graders achieved high writing proficiency scores from 2006‐2008; however, during the most recent school year their scores declined by 10% down to 84.7%.

Figure 16: Valley View SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 94.994.7 89.6 91.5 90 84.7 80 67.4 68 70.6 70 60 2006 52.5 49.5 50 43 39.4 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

References

29 | Page

"2008-2009 PSSA and AYP Results." Pennsylvania Department of Education. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2010. Web. 12 Apr 2010. .

30 | Page

Lackawanna County Science PSSAs 2009 Science Results

March 2010 The Institute for Public Policy & Economic Development

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Produced by The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development Senior Researchers Teri Ooms Sherry Murray

Research Associates Christina Miller

Coordinator Marla Doddo

Please contact The Institute for reprint permissions and appropriate citation of works.

Page | 2

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Introduction:

Report Methodology

Page | 3

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Student Performance

Lackawanna County Science Proficiency Results

Page | 4

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Comparsion of 2007‐2008 and 2008‐2009 School Years: Lackawanna County Science Proficiency Results 2007‐2008 School Year 2008‐2009 School Year

85.7

56.1 45.3 34.4 33.1 24.9

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

Page | 5

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Lackawanna County Science Results for 2008‐ 2009 School Year Advanced Proficienct Basic Below Basic 44.6 45.3 44.9

34.4 34.8 27.5 24.3 24.9 25.6 21.4 19.7 16.7 13.4 11.7 7.7 2.2

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade County Total

Lackawanna County School District Proficiencies and Rankings

Page | 6

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Riverside SD 37.3 30 24.2 30.5 Scranton SD 51.2 33.3 22.2 35.5 Valley View SD 47.3 41.7 24.5 37.8 Total 45.3 34.4 24.9 34.8

School District PSSA Science Performance: 2008-2009 School Year

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

RIVERSIDE SD 11 8.1 24.2 55.6 12.1 District RIVERSIDE SD Total 24.2 30.5 31.1 14.1 SCRANTON SD 4 32.7 51.2 12.5 3.6

Science PSSA Proficiency Scores for 2008-2009 School Year Total % of Proficiency Scores

39.2 36.1 36 37.2 35.5 37.8 30.7 31.9 34 30.5

School District Science Results for 2008-2009 School Year

Page | 8

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

basic, below basic). Overall district averages are calculated at the bottom each district’s section within the table.

School District Science Results: 2007-2008

Page | 9

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Page | 10

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Science Results for all 4, 8, 11th grades combined in 2007-2008 School Year:

Science Proficient Results for 2007‐2008 School Year Science 77.8 72.2 71.4 69.3 66.7 65.3 60.9 60.5 56.3 52.3 58.3

Science Results for all 4, 8, 11th grades analyzed in 2008-2009 School Year

Science Proficient Results for 2008‐2009 School Year 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Total

Page | 11

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Special Populations

Students with Disabilities Tested in the Science PSSA: 2008-2009 School Year

Page | 12

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

The following two charts provide science proficiency scores for students with disabilities and their peers in the 2008-2009 school year:

Proficiency Scores of Students with Disabilities in the 2008‐2009 School Year 90 80 70 60

Title 50 40

Axis 30 20 4th Grade 10 0 8th Grade 11th Grade

Proficiency Scores for All Students in the 2008‐2009 School Year 70 60 50 40 Title 30

Axis 20 10 4th Grade 0 8th Grade 11th Grade

Economically Disadvantaged

Page | 13

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

raised in low-income environments tend to perform at a significantly lower level than peers from higher socioeconomic backgrounds.

Comparsion of All Students Tested in Lackwanna County vs. Econ. Disadvantaged Econ. Disadvanaged All Students (Peers) 47.4 45.3

34.4

25.8 24.9

14.4

4th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

Page | 14

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

African- American Students

African American Students Tested in Science PSSA in 2008-2009

Total # of Grades Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic 4th Grade 84 20.2 52.4 21.4 6 8th Grade 55 1.8 32.7 27.3 38.2 11th Grade 40 2.5 7.5 65 25 County Total 179 8.1 30.8 37.9 23

Comparsion of African American Students vs. their Peers in 2008‐2009 Science PSSA's

African American Students All Students (Peers) 37.9 34.8 30.8 27.5 25.6 23

11.7 8.1

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

Page | 15

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Hispanic Students

Hispanic Students Tested in Science PSSA in 2008-2009 School Year

Total # of Grades Students Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic 4th Grade 104 21.2 52.9 23.1 2.9 8th Grade 76 7.9 27.6 31.6 32.9 11th Grade 61 14.8 13.1 44.3 27.9 County Total 241 14.6 31.2 33 21.2

Comparsion of Hispanic Students vs. their Peers in 2008‐2009 Science PSSA Hispanic Students All Students (Peers) 34.8 33 31.2 27.5 25.6 21.2 14.6 11.7

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

Page | 16

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Conclusion

Page | 17

Lackawanna County Science PSSA- 2008 Results

Best practices from around the country can be evaluated for adoption in local school districts after appropriate research and analysis has been completed.

References:

PA Department of Education: (11/2/2009). 2008-2009 Science PSSA & AYP Results. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=150034.

U.S. Department of Education: (11/2/2009). 2008-2009 Science PSSA Testing. http://pde.state.pa.us/.

Page | 18

Lackawanna County School Assessment 2010 Report

The School Assessment Report (SAR) provides educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information Writing regarding student proficiencies.

May 2010

1 | Page

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 4 Report Methodology ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 Education Reform Since 2000 ...... 6 Adequate Yearly Progression ...... 6 Proficiency Trends 2006-2009 ...... 9 Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 10 Number of Students Tested ...... 10 Proficiency Changes 2005-2009 ...... 10 Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 12 Proficiency in Subgroups ...... 13 Students with Disabilities ...... 13 Specially Designed Instruction ...... 14 Economically Disadvantaged...... 15 African-American Students ...... 15 Hispanic Students...... 16 Conclusion ...... 18 Appendix: Lackawanna County School Proficiency Scores ...... 19 Abington Heights School District ...... 19 Carbondale Area School District ...... 20 Dunmore School District ...... 21 Lakeland School District ...... 22 Mid Valley School District ...... 23 North Pocono School District ...... 24 Old Forge School District ...... 25 Riverside School District ...... 26 Scranton School District ...... 27 Valley View School District ...... 28

2 | Page

List of Figures

Figure 1: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency Results 2005-2009 ...... 9 Figure 2: County-wide Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009 ...... 13 Figure 3: IEP Student Writing Proficiency ...... 14 Figure 4: Economically Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency ...... 15 Figure 5: African American Student Writing Proficiency ...... 16 Figure 6: Hispanic Writing Proficiency 2005-2009 ...... 17 Figure 7: Abington Heights SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 19 Figure 8: Carbondale Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 20 Figure 9: Dunmore SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 21 Figure 10: Lakeland SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 22 Figure 11: Mid Valley SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 23 Figure 12: North Pocono SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 24 Figure 13: Old Forge SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 25 Figure 14: Riverside SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 26 Figure 15: Scranton SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 27 Figure 16: Valley View SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 28

List of Tables Table 1: Students Tested in Writing 2008-2009 ...... 10 Table 2: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency 2005-2009 ...... 11 Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009 ...... 12 Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup ...... 13

Produced by: The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development Senior Researchers Teri Ooms Sherry Tracewski

Research Associates Jeff Monshein Kyle Gilligan

Administrative & Outreach Coordinator Marla Doddo

3 | Page

Executive Summary

It should be noted that student performance data displayed may differ slightly from state reported data due to rounding differences.

4 | Page

Report Methodology

5 | Page

Introduction

The purpose of the School Assessment Report (SAR) is to provide educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies in our public K‐12 school system – the same system that trains our future workforce. Since local and regional economies are dependent upon the strength of the workforce, K‐12 education is a strong economic development tool. To guarantee an adequate future workforce, within the next several years (through 2014), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ensure that each child is proficient in reading and mathematics – a goal that coincides with the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provisions. Moreover, parents, guardians and educators can mutually assist in student proficiency improvements if they take the necessary actions to help students learn and advance their basic writing skills.

Education Reform Since 2000

The Federal government enactment for NCLB occurred in 2002. NCLB aims to ensure that American students are equipped with the necessary tools for future success.

Adequate Yearly Progression

AYP goals are measured by three indicators:

6 | Page

School Attendance (for schools without a high school graduating class): Target of 90% or any improvement from previous year.

Taking the Test (Participation): At least 95% of students overall and within each measurable subgroup must take the PSSA.

NCLB legislation was to be re‐authorized by the Federal government in 2008; however, the legislation was tabled for a number of reasons. The emergence of a Democratic administration

7 | Page

suggests that NCLB may be repealed or re‐written. A number of NCLB components must be revisited in order for the act to be truly effective.

Following are some specific NCLB criticisms/concerns:

8 | Page

Figure 1: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency Results 2005-2009

77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 69 2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Lackawanna County writing proficiency scores have fluctuated between 2005 and 2009, but have shown an overall decrease for the time period. In 2005, Lackawanna County fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students averaged a score of 76.6%. By 2009, this average score decreased to 71.6%.

9 | Page

Proficiency Results by School District for 20082009 Number of Students Tested The table below shows the number of students tested in each school district in 2009.

