building burlington’s future - burlington school district · delivery of curriculum and school...

Building Burlington’s Future

Report of the Burlington School Board Task Force on Removing Obstacles to the

Success of Students from Low Income Families

We need a school system that will position us as a city for the 21st century, a successful, vibrant, attractive, multi cultural city.

June 13, 2006

Table of Contents

Charge and process.........................................................................................................2 Our Current Model............................................................................................................3 Principles for Decision Making .......................................................................................4

Background ....................................................................................................................4 The Principles.................................................................................................................4

Our Assessment of Our Current Model..........................................................................6 Strategies for Action........................................................................................................7

Strategies That Include Socioeconomic Integration........................................................8 Strategies That Do Not Include Socioeconomic Integration............................................9

Assessment of Strategies: Advantages and Disadvantages .....................................10 Implementation and Next Steps....................................................................................11 Appendices.....................................................................................................................12 Appendix A: Task Force Members................................................................................13 Appendix B: Purpose and Charge of Task Force........................................................14 Appendix C: Minutes......................................................................................................15 Appendix D: Equity Task Force Observations ............................................................16

Geography....................................................................................................................16 Trends ..........................................................................................................................16 Cost ..............................................................................................................................17 Class.............................................................................................................................17 Stress ...........................................................................................................................17 Performance .................................................................................................................17 Resources ....................................................................................................................18

Appendix E: Burlington Schools: Defining the Challenges .......................................19 Appendix F: Principles: Notes and Citations...............................................................21 Appendix G: Superintendent's Message on NECAP Scores ......................................27 Appendix H: Additional Charts and Information .........................................................29 Appendix I: Maps............................................................................................................38

Task Force Report on Removing Obstacles to Students from Low Income Families

2

Charge and process In January 2006, the Burlington School Board commissioned a Task Force to recommend "an approach, or combination of approaches, to further the achievement of students from low-income families" (see Appendix for full text of charge). We have concluded that the current configuration of our schools is no longer the best fit for the challenges of our community. Ours is an increasingly diverse and multi-cultural population. We need a school system that will prepare its students for success in a multi-cultural world, and position the city for success as a vibrant, attractive urban area. The Task Force met 13 times between February and June of 2006 (see Appendix for meeting dates and minutes). We met at different locations throughout the city, and invited public comment at every meeting. We approached our work in a systematic way. We collected extensive information about the Burlington School District, about educational models, and about the effects of poverty on student learning. As we approached the task of assessing the current system, we realized that we needed to agree on basic principles or characteristics we would want our public school system to embrace. We then applied these principles to our current model, and identified strengths to be retained and also weaknesses to be addressed. Finally, we applied our principles to alternative strategies which, in combination, would prepare Burlington to successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century and our changing community.


3

Our Current Model It is useful to step back and describe the basic features of our current educational model, especially as they pertain to the educational experience of children from low-income families.

• We have six K-5 elementary schools, two 6-8 middle schools, and one 9-12 high school. • We run several alternative education programs. • Our schools operate on an 8-3 schedule; all schools have after-school programs

and some have before-school programs as well. • We assign students to elementary and middle schools based on geographic

districts around "neighborhood schools." Six (6) Neighborhood Schools have closed over the past several decades, and the patterns of development during that time have created new neighborhoods that are further away and not in close proximity to each school. As a result, children travel to school in a variety of ways including car, walking, city bus, and district-provided transport.

• Parents may request variances from neighborhood school assignments, and a high percentage of these are granted.

• Compared with the school districts in Vermont and Chittenden County, our schools are populated by a diverse mix of students in terms of their household income level, nationality, native languages, ethnicity, and race. Our students are native speakers of 30 different languages (see Appendix for language demographics by school).

