Data Analysis II

[This is an email published with permission from Dave Lunt concerning the projected enrollment figures.]

Superintendent Hintz and Board Members:

The second half of this analysis is potentially more sensitive, which is part of the reason I split things up. As you are well aware, the demographics of the district have changed. You may be less aware of the magnitude and how the trends relate to the outflows discussed in the first part of this analysis.

I could only work with the generalities defined within the information at hand. Students are divided into two broad buckets: white; and minority (which I refer to as “other”). I don’t believe that this is a race issue as much as it is a function of circumstances that tend to be correlated with race, or, alternatively, east versus west, in our district. For the record, diversity is one of the big reasons that my wife and I choose to have our children in public rather than private school.

As you can see from the attached graphs and table, white enrollment has fallen a cumulative 30% (4% annually), while other enrollment has increased 115% (9% annually). Half of the decline in white enrollment is due to migration (the other half is “natural” as defined in Hazel’s report). On the flip side, 68% of the increase in other enrollment is due to migration. As a result of these trends, white enrollment is currently 57% of total, down from 80%. At this pace, we’ll be 50/50 in less than five years.

This trend is evident across both elementary and secondary schools, although from slightly different bases. For example, white kindergarten enrollment declined from 77% of total to 56% of total, while white twelfth-grade enrollment declined from 85% of total to 65%. I suspect that the higher percentage of white students in upper grades has to do with relative dropout rates. First grade is currently 52% white.

The number of students receiving free lunch nearly doubled, rising 8% annually. Those receiving reduced lunch rose 16% (2% per year). Total free and reduced lunch rose 70% or 6% per year. Approximately 31% of students received lunch benefits, up from 18%.

The population of English Language Learners rose over 400% (20% annually), increasing from 2% of enrollment to 10%.

The number of special education students increased 22% (2% annually), rising from 10% of enrollment to 12%.

Fortunately, the challenging changes in mix don’t appear to have materially impacted average test scores. I believe that the teachers deserve the credit. However, I question whether we can expect them to produce the same results if current trends remain in place, especially with larger class sizes. If test scores fall, it will initiate another negative feedback loop in the process.

Putting both pieces together, the district is losing students to alternative choices. The data suggest those leaving the district come from very different circumstances and have very different needs from those entering the district. The changing mix of students makes the district far more reliant on state and federal funding of mandated programs, which, as we all know, is paid with a lag and not paid in full.

These trends also have meaningful implications for levy votes. Needless to say, those opting into the district can’t vote on our levy. Those opting out of the district don’t have the same vested interest and are less likely to vote in favor. I also suspect that the changes in mix impact the percentage of eligible voters with a vested interest as well. When a levy fails by a couple of hundred votes, these swing factors could more than account for the difference.

I am concerned that our district is following the well-worn path of other districts in major metropolitan areas. Those that can leave, do. Those that can’t, stay. As a result, public schools become dominated by lower income and special needs students.

I believe our district is at (if not beyond) a tipping point. Therein lies your challenge. My concern is that actions (particularly the latest round of cuts) are fueling rather than countering these trends.

I don’t believe the district has a strategic plan. It has a mission/philosophy/values statement. While an important first step, it is insufficient. A strategic plan begins with an assessment of the entity and the environment, what is commonly referred to as a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats). I believe all of these trends deserve consideration in a strategic plan. A strategic plan is proactive not reactive and defines measurable objectives. A strategic plan typically also has at least a five-year time horizon. Thus it is inappropriate to marry the term “strategic” with next year’s budget. Needless to say, an annual budget should be consistent with a strategic plan. But, an annual budget is not strategic, it is tactical.

The administration and the board should be focusing on these issues, with genuine input from parents every step of the way. If this doesn’t happen, the district’s path is set.

Dave