Table 1: Students Tested in Writing 2008-2009

10 | Page

Table 2: Lackawanna County Writing Proficiency 2005-2009

Grade 5 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

Grade 8 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

11 | Page

Grade 11 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 School District Change Change

Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 20082009

Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009

Table 2: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009 2005-2006 2008-2009 Change School District Grade 5 Grade 8 5th-8th ABINGTON HEIGHTS SD 76.9 91.8 14.9 CARBONDALE AREA SD 42.0 65.3 23.3 DUNMORE SD 64.7 95.1 30.4 LAKELAND SD 66.0 72.0 6.0 MID VALLEY SD 34.7 79.3 44.6 NORTH POCONO SD 57.6 85.0 27.4 OLD FORGE SD 59.3 71.0 11.7 RIVERSIDE SD 84.1 64.0 -20.1 SCRANTON SD 43.4 80.3 36.9 VALLEY VIEW SD 52.5 89.6 37.1 County Average 58.1 79.3 21.2

The figure below demonstrates the county average writing scores for this class in fifth and eighth grades.

12 | Page

Figure 2: County-wide Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2005-2009

90 80 70 60 50 40 Writing 30 20 10 0 2005‐2006 (5th Grade) 2008‐2009 (8th Grade)

Proficiency in Subgroups The tables below show the number of students in each subgroup tested in 2009.

Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup

Subgroup Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11 IEP 340 303 224 Economically 780 713 514 Disadvantaged Black 92 57 41 Hispanic 122 95 63 Asian 24 21 23 Multi-Ethnic 11 25 0

13 | Page

When compared with their peers in Lackawanna County, students with disabilities performed at a lower level in all grade levels in writing. This is particularly evident in the eighth and eleventh grades, when writing proficiency scores are generally lower than those in the fifth grader scores. Obviously there are times when students with disabilities have a harder time succeeding their educational purposes and many things then occur, including:

Specially Designed Instruction

Figure 3: IEP Student Writing Proficiency

80 72 70 59.2 58.8 60 56.9

50 42.9 38.4 39.4 37.9 40

30 23.3 20.8 22.4 19.8 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

14 | Page

Economically Disadvantaged

Figure 4: Economically Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

87.3 82.4 81.8 72.9 76.8 66.6 68.9 67 49.1 42.2 40.1 33.5

Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

AfricanAmerican Students

15 | Page

given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years the overall analysis may vary depending on each district.

Figure 5: African American Student Writing Proficiency

120 100 97.7 94.5 100 87.8 77.8 75.4 80 73.9 71.9

60 35.4 39.5 40 33.2 16.5 20

0 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Hispanic Students

16 | Page

subgroup population, only four districts had Hispanic populations large enough to be scored and independently reported (Mid Valley, Scranton, Riverside and North Pocono). Again, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available both in these four testing years and in prior years.

Figure 6: Hispanic Writing Proficiency 2005-2009

100 90.3 83.4 85.7 77.6 81 80 65 67.8 56.7 60 46.9 38.3 40 27.1 22.6 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

17 | Page

Conclusion

18 | Page

Appendix: Lackawanna County School Proficiency Scores Abington Heights School District

Figure 7: Abington Heights SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

120 97.5 97.8 100 92.6 95.791.8 94.793.695.3 76.980.2 78.4 80 73.6 2006 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

19 | Page

Carbondale Area School District

Figure 8: Carbondale Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

100 88.7 88 90.1 90 82.5 78.877.8 80 70 61.6 65.3 60 2006 50 42 2007 34.3 40 34.3 2008 30 20 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

20 | Page

Dunmore School District

Figure 9: Dunmore SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

120

95.1 95.7 95.1 95.4 100 93.2 91.4 91.6 86.1 80 68.5 64.7 66.9 2006 56.3 60 2007 2008 40 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

21 | Page

Lakeland School District

Figure 10: Lakeland SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

120 95 96.1 96.8 100 91.9 89.6 93.2 91.6

80 72 66 67.8 2006 60 53.7 46.1 2007 40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

22 | Page

Mid Valley School District

Figure 11: Mid Valley SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

100 93.4 90 85.3 88.4 90 81.5 77 79.3 80 69.2 70 60 2006 47.4 50 38.8 2007 40 34.7 2008 30 17.9 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

23 | Page

North Pocono School District

Figure 12: North Pocono SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

120 96.5 100 95.2 92.1 85.7 85 85.1 78.7 81.8 81.2 80 68.8 63.1 2006 57.6 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

24 | Page

Old Forge School District

Figure 13: Old Forge SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

100 92 90 80 77.4 80 75 67.7 71 69 70 64 59.356.9 60 2006 50 2007 40 28.3 2008 30 2009 20 15.9 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

25 | Page

Riverside School District

Figure 14: Riverside SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

120 96.6 100 89.991.8 84.1 87.3 79 80.9 80 71.6 73 72.3 66.1 64 2006 60 2007

40 2008 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

26 | Page

Scranton School District

Figure 15: Scranton SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

94.9 100 93.7 91.990.5 90 84.2 78.780.3 80 76.1 70 60 2006 43.4 50 39.4 41 2007 40 31.2 2008 30 20 2009 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

27 | Page

Valley View School District

The Valley View District’s writing proficiency scores are mainly below Lackawanna County averages except for eighth graders in 2009 and the eleventh graders in both 2007 and 2008. Fifth graders have had increases and decreases every other year for the past four school years and have remained below the state and county averages of 61.5% and 48.1% respectively in the most recent 2008‐2009 school year. The eighth graders have been increasing their scores since 2006 and performed exceptionally well in the past 2008‐2009 school year where their scores increased by 19%. Eleventh graders achieved high writing proficiency scores from 2006‐2008; however, during the most recent school year their scores declined by 10% down to 84.7%.

Figure 16: Valley View SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

100 94.994.7 89.6 91.5 90 84.7 80 67.4 68 70.6 70 60 2006 52.5 49.5 50 43 39.4 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

28 | Page

References

"2008-2009 PSSA and AYP Results." Pennsylvania Department of Education. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2010. Web. 12 Apr 2010. .

29 | Page

Luzerne County School Assessment 2010 Report

The School Assessment Report (SAR) provides educators, administrators, Math & parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies. Reading

MARCH 2010

Table of Contents Executive Summary ...... 5 Report Methodology ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 Education Reform Since 2000 ...... 7 Adequate Yearly Progression ...... 7 Proficiency Trends 2002-2009 ...... 9 Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 10 Number of Students Tested ...... 10 Proficiency Changes 2008-2009 ...... 12 Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 13 Proficiency in Subgroups ...... 15 Students with Disabilities ...... 16 Specially Designed Instruction ...... 16 Economically Disadvantaged...... 18 African-American Students ...... 19 Hispanic Students...... 21 Conclusion ...... 23 Appendix: Luzerne County School Proficiency Scores ...... 24 Crestwood School District ...... 24 Dallas School District ...... 25 Greater Nanticoke Area School District ...... 26 Hanover Area School District ...... 27 Hazleton Area School District ...... 28 Lake Lehman School District ...... 29 Northwest Area School District ...... 30 Pittston Area School District ...... 31 Wilkes-Barre Area School District ...... 32 Wyoming Area School District ...... 33 Wyoming Valley West School District ...... 34 References ...... 35

2 | Page

List of Figures Figure 1: Luzerne County Math Proficiency Results 2002-2009 ...... 10 Figure 2: Luzerne County Reading Proficiency Results 2002-2009 ...... 10 Figure 3: County-wide Progression of PSSA Math & Reading Performance 2003-2009 ...... 15 Figure 4: IEP Student Math Proficiency ...... 17 Figure 5: IEP Student Reading Proficiency ...... 17 Figure 6: Economically Disadvantaged Student Math Proficiency ...... 18 Figure 7: Economically Disadvantaged Student Reading Proficiency ...... 19 Figure 8: African American Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 20 Figure 9: African American Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 20 Figure 10: Hispanic Math Proficiency 2008-2009...... 21 Figure 11: Hispanic Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 22 Figure 12: Crestwood SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 24 Figure 13: Crestwood SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 24 Figure 14: Dallas SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 25 Figure 15: Dallas SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 25 Figure 16: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 26 Figure 17: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 26 Figure 18: Hanover Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 27 Figure 19: Hanover Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 27 Figure 20: Chart 18: Hazleton Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 28 Figure 21: Hazleton Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 28 Figure 22: Lake Lehman SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 29 Figure 23: Lake Lehman SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 29 Figure 24: Northwest Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 30 Figure 25: Northwest Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 30 Figure 26: Pittston Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009...... 31 Figure 27: Pittston Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 31 Figure 28: Wilkes-Barre Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 32 Figure 29: Wilkes-Barre Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 32 Figure 30: Wyoming Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 33 Figure 31: Wyoming Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 33 Figure 32: Wyoming Valley West SD: Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 34 Figure 33: Wyoming Valley West SD: Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 34

3 | Page

List of Tables Table 1: Students Tested in Math 2008-2009 ...... 11 Table 2: Students Tested in Reading 2008-2009 ...... 11 Table 3: Luzerne County Math Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 12 Table 4: Luzerne County Reading Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... 13 Table 5: Progression of PSSA Math Performance 2003-2009 ...... 14 Table 6: Progression of PSSA Reading Performance 2003-2009 ...... 14 Table 7: Number of Students Tested in Math by Subgroup ...... 15 Table 8: Number of Students Tested in Reading by Subgroup ...... 15

Principal Researchers Sherry Tracewski Teri Ooms

Associate Researchers Christina Miller Stephanie Fields Anna Nakonechy

Please contact The Institute for reprint permission and appropriate citation of work.

4 | Page

Executive Summary

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2008 population estimate, Luzerne County has a population of approximately 311,983. Moreover, the county’s median age is 42.2 years, its median annual per capita income is $23,247 and its median household income is $41,820. Both income levels rank below the national averages. The county includes eleven school districts, which, in 2008‐2009, reported an 86‐99% graduation rate.

There is often a link between educational attainment and poverty; poverty rates steadily decrease with higher educational attainment levels. Luzerne County reported a 24.2% poverty rate associated with individuals who did not graduate high school, compared with an 11.4% poverty rate among their high school graduate (or equivalent) peers.

It should be noted that student performance data displayed may differ slightly from state reported data due to rounding differences.