Housing costs vary throughout the city, and this has resulted in a fairly uneven distribution of English language learners, students of color, and students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL). FRL is a rough proxy for children from low- and moderate-income families. Overall, about half of our elementary school students quality for FRL, but the proportion of these students in the total school population ranges from 35% in the north and south end of the city to almost 100% in the center city elementary schools (Barnes and Wheeler). English Language Learners and students of color are also disproportionately distributed across different elementary schools (see Appendix, "Defining the Challenges" for data and definition of students of color). From an educational point of view, the concentration of students with higher needs affects the delivery of curriculum and school climate in ways that are not in the best interest of either the students or their teachers. The Burlington School District has not ignored the obstacles to learning that face many children from lower-income families, nor is this challenge isolated to children in the ONE. Testing data suggests that children from lower income families attending schools throughout the District have a greater struggle in meeting academic standards. All schools have developed strategies to increase the success of students not achieving these standards. Barnes and Wheeler have smaller class sizes and additional support staff, such as social workers, para-educators and special educators. The Wheeler teaching staff has invested considerable time and effort in the development of a new model for teaching reading. The community school model, which brought a variety of family-based health and human services into the schools, was first developed at Wheeler and Barnes. In recognition of the challenges facing these children, the District has invested more in the education of students from lower-income households, especially those at Barnes and Wheeler (see Appendix, "Defining the Challenges").


4

Principles for Decision Making

Background The task force discussed at length the current model in Burlington’s schools. This ongoing discussion was informed by voluminous data. Our data included information provided by district personnel as well as teachers and principals from several of Burlington’s schools. It also included both local and national research reports. As we reviewed the national research, we requested additional information specific to the Burlington District that was relevant to the national research. We looked at demographic information, past, present and projected. Every conversation was directed at trying to understand the apparent relationships between social class and school achievement as they exist in our schools. Every conversation was directed at trying to understand what relationships exist and what could be done about them. We looked at local past attempts to address the issues and we looked nationally to see what other schools districts had done to ameliorate the effects of social class, poverty, and family background on school success and academic achievement. As we talked, we began to realize that no one strategy or initiative would lead to high rates of learning and success for each and every child in Burlington. We realized we needed a set of principles to use to consider, assess, and recommend whatever strategies we might ultimately advance to the school board to improve the education of all Burlington’s children, but especially those who come from homes that are lower income. In mid-April, the entire task force individually brainstormed and subsequently clustered a rough set of principles and strategies to address the challenge of educating Burlington’s underperforming children and youth. After several iterations in subsequent meetings, these clusters became our Principles for Decision Making. We used the Principles select and evaluate the set of Strategies we bring to the Board in this report. One overarching theme is that good schools are vital to the success of our City. The economic vitality and promise of Burlington as an increasingly diverse, multicultural city can only be maintained if its schools sustain that vitality and promise in the education of every child. The schools need to be one of Burlington’s most notable and respected assets and Burlington has to look upon all its schools as schools of the Burlington community. Burlington’s future is dependent on great schools.

The Principles Principle One: The Schools Need Community Partnerships. The schools are able to fulfill their increasingly challenging educational mission only to the degree that their efforts are supported by interdependent partnerships with other stakeholders in the Burlington community. Local agencies, both private non-profit and governmental, have to work together in planned, coordinated efforts to support the work of teaching and learning that goes on within and across each of the schools. The relationship is symbiotic…the city’s economic base is enhanced by excellent schools and the schools in turn are supported in their efforts by a vibrant economy.


5

Principle Two: Diversity Is A Key Strength In Our Schools. Choose any demographic characteristic and you will find that the public schools of Burlington are the most diverse in Vermont. Diversity can divide and separate us; it can also unify and enrich our shared and common lives. Burlington is now part of a much larger global community and our children are much more citizens of the globe than school children were even a decade ago. The diverse character of each Burlington classroom is an incredible asset. We recognize and affirm the contribution our community’s diversity makes to the education of all our children.

Principle Three: The School District creates an environment to attract and support quality teaching. Effective schooling is much more than teaching for elevated test scores. In school, children and youth learn to respect each other as human beings who come together from difference places in life and as collaborators in the learning process. Teachers across Burlington’s schools face remarkably different academic and social environments. All Burlington’s teachers must have equitable opportunities to enhance their student’s academic, social, and civic rights and responsibilities. Schools have to be organized in ways that continually adjust to the changing face of Burlington’s communities and support engaging, joyful, high quality, and responsive instruction.

Principle Four: The District provides opportunities and resources for each student to reach her/his potential. A democratic society and a caring community cannot relegate significant portions of its youth to lives of academic failure and social alienation. The Burlington community must hold itself to the admonition that any child in any school is a child of Burlington. Burlington as a community has a collective responsibility to ensure that any child in any one of its schools receives the best education possible. The challenge is whether or not we have the organizational creativity and desire to ensure that all our children will be successful in all our schools.