This SAR’s group (fifth, eighth, and eleventh graders) consisted of more than 9,354 Luzerne County students, including 1,178 students with disabilities who completed PSSA testing during the 2007‐2008 school year. During 2008‐2009 school year, 9,405 Luzerne County students took the PSSA, including 1,302 students with disabilities. Since 2007‐2008, Luzerne County experienced an increase of 51 students and 124 students with disabilities.

Report Methodology

This document is designed to summarize the performance and monitor the progress of Luzerne County public schools since 2002, when NCLB was enacted. In doing so, this SAR aims to identify Luzerne County’s strengths as well as areas that require timely improvement. It should be noted that the goal of this particular study is to evaluate the performance of students in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades only. As such, statistics and comparisons reported herein are reflective of those grades only and not necessarily the entire population being tested.

5 | Page

The total number of proficient scores is calculated by combining the number of PSSA test takers who scored advanced or proficient on the test’s mathematics or reading sections. (Note: There are a few inconsistencies in data arrangement for earlier years in which PSSA scores were recorded. For example, student population figures were not recorded, and some state averages were missing. The Pennsylvania Department of Education has since organized recent PSSA data in a more consistent manner.)

Introduction

The purpose of the School Assessment Report (SAR) is to provide educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies in our public K‐12 school system – the same system that trains our future workforce. Since local and regional economies are dependent upon the strength of the workforce, K‐12 education is a strong economic development tool. To guarantee an adequate future workforce, within the next several years (through 2014), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ensure that each child is proficient in reading and mathematics – a goal that coincides with the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provisions. Moreover, parents, guardians and educators can mutually assist in student proficiency improvements if they take the necessary actions to help students learn and advance their basic reading and mathematics skills.

6 | Page

The SAR measures and analyzes Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) statistics from 2002 to 2009, and reports on the efficiency and progress of Luzerne County’s public education system. Fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade student proficiencies are evaluated across Luzerne County and are compared with state and county averages. While the PSSA is broken down into four sections of proficiency – reading, writing, mathematics and science, this SAR examines reading and mathematics proficiencies only.

Education Reform Since 2000

The Federal government enactment NCLB in 2002. NCLB aims to ensure that American students are equipped with the necessary tools for future success.

Adequate Yearly Progression

NCLB requires student proficiency in mathematics and reading by 2014. To meet the goal of achieving 100% proficiency, the Federal government has developed for each state Adequate Yearly Progression (AYP) goals.

AYP goals are measured by three indicators:

School Attendance (for schools without a high school graduating class): Target of 90% or any improvement from previous year.

Taking the Test (Participation): At least 95% of students overall and within each measurable subgroup must take the PSSA.

7 | Page

AYP goals are intended to move schools toward full proficiency and make them more accountable to students, parents, teachers and the community. AYP measurements can positively affect schools that consistently miss their targets. The results allow schools and districts to evaluate their students’ progress to make full proficiency a reality. It is to believe today’s seventh graders will be 11th graders by the year 2014 when full proficiency will be reached.

Following are some specific NCLB criticisms/concerns:

8 | Page

Proficiency Trends 2002‐2009 In Luzerne County, and statewide, since 2002 students have displayed remarkable increases in mathematics proficiencies. Similarly, the county’s students have also displayed consistently improved reading scores. Since testing began in 2002, Luzerne County’s mathematics proficiencies have also been consistently higher than state averages. Its reading proficiency performance levels, on the other hand, were initially below state averages in 2002 and 2003, but have since exceeded them. Overall, each Luzerne County school district has demonstrated marked improvements in mathematics and reading proficiencies since initial PSSA testing in 2002. With the exception of the 2005‐2006 school year, the county’s IEP students have also made steady mathematics and reading proficiency progress. The county’s economically disadvantaged students have turned out fluctuating proficiency rates for both mathematics and reading, with each year’s results alternately increasing and decreasing. Hispanic and African‐ American students also demonstrated similar inconsistencies, with subgroup scores varying from year to year, compared with their peers’ performance.

In the 2001‐2002 school year, Luzerne County students averaged a 52.0% mathematics proficiency score, compared with 51.5% statewide. By the 2004‐2005 school year, Luzerne County students achieved a 67.5% mathematics proficiency score, compared with 58.9% statewide. In the 2008‐2009 school year, the county’s students achieved a 67.1% mathematics proficiency score, compared with 66.5% statewide.

9 | Page

Figure 1: Luzerne County Math Proficiency Results 2002‐2009

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Luzerne County reading proficiency scores have fluctuated between 2002 and 2009, but have shown an overall increase for the time period. In 2002, Luzerne County fifth, eighth, and eleventh grade students averaged a score of 56.3%. By 2009, this average score increased to 69.8%.

Figure 2: Luzerne County Reading Proficiency Results 2002‐2009

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Proficiency Results by School District for 2008‐2009 Number of Students Tested The number of students tested in math and reading fluctuated slightly between grades. The tables below show the number of students tested in each school district in 2009.

10 | Page

Table 1: Students Tested in Math 2008‐2009

School District 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Crestwood SD 234 242 260 Dallsas SD 220 219 199 Greater Nanticoke Area SD 157 179 167 Hanover Area SD 146 146 149 Hazleton Area SD 757 802 746 Lake‐Lehman SD 138 164 183 Northwest Area SD 104 118 125 Pittston Area SD 237 213 280 Wilkes‐Barre Area SD 483 469 502 Wyoming Area SD 192 188 207 Wyoming Valley West SD 361 417 401 Total by Grade 3029 3157 3219 County Total 9405

Table 2: Students Tested in Reading 2008‐2009

School District 5th Grade 8th Grade 11th Grade Crestwood SD 234 242 259 Dallsas SD 219 219 198 Greater Nanticoke Area SD 157 177 167 Hanover Area SD 146 146 148 Hazleton Area SD 757 801 747 Lake‐Lehman SD 138 164 183 Northwest Area SD 103 118 125 Pittston Area SD 237 213 280 Wilkes‐Barre Area SD 483 468 502 Wyoming Area SD 191 188 207 Wyoming Valley West SD 360 411 399 Total by Grade 3025 3147 3215 County Total 9387

11 | Page

Proficiency Changes 20082009 In terms of math proficiency scores, there have been changes at each grade level between the 2007‐2008 and 2008‐2009 school years. In terms of changes between 2008 and 2009, eleventh grade students showed the largest decrease; from 55.8% in 2008 to 52.6 in 2009 – a change of ‐ 3.2%. Eighth grade students were the only group to demonstrate an increase since last year, increasing 3.1% overall. The biggest increases occurred in Dallas SD for fifth grade, Wyoming Valley West SD for eighth grade, and Pittston Area SD for eleventh grade.

Table 3: Luzerne County Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

School 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 DistrictGrade 5Grade Change 8Grade Change 11 Change Crestwood SD 80.5 78.2 ‐2.3 79.9 80.9 1 61.5 54.6 ‐6.9 Dallsas SD 85.5 93.6 8.1 78.4 83.1 4.7 56.2 53.8 ‐2.4 Greater Nanticoke Area SD 66.7 67.5 0.8 71.2 65.4 ‐5.8 58.1 41.4 ‐16.7 Hanover Area SD 64.5 62.4 ‐2.1 74.1 76.1 2 55.7 55.7 0 Hazleton Area SD 73.3 76.7 3.4 59.2 68.0 8.8 49.2 43.4 ‐5.8 Lake‐ Lehman SD 86.9 79.8 ‐7.1 64 70.2 6.2 50.6 55.7 5.1 Northwest Area SD 69.7 62.5 ‐7.2 71.2 66.1 ‐5.1 42.8 33.6 ‐9.2 Pittston Area SD 74.4 65.8 ‐8.6 76.5 80.7 4.2 57.8 69.3 11.5 Wilkes‐ Barre Area SD 69.9 73.0 3.1 60 64.4 4.4 50 51.6 1.6 Wyoming Area SD 95.3 79.1 ‐16.2 78.6 81.9 3.3 83 81.1 ‐1.9 Wyoming Valley West SD 62.8 66.2 3.4 55.2 64.7 9.5 49.2 38.9 ‐10.3 County Average 75.4 73.2 ‐2.2 69.8 72.9 3.1 55.8 52.6 ‐3.2

Reading scores increased slightly in fifth and eighth grades. Students in fifth grade showed a 1% increase while eighth grade students showed a 0.6% increase. Six school districts experienced reading decreases for eleventh grade with an overall decrease of 0.6%.

12 | Page

Table 4: Luzerne County Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

School 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 2007‐2008 2008‐2009 DistrictGrade 5Grade Change 8Grade Change 11 Change Crestwood SD 69.3 78.2 8.9 87.0 89.7 2.7 72.8 72.2 ‐0.6 Dallsas SD 80.8 81.3 0.5 86.1 93.1 7.0 73.1 76.3 3.2 Greater Nanticoke Area SD 55.3 59.2 3.9 75.0 68.9 ‐6.1 64.5 49.7 ‐14.8 Hanover Area SD 53.3 50.0 ‐3.3 87.3 80.8 ‐6.5 70.2 65.5 ‐4.7 Hazleton Area SD 59.7 66.9 7.2 74.0 74.1 0.1 55.2 53.1 ‐2.1 Lake‐ Lehman SD 76.1 78.2 2.1 81.8 85.4 3.6 69.8 72.6 2.8 Northwest Area SD 62.6 65.0 2.4 84.6 78.8 ‐5.8 66.0 60.8 ‐5.2 Pittston Area SD 64.8 60.8 ‐4.0 83.9 85.0 1.1 68.6 77.8 9.2 Wilkes‐ Barre Area SD 53.5 55.7 2.2 73.1 79.2 6.1 60.4 65.6 5.2 Wyoming Area SD 81.2 68.1 ‐13.1 84.4 88.9 4.5 76.4 76.8 0.4 Wyoming Valley West SD 57.1 60.6 3.5 76.5 75.4 ‐1.1 59.9 59.2 ‐0.7 County Average 64.8 65.8 1.0 81.2 81.8 0.6 66.9 66.3 ‐0.6 Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008‐2009

This SAR reports the progress of certain distinct Luzerne County classes, the 2002‐2003 fifth grade class – and their scores as eighth graders and eleventh graders in the 2005‐2006 and 2008‐2009 school years. Overall, this class increased their math scores in eighth grade; going from 67.4% to 75%. Pittston Area and Wilkes‐Barre Area demonstrated the largest increases with 20.3% and 20.1% respectively. In eleventh grade, this class saw their scores dramatically decrease going from 75.0% as eighth graders to 52.6% ‐ a change of ‐22.4%.

13 | Page

Table 5: Progression of PSSA Math Performance 2003‐2009

2002‐2003 2005‐2006Change 2008‐2009 Change School District Grade 5Grade 8Grade5th‐8th 11 8th‐11th CRESTWOOD SD 75.4 82.3 6.9 54.6 ‐27.7 DALLAS SD 77.9 86.5 8.6 53.8 ‐32.7 GREATER NANTICOKE AREA SD 52.6 56.8 4.2 41.4 ‐15.4 HANOVER AREA SD 59.1 65.1 6 55.7 ‐9.4 HAZLETON AREA SD 66.8 67 0.2 43.4 ‐23.6 LAKE‐LEHMAN SD 64.1 71.8 7.7 55.7 ‐16.1 NORTHWEST AREA SD 69.8 78.9 9.1 33.6 ‐45.3 PITTSTON AREA SD 57.9 78.2 20.3 69.3 ‐8.9 WILKES‐BARRE AREA SD 62.4 82.5 20.1 51.6 ‐30.9 WYOMING AREA SD 87.3 84.3 ‐3 81.1 ‐3.2 WYOMING VALLEY WEST SD 68.6 71.1 2.5 38.9 ‐32.2 County Average 67.4 75 7.6 52.6 ‐22.4

Reading scores show a similar trend with this class increasing in eighth grade; going from 65.5% to 68%. As they did in math, Pittston Area and Wilkes‐Barre Area demonstrated the largest increases in reading with 21.9% and 12.9% respectively. In eleventh grade, this class saw their scores decrease slightly ― from 68% as eighth grades to 66.3% ― a change of ‐1.7%. In reading, four school districts increased their reading score: Greater Nanticoke Area, Hanover Area and Lake‐Lehman, and Wyoming Valley West.

Table 6: Progression of PSSA Reading Performance 2003‐2009

2002‐2003 2005‐2006Change 2008‐2009 Change School District Grade 5Grade 8Grade5th‐8th 11 8th‐11th Crestwood SD 74.6 77 2.4 72.2 ‐4.8 Dallsas SD 72.8 76.5 3.7 76.3 ‐0.2 Greater Nanticoke Area SD 45.8 46 0.2 49.7 3.7 Hanover Area SD 59.8 60.5 0.7 65.5 5.0 Hazleton Area SD 70.1 63.8 ‐6.3 53.1 ‐10.7 Lake‐Lehman SD 60.9 50 ‐10.9 72.6 22.6 Northwest Area SD 69.7 68.6 ‐1.1 60.8 ‐7.8 Pittston Area SD 56.5 78.4 21.9 77.8 ‐0.6 Wilkes‐Barre Area SD 63.5 76.4 12.9 65.6 ‐10.8 Wyoming Area SD 82.2 94.1 11.9 76.8 ‐17.3 Wyoming Valley West SD 64.3 57 ‐7.3 59.2 2.2 County Average 65.5 68 2.5 66.3 ‐1.7

14 | Page

The figure below demonstrates the math and reading for this class in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades.

Figure 3: County‐wide Progression of PSSA Math & Reading Performance 2003‐2009

90 80 70 60 50 Math 40 Reading 30 20 10 0 2002‐2003 (5th Grade) 2005‐2006 (8th Grade) 2008‐2009 (11th Grade)

Proficiency in Subgroups The tables below show the number of students in each subgroup tested in 2009.

Table 7: Number of Students Tested in Math by Subgroup

Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11 IEP 435 470 397 Economically Disadvantaged 1438 1384 1054 African American 130 106 104 Hispanic 300 286 233

Table 8: Number of Students Tested in Reading by Subgroup

Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11 IEP 434 468 395 Economically Disadvantaged 1436 1375 1051 African American 130 129 104 Hispanic 300 306 232

15 | Page

When compared with their peers in Luzerne County, students with disabilities perform at a lower level at all grade levels in both mathematics and reading. This is particularly evident in the eighth and eleventh grades, when math proficiency scores are generally lower than fifth grades scores. Obviously there are times when students with disabilities have a harder time succeeding their educational purposes and many things then occur, including:

Specially Designed Instruction

Specially designed instruction affects the instructional content, method of instructional delivery, and the performance methods and criteria that are necessary to assist the student make meaningful educational progress. This instruction is designed by or with an appropriately credentialed special education teacher or related service provider. For some students, teachers may need to present information through the use of manipulative. For other students, teachers may need to select and teach only important key concepts and then alter evaluation activities and criteria to match this content change. The IEP team should determine whether a specific type of instruction should be included in a student’s IEP. Generally, if the methodology is an essential part of what is required to meet the individualized needs of the student, the methodology should be included. For instance, if a student has a learning disability and has not learned to read using traditional methods, then another method may be required. When including such an IEP recommendation, the team should describe the components of the appropriate type of methodology as opposed to naming a specific program.

16 | Page

IEP students scored lower than all students as a whole in both 2008 and 2009. The trends, however; are the same with fifth grade scores being the highest and eleventh grade scores the lowest. For math, IEP students scored lower in 2009 in all grades examined.

Figure 4: IEP Student Math Proficiency

45 39.7 39.0 40 35

30 25.8 25 21.5 2008 20 2009 15 9.8 10 8.3 5 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Reading scores showed a different trend than math. IEP student experienced a significant increase in eighth grade scores in 2008 and 2009. Like all other groups, reading scores dropped in eleventh grade decreasing by 22.2% in 2009. In addition, eighth and eleventh grade scores increased between 2008 and 2009 – increasing 1.8% and 2% respectively.

Figure 5: IEP Student Reading Proficiency

40 35.9 34.1 35 30 24.2 25 19.8 20 2008 13.7 15 11.7 2009 10 5 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

17 | Page

Economically Disadvantaged

In Luzerne County, over 3,876 fifth, eighth and eleventh grade students classified as economically disadvantaged took the mathematics portion of the PSSA during the 2008 ‐2009 school year, while over 3,864 took the reading portion. The state average for this subgroup is 36.7%.; overall this subgroup has not achieved the lowest scores. Conversely, of all the subgroups examined, economically disadvantaged students reported the highest mathematics proficiency ratings.

Students that fall into the economically disadvantaged population trended similar to all students as a whole. Scores remained somewhat consistent in each grade with fifth and eleventh showing slight decreasing and eighth experiencing a minor gain.

Figure 6: Economically Disadvantaged Student Math Proficiency

70 64.1 62.1 59.5 60.5 60

50 39.1 38.2 40 2008 30 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

18 | Page

Again, as in math, reading proficiency scores remained somewhat consistent in each grade with eighth eleventh showing slight decreasing and fifth experiencing a minor gain.

Figure 7: Economically Disadvantaged Student Reading Proficiency

80 70.3 72.3 70 60 51.4 51.0 49.2 50.1 50

40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

AfricanAmerican Students

African‐American students comprise another subgroup also monitored by PSSA testing, as dictated by NCLB. Just 363 African‐American students in Luzerne County were tested in both the mathematics and reading sections of the PSSA during the 2008‐2009 school year. It should be noted that only four districts (Greater Nanticoke Area, Hazleton Area, Wilkes‐Barre Area, and Wyoming Valley West) included schools with African‐American populations large enough to be scored and independently reported (population greater than 10). Furthermore, given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years the overall analysis may vary depending on each district.

African‐American students achieved proficiency ratings of 59.1% in mathematics and 76.2% in reading. Luzerne County’s African‐American students trail their peers in reading proficiencies at all grade levels examined. While the subgroup’s mathematics scores are lower, they are still higher than certain districts and grades. Obviously, African‐American students are competitive with their non‐African‐American peers at some grade levels and subjects (i.e., eighth grade math), however the overwhelming majority of grade levels show vast performance discrepancies, in some cases by as much as 40%.

African American students scored lower than all students as a whole in both 2008 and 2009. The trends, however, are the same with fifth grade scores being the highest and eleventh grade

19 | Page

scores the lowest. African American fifth grade students increased their math scores by 12.9% between 2008 and 2009. Although eighth graders scored the highest among the three grades, they experienced the greatest decrease between the two years examined, dropping 17.3% in 2009.

Figure 8: African American Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

70 63.5

60 53.3 50 46.2 40.4 40 30.3 2008 30 24.9 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Reading scores are nearly opposite math scores for the African American student population with fifth graders dropping and eight and eleventh graders increasing in 2009. Eight grade students showed a 12.8% increase and eleventh graders showed a 17.1% increase between 2008 and 2009 while fifth grade students experienced a 9.9% decrease for the same period.

Figure 9: African American Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

70 62.9 60 50.6 50.1 50 43.0 40.7 40 28.9 2008 30 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

20 | Page

Hispanic Students

In Luzerne County, 840 Hispanic students took the mathematics portion of the PSSA during the 2008‐2009 school year, while 838 took the reading portion. This group of testers earned a mathematics proficiency score of 43.2% and a reading proficiency score of 41.6%. Not all students at all grade levels in each district are included in PSSA results, as grades with fewer than ten students in a particular subgroup are not measured. Like the African‐American subgroup population, only three districts had Hispanic populations large enough be scored and independently reported. Again, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years.