Principle Five: District Facilities Will Be Strategically Utilized. Burlington’s school facilities should be used to maximize student learning. Students should attend schools that are organized so students learn at the highest possible levels of engagement. Every student should have the most resources available to them in their pursuit of academic excellence and personal well-being, including resources from the school district and resources that come through parental and community involvement. Facilities should be used strategically and efficiently so the distribution of resources is equitable within and across the schools.


6

Our Assessment of Our Current Model The table below presents the Task Force's assessment of our current model (described on page 3), evaluated against the principles discussed above.

Principle Assessment Principle One: The Schools Need Community Partnerships.

We have a number of strong partnerships with non-profits that serve youth. However, these partnerships are not city-wide, tend to be more reactive than strategic, and lack coordination. The relationship between BSD and the City is weak. There are many missed opportunities to benefit from Burlington's cultural, recreational, and human services non-profit infrastructure.

Principle Two: Diversity Is A Key Strength In Our Schools

BSD shares this principle and has a well-developed diversity program. However, the results are impeded by the uneven distribution of minority students in our elementary schools; and the lack of diversity of staff. We are not allowing Burlington students to fully take advantage of the opportunity to learn from and with students from different backgrounds than their own, starting with their first day in school.

Principle Three: The School District creates an environment to attract and support quality teaching.

This is more true at some schools than at others. The constant exposure to classrooms full of children with high needs shifts a teacher's focus from implementing a well-rounded curriculum to maintaining order.

Principle Four: District provides opportunities and resources for each student to reach her/his potential.

This value is widely held with BSD, but its realization is limited by our model. Because of the unequal distribution of students with higher needs, the implementation of our curriculum isn't equal across schools. Because the staff and faculty are not representative of the student body in terms of class background and ethnicity, the "role model" effect is weak for students who are underrepresented.

Principle Five: District Facilities Will Be Strategically Utilized

BSD facilities are not strategically utilized, as indicated by excess capacity in schools (capacity greater than enrollment); duplication of resources that could be pooled (libraries, music equipment, curricular resources); differences in the quality of facilities across schools; and inflexibility in facilities.

As a Task Force, we were impressed by the many accomplishments of the Burlington School District. It has addressed the challenges before it but the current model has become an impediment to the success of lower-income students. We believe that the socioeconomic-integration strategies we present below, if implemented well, are critical to better serve the educational needs of lower-income students while allowing all students to benefit from the rich mix of Burlington's population. In addition, the three strategies that do not address socioeconomic-integration should also be considered. Given the powerful social forces that tend to divide us from people “different from ourselves”, we cannot emphasize strongly enough the need for careful and thoughtful implementation.


7

Strategies for Action The Task Force focused on six strategies for action, initiatives to be undertaken by the district and individual schools to improve the education of all Burlington’s children, with emphasis on those who come from homes that are lower income and educationally challenged. Our data showed that schools that had high percentages of children from lower income households were also schools that were not performing as well academically. Our data also showed that we had significant clusters of lower income children and youth in all our schools. We concluded that the city and district needed to be more attentive to these factors and so the idea of socioeconomic integration in all our schools began to inform our search for organizational strategies and initiatives that might lead to more improved school success – academic, social, and civic – for all our children and youth across the district. Three of the six strategies (Reconfigured Elementary Schools, Redistricting, and Magnet Schools) are strategies that directly involve socioeconomic integration. The remaining three strategies do not by themselves involve this kind of integration (Expanded Pre-K Services, Community Schools, and Extended Day). Our recommendation is that any school that wants to improve school success for all its children must include strategies that lead to socioeconomic integration but also should implement multiple action strategies to serve low income children in every school. Furthermore, we believe it prudent that no school have an inequitable distribution of children from socio-economically challenged settings. Regardless of which strategies are implemented, it is highly recommended that all schools be within 5% of the district’s overall free and reduced lunch ratio.

We also believe that meaningful parental involvement, central to success of schools with diverse student bodies, should move beyond the traditional PTO role, and that there are many approaches that could be taken to achieve this. We do not take this list to be exhaustive. We do think that this is a critical time for the Burlington community to begin conversations about how to reconfigure its schools in order to provide equitable opportunities for school success for all children in the district. Clearly the Board needs to think about action as occurring over a period of time in a planned, selected, sustained, and supported implementation.