As the data suggests, Hispanic students in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades are having a difficult time competing with peers in both mathematics and reading, with total proficiency scores trailing by as much as 25% at many grade levels. The greatest mathematics and reading disparities between Hispanic and non‐Hispanic students occur at the eleventh grade level – where scores differed by up to 30%.

Hispanic students experienced increased math proficiency at every level between 2008 and 2009. Fifth grade student showed the most substantial gain – increasing 14.7% Eleventh graders showed the lowest gain with 4.5%. Hispanic student performed lower overall in math when compared to all students tested.

Figure 10: Hispanic Math Proficiency 2008-2009

70 65.3 62.6 60 50.6 50.1 50

40 33.4 28.9 2008 30 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

21 | Page

Hispanic students showed similar trends in reading – with each group experiencing an increase between 2008 and 2009. Unlike other groups, the eleventh grade students demonstrated the largest gain – increasing 18.6%.

Figure 11: Hispanic Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 70.2 70 60 57 49.6 50 44.6 36.8 40 2008 31 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

22 | Page

Conclusion

Overall, Luzerne County’s public education system has shown improvements since the 2002 inception of NCLB. Five of eleven school districts experienced declines in eleventh grade scores in both subjects within a year. In the transition from fifth to eighth grade (2002 to 2005), students experienced a 6.5% increase in mathematics proficiency scores and a 7.2% increase in reading proficiency scores. Unfortunately, during the time between eighth and eleventh grades (2005 to 2008), these same students experienced a mathematics proficiency decrease of 22.4% and a reading proficiency decrease of 1.7%. By eleventh grade, nearly all proficiencies decreased and changes from 2002–2009 in both reading and mathematics represented only a slight overall improvement. None of Luzerne County’s school districts reported a 100% proficiency rating at any grade level in mathematics or reading during 2008 or 2009 – as students largely vary by academic proficiency level and subgroup. There are many reasons for a decline in performance, which must be considered in order to make improvements. Such issues may require adjusting the current curriculum, remediating students, and tracking their progress. More teachers, classroom aides, and tutors could be considered to guide students toward academic success. Also, smaller class sizes, homogeneous class structures, and other teaching methods could be employed depending on a school’s specific issues.

Achieving or exceeding state targets should be the primary goal, since Pennsylvania’s average proficiencies in the 2008‐2009 school year reached only 73.8% for mathematics and 73% for reading, compared with 56% and 63% in the 2007‐2008 school year, respectively. While goal percentages increase annually to reach NCLB’s end proficiency goal of 100% by 2014, school districts must continually aim to exceed state targets and show consistent improvements each year. Moreover, if school districts fail to meet target levels, they are subject to penalties and sanctions, or may be mandated to develop improvement plans, provide tutoring or be taken over by the state.

Proficiency examinations in other subjects have recently been added (science, writing, and social studies) and may continue to be added over time. Therefore, schools that have reduced instruction time in those subjects to focus on mathematics, reading, and writing PSSAs may be doing themselves a disservice. It is critical for school districts to determine best practices to ensure proficiencies in all subjects are met. Teaching specifically to the PSSA should be avoided.

23 | Page

Appendix: Luzerne County School Proficiency Scores Crestwood School District

Crestwood School District’s math scores remained relatively consistent between 2008 and 2009. Only eighth grade students saw an increase during this time – gaining 1%. Both fifth and eleventh grades showed a decrease.

Figure 12: Crestwood SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 80.5 78.2 79.9 80.9 80

70 61.5 60 54.6 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Crestwood School District’s reading scores were also fairly consistent between 2008 and 2009. Fifth and eighth graders made strides within the year improving 8.9% and 2.7% respectively. However, the eleventh graders scores declined by ‐0.6%.

Figure 13: Crestwood SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 87 89.7 90 78.2 80 72.8 69.3 72.2 70 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

24 | Page

Dallas School District

The Dallas School District’s reading and mathematics proficiency scores ranked highest among Luzerne County’s ten school districts. All three grades enhanced their mathematic scores and the fifth graders did especially well with an increase of 8.1% from the previous year.

Figure 14: Dallas SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 93.6 90 85.5 83.1 78.4 80 70 60 56.2 53.8 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Dallas School District who exhibited outstanding performance in the 2008‐2009 school year with a reading proficiency scores ranging from 76.3 % for eleventh graders to 93.1% for eighth graders.

Figure 15: Dallas SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 93.1 85.5 86.1 90 81.3 76.3 80 73.1 70 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

25 | Page

Greater Nanticoke Area School District Students in the Greater Nanticoke Area School District achieved remarkably better mathematics than reading scores. While fifth grade scores remained consistent, the district’s eighth graders decreased by 5.8% and eleventh graders decreased 7.3%.

Figure 16: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 71.2 67.5 70 66.7 65.4 58.1 60

50 41.4 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

The Greater Nanticoke Area School has among the lowest reading performance in Luzerne County. Its fifth graders, however, increased their reading proficiency scores by 3.9%. Eighth and eleventh grade students experienced decreases – 6.1% and 14.8% respectively.

Figure 17: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 75 68.9 70 64.5 59.2 60 55.3 49.7 50 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

26 | Page

Hanover Area School District

The students’ scores in the Hanover School District varied by grade. Fifth grade students showed a 2.1% decrease in math proficiency from 2008 to 2009 while eight grade students showed improvement and eleventh grade students maintained their average score.

Figure 18: Hanover Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 74.1 76.1

70 64.5 62.4 60 55.7 55.7 50

40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Hanover Area School District’s reading proficiency scores for the 2008‐2009 school year all showed decreased from the previous year. The largest increase occurred in the eighth grade where students showed a 6.5% decrease; however, this group also had the highest scores among all three grades.

Figure 19: Hanover Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 87.3 90 80.8 80 70.2 70 65.5 60 53.3 50.0 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

27 | Page

Hazleton Area School District

All but one group of students in the Hazleton Area school district showed improvement between 2008 and 2008. Eleventh grader students experienced a 5.8% mathematics proficiency decline.

Figure 20: Chart 18: Hazleton Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 76.7 80 73.3 68.0 70 59.2 60 49.2 50 43.4 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

The graph above shows that students in the Hazleton Area School District achieved an increase of 5.2% in their reading proficiency average, although eleventh graders experienced a decline within the past year of ‐2.1%. The fifth graders have exhibited outstanding performance with an increase of 7.2% in their reading proficiency scores.

Figure 21: Hazleton Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 74 74.1 70 66.9 59.7 60 55.2 53.1 50

40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

28 | Page

Lake Lehman School District

Eighth and eleventh graders in the Lake Lehman School District did rather well in term of their math proficiency with a positive increase of 6.2% and 5.8% respectively. The fifth graders declined significantly with a 7.1% decrease from the year before, however their overall scores are still fairly high.

Figure 22: Lake Lehman SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 86.9 90 79.8 80 70.2 70 64 55.7 60 50.6 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Lake Lehman School District students faired very well in 2008‐2009 for reading proficiency. All three grades analyzed had positive results and overall increased their reading proficiency score by an average of 4%.

Figure 23: Lake Lehman SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

85.4 90 81.8 78.2 80 76.1 69.8 72.6 70 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

29 | Page

Northwest Area School District

Among all eleven school districts in Luzerne County, students in the Northwest Area School District scored the lowest on the mathematics portion of the PSSA. Eleventh grade students scored the lowest of all three grades dropping from 42.8% in 2008 to 33.6% in 2009. According to the AYP status, Northwest Area School District has been given a warning that improvements are warranted since it ranks last in performance among all Luzerne County schools.

Figure 24: Northwest Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 69.7 71.2 66.1 70 62.5 60

50 42.8 40 33.6 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Student in the Northwest Area School District had much higher reading proficiency scores when compared to math. Fifth grade students actually showed an increase in math proficiency, increasing by 2.4%. Although eight graders scored the highest among all three grades, they experienced a significant decrease; from 84.6% in 2008 to 78.8% in 2009.

Figure 25: Northwest Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 84.6 78.8 80 70 65.0 66 62.6 60.8 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

30 | Page

Pittston Area School District

Overall, two out of the three groups examined in the Pittston School District increased their mathematic proficiency scores. The district’s eleventh graders performed the best by increasing their overall mathematics score by 11.5% which led them to achieve the second highest score in their grade within the county. However, the district’s fifth graders performed the worst – with a mathematics proficiency decline of 8.6%.

Figure 26: Pittston Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 80.7 80 74.4 76.5 69.3 70 65.8 57.8 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Reading proficiency scores for the students in the Pittston Area School District showed a similar trend to math scores for 2008 and 2009. The eleventh graders had the highest percentage change of 9.2%. The district’s fifth graders, however, experienced a decline of 4%, while eighth grade students increase only slightly.

Figure 27: Pittston Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 83.9 85.0 77.8 80 74.4 68.6 70 60.8 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

31 | Page

WilkesBarre Area School District

Although the eighth and eleventh grade students in the Wilkes‐Barre Area School District showed improved, they are still below average for both grades within Luzerne County.

Figure 28: Wilkes‐Barre Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

80 73.1 69.9 70 60 60.4 60 53.5 50 50

40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

During the 2008‐2009 school year, the district improved its reading scores by an average of 4.1%. The eighth graders did especially well with a 5.2% increase. Although the fifth and eleventh graders increased their scores, they are still significantly lower than the 71.7% average.

Figure 29: Wilkes‐Barre Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 79.2 80 73.1 70 65.6 60.4 60 53.5 55.7 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

32 | Page

Wyoming Area School District

Wyoming Area School district’s fifth graders experienced a decline of 16.2% in mathematics proficiencies from 2007‐2008 to 2008‐2009. As a result, the district lost its 2007‐2008 title of having the highest mathematics proficiency score when the Dallas School District beat their scores. Although the fifth graders’ scores declined and brought down the district’s average, the eighth graders achieved a high score of 81.9% and eleventh graders scored 81.1%.

Figure 30: Wyoming Area SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

120

100 95.3 83 79.1 78.6 81.9 81.1 80

60 2008 2009 40

0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

Fifth graders experienced the greatest decline of 13.1% putting them below the average of the county. The eighth graders are performing exceptionally well with the third highest score for eighth graders among all districts.

Figure 31: Wyoming Area SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

100 88.9 84.4 90 81.2 76.8 80 76.4 68.1 70 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

33 | Page

Wyoming Valley West School District

Two out of the three groups examined at Wyoming Valley West school district increased their scores from last year. The eighth graders performed exceptionally well within the past school year; however, they are still below average within the county. The district’s eleventh graders scored the lowest average in the most recent round of testing within the county.

Figure 32: Wyoming Valley West SD: Math Proficiency 2008‐2009

70 66.2 62.8 64.7 60 55.2 49.2 50 38.9 40 2008 30 2009 20

0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

During the 2008‐2009 school year, only one grade increased their reading proficiency scores – fifth graders increased their scores by 3.5%. Eighth graders experienced a 0.9% reading proficiency decline from year to year while eleventh graders’ decrease was 0.7%

Figure 33: Wyoming Valley West SD: Reading Proficiency 2008‐2009

90 80 76.5 75.4 70 60.6 57.1 59.9 59.2 60 50 2008 40 2009 30 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

34 | Page

References

Hall, Sarah. Grading Our Schools: Annual Analysis of Education Stats. (June 28, 2009). (http://www.thetimes- tribune.com/news/grading_our_schools_annual_analysis_of_education_stats? parentPage=2.1252).

Hall, Sarah. Area Schools Improve Test Scores. (September 3, 2009). The Times Tribune Newspaper. (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/news/area_schools_improve_state_test_scores).

PA Department of Education. (September 8, 2009). PSSA Results for 2008-2009 Academic School Year and 2007- 2008 Academic School Year Results. (http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=150034).

PA Department of Education. (PA-PACT). (September 22, 2009). http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?A=165&Q=139520).

PA Department of Education/Academic Achievement Report for 2008-2009. AYP Facts and FAQ’s. (September 3, 2009 and September 22, 2009). (http://paayp.emetric.net/).

School Data Direct. CCSSO’s: A service provided by the State Education Data Center. (September 24, 2009). (http://www.schooldatadirect.org/).

“The Morning Call Use it, for Life.” PSSA Results 2009: School Districts in Luzerne County. (September 10, 2009). (http://projects.mcall.com/PSSA-results/county-districts/Luzerne/).

U.S. Department of Education. IES: National Center for Education Statistics/State Profile. (September 10, 2009). (http://ies.ed.gov/).

U.S. Department of Education. Students. (September 22, 2009). (http://www.ed.gov/students/landing.jhtml).

U.S. Census Bureau 2008 American Community Survey. (March 3, 2010). (http://www.census.edu).

35 | Page

Luzerne County School Assessment 2010 Report

The School Assessment Report (SAR) provides educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information Writing regarding student proficiencies.

MAY 2010

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... 5 Report Methodology ...... 5 Introduction ...... 6 Education Reform Since 2000 ...... 7 Adequate Yearly Progression ...... 7 Proficiency Trends 2006-2009 ...... 9 Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 10 Number of Students Tested ...... 10 Proficiency Changes 2008-2009 ...... 11 Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008-2009 ...... 11 Proficiency in Subgroups ...... 12 Students with Disabilities ...... 13 Specially Designed Instruction ...... 13 Economically Disadvantaged...... 14 African-American Students ...... 15 Hispanic Students...... 16 Conclusion ...... 17 Appendix: Luzerne County School Proficiency Scores ...... 19 Crestwood School District ...... 19 Dallas School District ...... 20 Greater Nanticoke Area School District ...... 21 Hanover Area School District ...... 22 Hazleton Area School District ...... 23 Lake Lehman School District ...... 24 Northwest Area School District ...... 25 Pittston Area School District ...... 26 Wilkes-Barre Area School District ...... 27 Wyoming Area School District ...... 28 Wyoming Valley West School District ...... 29

2 | Page

List of Figures

Figure 1: Luzerne County Writing Proficiency Results 2006-2009 ...... 10 Figure 2: IEP Student Writing Proficiency: 2006-2009 ...... 14 Figure 3: Economically Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency: 2006-2009 ...... 15 Figure 4: African American Writing Proficiency: 2006-2009 ...... 16 Figure 5: Hispanic Writing Proficiency: 2006-2009 ...... 17 Figure 6: Crestwood SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 19 Figure 7: Dallas SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 20 Figure 8: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 21 Figure 9: Hanover Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 22 Figure 10: Hazleton Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 23 Figure 11: Lake Lehman SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 24 Figure 12: Northwest Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 25 Figure 13: Pittston Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009...... 26 Figure 14: Wilkes Barre Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 27 Figure 15: Wyoming Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 28 Figure 16: Wyoming Valley West SD: Writing Proficiency 2006-2009 ...... 29

3 | Page

List of Tables

Table 1: Students Tested in Writing 2008-2009 ...... 10 Table 2: Luzerne County Writing Proficiency 2008-2009 ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Peformance 2006-2009 ...... 11 Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup ..... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Produced by: The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development Senior Researchers Teri Ooms Sherry Tracewski

Research Associates Stephanie Fields Matthew Greech Kyle Gilligan

Administrative & Outreach Coordinator Marla Doddo

4 | Page

Executive Summary

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey 2006‐2008 population estimate, Luzerne County has a population of approximately 311,752. Moreover, the county’s median age is 42.1 years, its median annual per capita income is $23,028 and its median household income is $41,388 Both income levels rank below the national averages. The county includes eleven school districts, which, in 2008‐2009, reported an 86‐99% graduation rate.

It should be noted that student performance data displayed may differ slightly from state reported data due to rounding differences.

Report Methodology

This document is designed to summarize the performance and monitor the progress of Luzerne County public schools since 2005, when the writing proficiencies were enacted. Other Institute reports date back to when NCLB was enacted in 2002. In doing so, this SAR aims to identify Luzerne County’s strengths as well as areas that require timely improvement. It should be noted that the goal of this particular study is to evaluate the performance of students in fifth,

5 | Page

eighth, and eleventh grades only. As such, statistics and comparisons reported herein are reflective of those grades only and not necessarily the entire population being tested.

Introduction

The purpose of the School Assessment Report (SAR) is to provide educators, administrators, parents, business and industry, and civic leaders with information regarding student proficiencies in our public K‐12 school system – the same system that trains our future workforce. Since local and regional economies are dependent upon the strength of the workforce, K‐12 education is a strong economic development tool. To guarantee an adequate future workforce, within the next several years (through 2014), the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must ensure that each child is proficient in reading and mathematics – a goal that coincides with the Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) provisions. Moreover, parents, guardians and educators can mutually assist in student proficiency improvements if they take

6 | Page

the necessary actions to help students learn and advance their basic reading, mathematics, and writing skills.

Education Reform Since 2000

The Federal government enacted NCLB in 2002. NCLB aims to ensure that American students are equipped with the necessary tools for future success.

Adequate Yearly Progression

AYP goals are measured by three indicators:

School Attendance (for schools without a high school graduating class): Target of 90% or any improvement from previous year.

7 | Page

Taking the Test (Participation): At least 95% of students overall and within each measurable subgroup must take the PSSA.

AYP goals are intended to move schools toward full proficiency and make them more accountable to students, parents, teachers and the community. AYP measurements can positively affect schools that consistently miss their targets. The results allow schools and districts to evaluate their students’ progress to make full proficiency a reality. It is difficult to believe that today’s seventh graders will be 11th graders by the year 2014 when full proficiency will be reached.

Pennsylvania’s 2008 AYP goals were for 56% of students scoring proficient or higher in mathematics, and 63% of students scoring proficient or higher in reading. For 2009, the mathematics AYP goal increases to 61%, while the reading AYP goal rises to 75%. Targets increase annually until 2014, when schools are required to reach 100% proficiency in both subjects.

For a school to meet AYP, all AYP targets must be met. However, the total number of targets used for AYP can vary. This occurs mainly because the targets associated with subgroups that have fewer than 40 students in the school do not apply. Therefore, schools with fewer than 40 students are still accountable and are evaluated when the scores have been completed and processed.

Following are some specific NCLB criticisms/concerns:

education students contradicts earlier Federal mandates requiring students with IEPs to receive individualized educational instruction and assessment. In addition, their scores may unfairly skew a school’s overall proficiency score.

Students who are new to the English language (ELLs—English Language Learners, or LEP—Limited English Proficiency) are largely subject to the same standardized test as regular education students. The test is written and must be completed in English. These scores are also equally factored into a school’s overall proficiency score. An exception to this involves students who are in their first year in the school district and have had limited or no exposure to the English language. In such instances, these students may be permitted to take a Spanish language version of the standardized mathematics test and their scores are not included in the district’s overall AYP. The test’s reading and writing portions are optional. While the reading and writing tests are in English, students are permitted to use word‐to‐word dictionaries that translate native language to English or English to native language. It should be noted, however, that certain restrictions apply on types of dictionaries allowed and their use. In addition, interpreters may also be used. Students may take Spanish test versions for the first three years of their enrollment in the U.S. school system.