8

Strategies That Include Socioeconomic Integration Strategy One: Reconfigured Elementary Schools. Instead of several K-5 elementary schools spread across the city, the task force supports the idea of creating K-2 and 3-5 elementary schools in different sections of the city. A changed configuration would have the effect of assigning children in a different way to different schools. It would consolidate the material and personnel resources of each school. It would also enable teachers to collaborate more across similar grade levels. It could naturally blend students from various neighborhoods, while also providing the advantages of schools focused on the narrower age groups they serve. Advantages of this system include:

• Integration without bureaucratic difficulties, • Developmentally-appropriate environments for specific age groups, • Better teaming relationships for teachers, • “Equalized” education for all students, and • Neighborhood children could still be together thanks to geographical districting.

Strategy Two: Redistricting. Our data indicated that the current school boundaries seem arbitrary and capricious after years of micro-adjustment. Greater economic integration could be achieved most simply by redrawing district boundaries. The assignment of children to Burlington’s schools could be accomplished through a more deliberate and technologically informed system. We recommend that redistricting be considered in ways that would include movement, re-drawing, and the possible inclusion of walk zones and other forms of choice.

Strategy Three: Magnet Schools. A magnet school is a public school that draws students interested in specific subjects such as the arts, public service, or sciences, or a special teaching method. Examples could include: a school that was technology rich; a school that had a well developed content focus on science and/or mathematics; a school with a business focus; a school that placed a strong emphasis on writing or the performing arts or social justice; a school with a project-based, student-inquiry approach; a school with a targeted, sequential skills instruction; a school that had a unique approach to the early grades such as offered by the High Scope or Regio Emilio models of early childhood education. Themes and/or pedagogies are often determined with broad community input. A Magnet program would aim to reduce or prevent the isolation of a certain group of children and youth by attracting parents to choose the school because of its programmatic focus. Magnet schools were originally started in the hope that their geographically open admissions would end the type of racial and class segregation that happens when student assignment is based on neighborhood districting.


9

Strategies That Do Not Include Socioeconomic Integration

Strategy Four: Expanded Pre-K Services. Language development is an absolute necessity for early school success. Expanded Pre-K would help reduce the language acquisition gap and other issues that may accompany children from low-income families when they first enter school, as well as provide opportunity for the identification of issues students face at home. Quality early childhood education provides this as well as other components of successful early schooling. Reaching more children in need with quality pre-school programming coordinated with school entry “requirements” would be a major contributor to early school success. Strategy Five: Community Schools. A Community School is both a place and a set of relationships between the school itself and other resources in the larger community. There is an integrated set of services that focus on children and families that include health, social services, youth and community development. The schools themselves tend to be open for longer hours and have several community agencies operating within them. The Community Schools integrated focus on academics, services, supports and opportunities is meant both to improve student learning and to nurture stronger families and healthier communities. Schools become centers of the community and are accessible to the community. A Community School form of organization increases the likelihood that different segments of the Burlington community could come together to address some of the more pressing needs of some of its citizens, thereby enabling children in those families to come to school more ready to learn.

Strategy Six: Extended Day. The extended day provides resources for keeping the school doors open for academic pursuits for longer periods of time during the day. An extended day would provide time for children in need of intensified or elaborated academic work and might create the opportunity for children from different areas of the city to work together on projects and homework in ways that are not now possible. Longer days mean more opportunity for instruction, services, and support for children most in need.


10

Assessment of Strategies: Advantages and Disadvantages

Socioeconomic Integration Strategies COLUMN A

Other Strategies COLUMN B Principles Reconfigured

Elementary Redistricting Magnet

Schools Expanded Pre-K

Services Community

Schools Extended

Day Partnerships

• same as current model

• same as current model

•maximizes • more strategic connection to partnership opportunities

•better connections with partners

• maximizes and attracts

• opportunity to increase p’ships • opportunity to do more within a p’ship • increase costs

Diversity

• integration from start • allows a natural diversification across multiple dimensions

• better mix in schools unless middle class families depart

• could achieve a more equitable mix • has potential to backfire

• work to increase access for all • work to increase participation

• continues lack of integration

• more time to use materials in different ways • mix will improve if ESL children remain for time

Teacher Environment

• more focused instruction • more choice within schools with increase in program options

• benefits teachers at Barnes and Wheeler

• new teaching opportunities for teachers • richer curricula and variety in teaching style

• huge benefits in terms of early experiential base and language development

• if stabilizes family life, teachers benefit

• flexible work hours • increased opportunities to teach

All Children Reach Potential

• more focused instruction • more choice within schools with increase in program options

• creates more integration • conditions for higher achievement

• depends who attends and who leaves

• work to increase access for all • work to increase participation

• same • gives old north end children access to richer schooling environments

• increases chances of success • can narrow content and language gaps • enriched curriculum

Facilities

• consolidate resources • intensify resources such as books, libraries, materials

•neutral to negative • not maximize efficiency • lost opportunities

• some adaptation costs

• less duplication • better use of facilities

• better use of facilities


11

Implementation and Next Steps We have several thoughts regarding implementation:

• Professional development and community leadership training will be essential in the implementation of any of the strategies;

• Although we haven’t conducted much research in this area, all of the strategies will

likely require additional funds, at least for any start up and/or transition phase. However, implementing these strategies now will cost “society” less in the future.

• None of the strategies will work in isolation, finding the right combination will insure

success.

• Our schools do so many things right: the Burlington School Department should continue to implement things that have worked.

• This may need to be a long term process that will allow transition and

implementation over time.

• Some things will be lost in this process, but we believe that much more will be gained.

The Task Force completed its work with the submission of the Report to the School Board on June 13, 2006. We strongly recommend that the School Board carefully develop a process throughout the summer (that is launched in September) that will engage Burlington’s residents and stakeholders in this discussion.


12

Appendices Appendix A: Task Force Members Appendix B: Purpose and Charge of Task Force Appendix C: Minutes Appendix D: Equity Task Force Observations Appendix E: Burlington Schools: Defining the Challenges Appendix F: Principles: Notes and Citations Appendix G: Superintendent's Message on NECAP Scores Appendix H: Additional Charts and Information Appendix I: Maps


13

Appendix A: Task Force Members Garth Allen, Community Volunteer

Vince Brennan, Community Volunteer

Linda Carroll, Principal, Hunt Middle School

Jane Knodell, Burlington City Councilor

Betsey Krumholz, Former Burlington School Board Commissioner

Nina Mazuzan, Program Director, King Street Youth Center

Stu McGowan, Community Volunteer

Michael Monte, Director, Burlington Community & Economic Development Office

Tim Parsons, Community Volunteer

Charles Rathbone, Community Volunteer / UVM Education Faculty

Lashawn Sells, Diversity and Equity Coordinator, Burlington School District

Lynda Siegel, Teacher, Wheeler Elementary School

Sherwood Smith, Director, Center for Cultural Pluralism / UVM Education Faculty

Anne Tewksbury-Frye, Teacher, Barnes Elementary School

Nancy Zahniser, Principal, Champlain Elementary School

Ex Officio (Non-Voting) Members Thom Fleury, Burlington School Board Commissioner

Erik Hoekstra, Burlington School Board Commissioner

Amy Werbel, Burlington School Board Commissioner

The Task Force wishes to acknowledge the support of the staff of the Burlington School Department:

Jeanne Collins, Superintendent Wendy Larose, Administrative Assistant

Betsy Liley, Director, Grants and Grant Programs Paul Irish, Director of Technology

Dolores H. Cox, Human Resources Specialist Jackie Langlois, Data Coordinator


14

Appendix B: Purpose and Charge of Task Force The Burlington School District welcomes students from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Approximately 47% of students in the District qualify for free or reduced lunch. Currently, two elementary schools in the District serve students of whom 90 – 100% qualify for free or reduced lunch. That percentage is between 35 and 47% at the District’s remaining four elementary schools. The School Board has identified removing obstacles to the success of students from low-income families as its top priority. At the same time, however, the District also faces significant economic challenges. To assist the School Board and District administration in the determination of future reorganization to best benefit students from low-income families, the Chair of the Board has appointed this advisory task force. The District administration and School Board will use the findings of the task force as a basis for discussions in May through August 2006. Draft recommendations for the board’s consideration in planning for the 2007-2008 school year and beyond. These recommendations shall address an approach or combination of approaches to further the achievement of students from low-income families. Recommendations may also address:

• Facilities use, and allocation of space; • Student distribution, and variance policies; • Allocation of resources, and transportation.