Subjectively, many professional educators believe that through NCLB’s mandates, the science of teaching and learning has usurped the art of teaching and learning. Much of the creativity that a teacher might use in the classroom is overtaken by his or her need to conduct repeated practice exercises in order to train students to perform well on the standardized test. Essentially, teaching to the test stifles teachers’ abilities to implement project‐based learning, creative hands‐on experiences, and critical thinking exercises. Is this federal or district mandated. Many argue that if teachers just teach the curriculum well, that the student learns and therefore does well on the test. Proficiency Trends 2006‐2009 In Luzerne County, and statewide, since 2006 over 76% of students on average have exhibited proficiencies in the writing section. Since 2006, Luzerne County’s writing proficiencies have been higher than statewide averages. Luzerne County’s IEP students demonstrated variability in their proficiency scores at each grade level from 2006 to 2009. The county’s economically disadvantaged students also had fluctuations in proficiency rates from 2006 to 2009. Hispanic and African‐ American students portrayed similar inconsistencies, with subgroup scores varying each year.

9 | Page

In the 2005‐2006 school year, Luzerne County students averaged a 76.1% writing proficiency score, compared with 68.6% statewide. By the 2008‐2009 school year, Luzerne County students achieved a 75.5% writing proficiency score, compared with 58.1% statewide.

Figure 1: Luzerne County Writing Proficiency Results 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2005‐2006 2006‐2007 2007‐2008 2008‐2009

Proficiency Results by School District for 2008‐2009 Number of Students Tested The number of students tested in writing varied from each grade. The table below denotes the number of students tested in 2009 for writing in each school district.

Table 1: Students Tested in Writing: 2008‐2009

5th 8th 11th School District Grade Grade Grade CRESTWOOD SD 234 243 263 DALLAS SD 220 220 200 GREATER NANTICOKE AREA SD 157 181 169 HANOVER AREA SD 146 145 149 HAZLETON AREA SD 757 800 742 LAKE‐LEHMAN SD 138 162 186 NORTHWEST AREA SD 104 119 121 PITTSTON AREA SD 236 211 279 WILKES‐BARRE AREA SD 480 464 496 WYOMING AREA SD 189 185 203 WYOMING VALLEY WEST SD 365 419 387 Total by Grade 3026 3149 3195 County Total 9370 10 | Page

Proficiency Changes 20082009 Between the 2007‐2008 and 2008‐2009 school years, changes in the level of writing proficiency have occurred in Luzerne County. From 2008 to 2009, eleventh grade students exhibited the largest decrease in proficiency percentage from 88.4% in 2008 to 84.3% in 2009 – a 4.1% change. Fifth and eighth grade students had an increase in proficiency percentage since 2008. Fifth grade proficiency increased by 2.3%, while eighth grade saw its proficiency scores rise by 0.3% from the previous year. The largest proficiency increase occurred in the Greater Nanticoke SD fifth grade class, where writing proficiency increased from 28.4% in 2008 to 52.9% in 2009 – an increase of 24.5 percentage points. Crestwood SD had the largest increase in writing proficiency for eighth grade at 12.3%.

Table 2: Luzerne County Writing Proficiency 2008‐2009

2007‐ 2008‐ 2007‐ 2008‐ 2007‐ 2008‐ 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 Chang School District Grade 5 Change Grade 8 Change Grade 11 e CRESTWOOD SD 59.5 69.3 9.8 73.7 86.0 12.3 87.1 85.5 ‐1.6 DALLAS SD 85 80.9 ‐4.1 86.6 90.9 4.3 96.3 89.5 ‐6.8 GREATER NANTICOKE AREA SD 28.4 52.9 24.5 60.3 58.0 ‐2.3 85.7 72.8 ‐12.9 HANOVER AREA SD 51 47.3 ‐3.7 80.2 84.1 3.9 91.3 88.6 ‐2.7 HAZLETON AREA SD 56.2 64.4 8.2 59.2 58.2 ‐1 86.3 79.0 ‐7.3 LAKE‐LEHMAN SD 81.6 73.2 ‐8.4 67.6 67.9 0.3 85.4 82.2 ‐3.2 NORTHWEST AREA SD 75.5 74.0 ‐1.5 88.3 78.9 ‐9.4 72.4 76.9 4.5 PITTSTON AREA SD 58.4 64.0 5.6 68.7 75.8 7.1 94.3 93.1 ‐1.2 WILKES‐BARRE AREA SD 67.6 66.0 ‐1.6 70.5 70.7 0.2 93.3 91.7 ‐1.6 WYOMING AREA SD 89.1 78.8 ‐10.3 86.8 81.1 ‐5.7 98.6 93.6 ‐5 WYOMING VALLEY WEST SD 63.8 70.1 6.3 79.5 73.1 ‐6.4 81.5 73.9 ‐7.6 County Average 65.1 67.4 2.3 74.7 75.0 0.3 88.4 84.3 ‐4.1

Progression of Proficiency Results by School District for 2008‐2009

Progression of proficiency results was measured by comparing writing scores of the 2006 fifth grade to the 2009 eighth grade class. Similarly, comparisons between the 2006 eighth grade class and the 2009 eleventh grade class were made to measure writing proficiency progress. 2009 eighth graders demonstrated an increase of 12.5 percentage points from three years prior, as 73.1% reached a level of proficiency. Eleventh graders in 2009 also showed improvement from the previous time they had been tested with 84.3% of students attaining a 11 | Page

level of proficiency – up 9.2 percentage points from 2006. Northwest Area SD eighth grade class exhibited the largest increase in proficiency with a 32.9% increase from 2006. In eleventh grade, Crestwood SD had an increase of 24.9 percentage points in proficiency while Pittston Area SD followed with a 21.1% jump from three years prior.

Table 3: Progression of PSSA Writing Performance 2006‐2009

2005- 2008- 2005- 2008- 2006 2009 2006 2009 Grade Grade Change Grade Grade Change School District 5 8 5th‐8th 8 11 8th‐11th CRESTWOOD SD 69.7 86 16.3 60.6 85.5 24.9 DALLAS SD 76.5 90.9 14.4 84.8 89.5 4.7 GREATER NANTICOKE AREA SD 34.3 58 23.7 56.9 72.8 15.9 HANOVER AREA SD 65 84.1 19.1 78.8 88.6 9.8 HAZLETON AREA SD 56.9 58.2 1.3 69.6 79 9.4 LAKE‐LEHMAN SD 68.3 67.9 ‐0.4 79.2 82.2 3.0 NORTHWEST AREA SD 46 78.9 32.9 82.2 76.9 ‐5.3 PITTSTON AREA SD 53.9 75.8 21.9 72.0 93.1 21.1 WILKES‐BARRE AREA SD 70.1 70.7 0.6 81.7 91.7 10.0 WYOMING AREA SD 81.5 81.1 ‐0.4 89.6 93.6 4.0 WYOMING VALLEY WEST SD 65.2 73.1 7.9 70.9 73.9 3.0 County Average 62.5 75 12.5 75.1 84.3 9.2

Proficiency in Subgroups The tables below show the number of students in each subgroup tested in 2009.

Table 4: Number of Students Tested in Writing by Subgroup

Grade 5 Grade 8 Grade 11 IEP 435 474 388 Economically Disadvantaged 1431 1387 1026 African American 127 129 98 Hispanic 295 303 229

12 | Page

When compared with their peers in Luzerne County, students with disabilities perform at a lower level at all grade levels in writing. Obviously there are times when students with disabilities have a harder time fulfilling their educational purposes. However, several changes can occur:

Specially Designed Instruction

IEP students scored lower than all students as a whole from 2006‐2009. However, the trends indicate progression in writing proficiency scores for students with disabilities, specifically from eighth grade to eleventh grade.

13 | Page

Figure 2: IEP Student Writing Proficiency: 2006‐2009

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0 2006 2007 30.0 2008 20.0 2009 10.0

0.0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Economically Disadvantaged

In Luzerne County, 3,844 fifth, eighth and eleventh grade students classified as economically disadvantaged took the writing portion of the PSSA during the 2008 ‐2009 school year. The state average for this subgroup is 53.1%. Economically disadvantaged students in Luzerne County exceeded this state average with a proficiency rating of 63.4%.

Students who are classified under the economically disadvantaged population exhibited similar trends to the general population. During the course of four years, fifth grade scores appeared to improve, while eighth grade scores fluctuated and eleventh grade had a decline in proficiency scores.

14 | Page

Figure 3: Economically Disadvantaged Student Writing Proficiency: 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

AfricanAmerican Students

African‐American students comprise another subgroup also monitored by PSSA testing, as dictated by NCLB. During the 2008‐2009 school year, 354 African‐American students in Luzerne County were tested in the writing section of the PSSA. Of the school districts in Luzerne County, only four had African‐American populations large enough to be scored and independently reported (population greater than 10) ‐‐ Greater Nanticoke Area, Hazleton Area, Wilkes‐Barre Area, and Wyoming Valley West. The generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years.

African‐American students earned proficiency ratings of 49.8% statewide. In Luzerne County, African‐American students reached an average proficiency rating of 58.8%, nine percentage points higher than that of the state average. This level of proficiency was, however, lower than the Luzerne County proficiency rating of 75.5%.

African‐Americans scored lower than the student population as a whole for each grade level in 2009. Fifth graders in this subgroup have demonstrated a decline in writing proficiency scores since 2007, while eighth grade African‐Americans have varied in their levels of proficiency. African‐Americans in the eleventh grade demonstrated an increase in writing proficiency from 72.5% in 2006 to 89.8% in 2007. However, proficiency levels have declined for eleventh graders in this subgroup during the past two years.

15 | Page

Figure 4: African American Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Hispanic Students

In Luzerne County, 827 Hispanic students took the writing portion of the PSSA during the 2008‐ 2009 school year. This subgroup earned an average writing proficiency score of 67.2% in 2009. Not all students at all grade levels in each district are included in PSSA results, as grades with fewer than ten students in a particular subgroup are not measured. Similar to the African‐ American subgroup population, there were only three school districts which included Hispanic populations large enough to be scored and independently reported. Again, the generalizations and analysis that follow should be tempered with caution given the little data available both in this testing year and in prior years.