The Task Force shall:

1. Assess what works, what is not working and why for meeting the needs of students from low-income families in Burlington schools;

2. Seek expert opinions and current research in all considerations; 3. Consider budget implications and funding; 4. Hold meetings in a variety of Burlington schools; 5. Communicate in accordance with the public records act and open meeting

laws; 6. Have all materials for group discussion available to the public; 7. Create a system of communication to encourage public input, understanding,

and inclusion; 8. Provide a report to the Board at its monthly meetings.


15

Appendix C: Minutes Minutes of all the meetings are available on line at:

http://www.bsdvt.org/Board/minutes/default.htm#Equity%20Task%20Force

Or, if you have received this report electronically, by connecting to the hyperlink date below by first pressing the CTRL button and clicking to follow the link. January 24, 2006 February 7, 2006 February 21, 2006 March 9, 2006 March 21, 2006 March 28, 2006 April 11, 2006 April 18, 2006 May 11, 2006 May 17, 2006 May 25, 2006 To Be Posted: May 31, 2005 http://www.bsdvt.org/Board/minutes/TaskForce/053106ETFMinutes.htm June 6, 2006 http://www.bsdvt.org/Board/minutes/TaskForce/060706ETFMinutes.htm Or by contacting the Burlington School Department:

Wendy Larose Administrative Assistant

865-5332 [email protected]


16

Appendix D: Equity Task Force Observations The observations below seek to clarify the wide variety of viewpoints and perceptions that permeate the debate around the issue of equity for students from low-income families. The observations are an attempt to find the facts that may be pertinent to the discussion of this issue, and to help guide our discussion and our final recommendations. The Task Force has attempted to verify all of the observations with data. However, a few observations are not verifiable, and are the result of a common belief amongst the members of the Task Force.

Geography

1. Burlington has had a long tradition of supporting neighborhood schools.

2. Burlington has also closed several neighborhood schools over the past several decades, including the Taft School on the Hill, the Adams School in the South End, and the Thayer School in the New North End.

3. HO Wheeler and Lawrence Barnes are in very close proximity to each other. Given

current demographic trends and based upon the current configuration of areas that “feed” each of the schools, one of these schools could serve as the neighborhood school for the Old North End (ONE).

4. Most students who attend Barnes and Wheeler live in fairly close proximity to the

school, more so than the students from our other elementary schools.

5. Many students travel more than one mile to get to school. Some students travel more than two miles to attend school.

6. All of the City’s Elementary Schools have students who travel to and from the

schools by bus and car.

7. Middle class families have several alternative means to get their students to and from school.

8. Busing is more difficult for many lower income students because they lack

alternative means of transportation to and from school.

9. The geographic areas that serve the student population are not equal in size.

Trends

10. There has been declining enrollment in all of Burlington’s schools for the past 3 to 5 years.

11. Some families choose to not live in Burlington or to send their children to Burlington

schools because of the high poverty rate of the students and because of the inherent biases of the families.


17

12. As housing prices and rents increase, the ONE may become more attractive to middle income families.

13. The ONE has traditionally been a lower income neighborhood.

14. The ONE student’s family is more mobile and more likely to be a renter.

Most renters in the ONE live in small, 2 to 5 unit buildings. Most renters in other neighborhoods live in housing built specifically for rental

housing.

Cost

15. There is a higher cost per student for educating children who attend high poverty rate schools. There is also a higher cost per student for educating children who attend smaller schools.

Class

16. Children in poverty face biases by middle class students and teachers. Classism impacts both children in poverty and children from the middle class.

17. Economic integration is viewed to be beneficial to all students. Economic

integration is especially beneficial to lower income students.

18. Although children in poverty are seemingly of one class, there are in fact several separate subclasses, each providing a completely different set of problems, conditions and opportunities.

Stress

19. The families of children in poverty face obstacles and conditions that are very stressful and are not conducive to a child’s overall health and education.

20. The staff and faculty at the elementary schools of the ONE are under a lot more

stress than the staff and faculty of other elementary schools. The consequences of the stresses seen at the elementary school level feed

the stresses at the middle schools.

Performance

21. Middle class kids who attend Barnes or Wheeler do the same academically as middle class kids from other schools.

National data indicates that all students suffer academically when more than 50% of the students in any one school participate in the Free and Reduced Lunch (FRL) program. National data also shows there is no negative impact on middle class students when there is less than 50% FRL in the school.