Hispanic students scored below the county average for writing proficiency in fifth, eighth, and eleventh grades. Although the proficiency differential between Hispanic students and the entire population only ranged between seven and eight percentage points for each grade. Hispanic students in Luzerne County scored higher than Hispanic students statewide, earning a proficiency rating of 67.2% as opposed to 49.9%.

Hispanic students experienced an increase in writing proficiency scores in fifth grade from 2008 to 2009, rising from 49.6% to 59.0%. Eighth graders in this subgroup experienced an even greater increase from 2008, going up from 47.2% in 2008 to 65.7% in 2009. As was the case with African‐American students, eleventh grade Hispanic students endured a drop‐off in writing proficiency scores each year since 2007.

16 | Page

Figure 5: Hispanic Writing Proficiency 2006-2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8Grade 11

Conclusion

Overall, students in Luzerne County have exhibited improvement in their writing proficiency scores as they progress through their education. In the transition from fifth to eighth grade (2006 to 2009), students experienced a 12.5% increase in writing scores. Between the same two time periods, students transitioning from eighth to eleventh grade increased their writing proficiency scores by 9.2%. However, one point of concern is the decline in eleventh grade proficiency scores from 2008 to 2009. Northwest Area was the only school district to have experienced an increase in writing proficiency from 2008 to 2009. No school districts in Luzerne County earned a 100% proficiency rating at any grade level in writing from 2006 to 2009. This is due to a large variation of students’ academic proficiency levels and subgroups. There are many reasons for a decline in performance, which must be considered in order to make improvements. Such issues may require adjusting the current curriculum, remediating students and tracking their progress. More teachers, classroom aides, and tutors could be considered to guide students toward academic success. Smaller class sizes, homogeneous class structures, and other teaching methods could also be employed depending on a school’s specific issues.

Achieving or exceeding state targets should be the primary goal for Luzerne County school districts. The average writing proficiency rating for students in Luzerne County during the 2008‐ 2009 school year was 75.5%, exceeding Pennsylvania’s average proficiency rating of 70.9%. While goal percentages increase annually to reach NCLB’s end proficiency goal of 100% by

17 | Page

2014, school districts must continually aim to exceed state targets and show consistent improvements each year. Moreover, if school districts fail to meet target levels, they are subject to penalties and sanctions, or may be mandated to develop improvement plans, provide tutoring, or be taken over by the state.

Proficiency examinations in other subjects have recently been added (science and social studies) and may continue to be added over time. Therefore, schools that have reduced instruction time in those subjects to focus on mathematics, reading, and writing PSSAs may be doing themselves a disservice to meet current demands. It is critical for school districts to determine best practices to ensure proficiencies in all subjects are met. Teaching specifically to the PSSA should be avoided.

18 | Page

Appendix: Luzerne County School Proficiency Scores

Crestwood School District

Crestwood School District sustained consistent writing proficiency scores in fifth grade from 2006 to 2009, reaching near the 70% proficiency mark every year except for 2008. Eighth grade students varied in their scores for much of the time period, although they experienced a significant proficiency increase from 60.6% in 2006 to 86.0% in 2009. Eleventh grade students in the Crestwood School District were fairly consistent with their proficiency scores, averaging 85.7% over the four years.

Figure 6: Crestwood SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

19 | Page

Dallas School District

Dallas School District has scored relatively high in terms of writing proficiency since 2006. Fifth grade students improved their scores from 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008, earning a slightly lower rating in 2009. Both eighth and eleventh grade students had fluctuations in their proficiency ratings each year, with eighth grade averaging 89.0% and eleventh grade having a 93.6% proficiency level. Since 2006, Dallas has earned the highest eighth grade writing proficiency average among all school districts.

Figure 72: Dallas SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

20 | Page

Greater Nanticoke Area School District

Greater Nanticoke Area School District fifth graders experienced a noticeable improvement in writing proficiency with an increase from 28.4% in 2008 to 52.9% in 2009. Eighth graders earned a slightly lower average in 2009 than they had in 2008. After having proficiency ratings that exceeded 85% in 2007 and 2008, eleventh grade had proficiency scores that dropped to 72.8% in 2009.

Figure 8: Greater Nanticoke Area SD: Math Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

21 | Page

Hanover Area School District

Between 2008 and 2009, eighth grade students in the Hanover Area School District improved their writing proficiency scores, increasing their proficiency rating to 84.1% from 80.2% in 2008. Fifth grade writing proficiency scores varied each year since 2006, most recently declining by 3.7% from 51.0% in 2008. Eleventh graders in the Hanover School District have averaged proficiency ratings of 91.2% since 2006, although scores have slightly declined the past two years.

Figure 9: Hanover Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

22 | Page

Hazleton Area School District

In the Hazleton Area School District, fifth grade proficiency scores improved in 2009, increasing from 56.2% in 2008 to 64.4% in 2009. Eighth grade earned a proficiency score of 73.4% in 2007, but has experienced a decline in proficiency to slightly below 60% the past two years. On average, eleventh grade students have had writing proficiency scores of 85.7% since 2006, although their scores have declined each year.

Figure 3: Hazleton Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

23 | Page

Lake Lehman School District

Proficiency scores for fifth grade students in the Lake Lehman School District have fluctuated from year to year. Most recently, fifth grade experienced a decline in writing proficiency, dropping from 81.6% in 2008 to 73.2% in 2009. In 2006, eighth grade earned a proficiency score of 79.2%, but it has averaged only 67.6% since 2007. Writing proficiency scores for eleventh grade have dropped each year since 2006, the most recent being reported at 82.2%.

Figure 11: Lake Lehman SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

24 | Page

Northwest Area School District

In the Northwest Area School District, eighth grade had the highest proficiency score of the three grade levels with a 78.9% rating. Fifth grade has shown progression in writing scores since 2006. Proficiency scores in fifth grade only dropped slightly from 75.5% in 2008 to 74.0% in 2009. Eleventh grade’s writing proficiency has declined the past several years after earning a 95.6% proficiency score in 2006. However, eleventh grade writing proficiency improved by 4.5%, rising to 76.9% in 2009.

Figure 12: Northwest Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

25 | Page

Pittston Area School District

Both fifth and eighth grades in the Pittston Area School District showed improvement in their writing proficiency scores from 2008 to 2009. Fifth and eighth grades have also shown variation in writing proficiency, alternating each year since 2006. Eleventh grade students in the Pittston Area School District have demonstrated consistency in their writing proficiency ratings, scoring between 91.1% and 94.3% each of the past four years.

Figure 13: Pittston Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

26 | Page

WilkesBarre Area School District

Proficiency scores for fifth graders in the Wilkes‐Barre Area School District have declined by small margins each of the past four years, the most recent proficiency rating being 66.0% in 2009. After earning a writing proficiency score of 85.6% in 2007, eighth grade has experienced a decline in proficiency the past two years, scoring 70.5% in 2008 and 70.7% in 2009. Although eleventh grade has averaged a 94.0% proficiency score since 2006, it has also experienced slight drops in proficiency each year.

Figure 14: Wilkes‐Barre Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 2006 50.0 2007 40.0 2008 30.0 2009 20.0 10.0 0.0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

27 | Page

Wyoming Area School District

Since 2006, Wyoming Area School District has maintained the highest writing proficiency average among all school districts for both fifth and eleventh grades. Students at all grade levels experienced a decline in their writing proficiency scores from 2008 to 2009, with fifth grade having the largest drop off from 89.1% to 78.8%. After attaining 93.3% proficiency in 2007, eighth grade proficiency dropped each of the past two years. Eleventh grade experienced its first decline in writing proficiency since 2006 with a rating of 93.6% in 2009.

Figure 15: Wyoming Area SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

28 | Page

Wyoming Valley West School District

In the Wyoming Valley West School District, each grade scored within the 70%‐74% range in writing proficiency during the 2009 school year. After declining in proficiency during the 2007 school year, fifth grade has earned higher writing proficiency scores the past two years, reaching a level of 70.1% in 2009. Eleventh grade, on the other hand, has experienced a drop off in its proficiency rating since 2007, most recently scoring 73.9%.

Figure 16: Wyoming Valley West SD: Writing Proficiency 2006‐2009

100 90 80 70 60 2006 50 2007 40 2008 30 2009 20 10 0 Grade 5Grade 8 Grade 11

29 | Page

References

Hall, Sarah. Area Schools Improve Test Scores. (September 3, 2009). The Times Tribune Newspaper. (http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/news/area_schools_improve_state_test_scores).

PA Department of Education. (September 8, 2009). PSSA Results for 2008-2009. Academic School Year and 2007- 2008 Academic School Year Results. (http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=150034).

PA Department of Education. (PA-PACT). (September 22, 2009). http://www.pde.state.pa.us/k12/cwp/view.asp?A=165&Q=139520).

PA Department of Education/Academic Achievement Report for 2008-2009. AYP Facts and FAQ’s. (September 3, 2009 and September 22, 2009). (http://paayp.emetric.net/).

School Data Direct. CCSSO’s: A service provided by the State Education Data Center. (September 24, 2009). (http://www.schooldatadirect.org/).

“The Morning Call Use it, for Life.” PSSA Results 2009: School Districts in Luzerne County. (September 10, 2009). (http://projects.mcall.com/PSSA-results/county-districts/Luzerne/).

U.S. Department of Education. IES: National Center for Education Statistics/State Profile. (September 10, 2009). (http://ies.ed.gov/).

U.S. Department of Education. Students. (September 22, 2009). (http://www.ed.gov/students/landing.jhtml).

U.S. Census Bureau 2008 American Community Survey. (March 3, 2010). (http://www.census.edu).

30 | Page