22. Kids who receive Free and Reduced Lunch in economically integrated schools

perform better than their counterparts in Old North End schools.


18

23. The quality of the instruction at the six elementary schools is the same.

The amount of time that is spent teaching certain skills is reduced at the schools due to other stresses.

24. Conditions of poverty adversely affect the skills and availability of learning for kids

in poverty.

25. The optimal size for an elementary school is 300 students.

Resources

26. Schools with economic integration have parents who can provide more resources and support to their schools.

27. More district resources go to high poverty schools, but there may be fewer community

resources going to high poverty schools (such as the fundraising capacity of the different PTOs).


19

Appendix E: Burlington Schools: Defining the Challenges Diversity is a great strength in the Burlington School District, but it is distributed unevenly.

District students are more diverse than they ever have been. We currently serve students who speak more than thirty languages. We are also experiencing a more racially diverse student body. The distribution of English language learners, students of color and students who qualify for free and/or reduced lunch varies among the six elementary schools. For details about

English Language Learners’ primary language identification and a FRL 5 year history, see Appendix H. Our District enrollment has dropped in some areas of the city more than others.

School 1975 enrollment 2000 enrollment 2006 enrollment Barnes 308 200 161 Champlain 458 289 295 Edmunds 75 266 293 Flynn 585 403 329 Smith 320 331 280 Wheeler 409 270 188 Edmunds Middle 779 356 373 Hunt Middle 651 456 442 Burlington High School 1715 1031 1163 Schools now closed 993 0 0 Total Burlington Students 6293 3602 3524

The District issued 96 variances in 2004-2005 and 70 variances in 2005-2006. These variances are diverse, and do not reflect a general pattern of flight from some schools to others. See chart in Appendix H. The enrollment figures also include the immigrant families who moved into Burlington in 2004, adding children to the Burlington School District. Even with additional immigrant students expected to enroll in the District, our overall enrollment is projected to drop to 3211 by the year 2010. This impacts the utilization of our buildings. It will be challenging to provide an equitable distribution of district physical resources and a high quality educational environment in a time of declining enrollment and funding. For historical school enrollment figures, see Appendix H. Transportation: Some elementary schools function as “neighborhood schools” more than others. Elementary School

5.16.06 Total

Responded Walk/bike students

Walk/bike %

Bus - students

Bus %

Car - students

Car- %

Barnes 148 98 66% 5 3% 45 30% Champlain 296 64 22% 99 33% 133 45% Edmunds 283 110 39% 18 6% 155 55% Flynn 329 114 35% 10 3% 205 62% Smith 212 89 42% 20 9% 103 49% Wheeler 217 147 68% 7 3% 63 29% Totals 1485 622 42% 159 11% 704 47%

2004-2005 reported figures

School Students of Color

Free/Reduced Lunch

English Language Learners

Smith 41 / 15% 101 / 32% 28 / 10% Champlain 45 / 15% 129 / 36% 31 / 11% Edmunds 34 / 12% 92 / 31% 11 / 4% Flynn 61 / 19% 160 / 48% 82 / 25% Barnes 64 / 40% >90%** 45 / 28% Wheeler 71 / 38% >90%** 62 / 33% EMS 78 / 21% 185 / 50% 48 / 13% Hunt 65 / 15% 208 / 48% 56 / 13% High School 153 / 13% 418 / 35% 84 / 7% ** % are used for to insure confidentiality of the students


20

Elementary students (K-5) ride free. Both the mode of travel and the distance travelled vary widely throughout the district for

elementary students Students in grades 6-12 are provided transportation if they live more than a mile from

school and a bus pass is issued in those situations. The pass is good for after school activities only if students are leaving from the school or in

the case of EMS, Cherry Street. All other students are expected to pay $.60 to ride the bus.

The Burlington School District invests more in its students attending homogeneous (high-poverty) elementary schools than at its heterogeneous (socio-economically mixed) schools.

The high cost of educating students at Barnes and Wheeler schools reflects added District resources allocated to lower class sizes at these schools, along with mandated additional staff. Students facing similar academic and social challenges at our other four elementary schools may not have access to the same low class sizes and extra services. See page 34 for a more detailed analysis.

Do added resources result in improved school climate and social development? Some teachers at Barnes and Wheeler teachers report dissatisfaction with school climate and student academic and behavioral progress despite higher levels of professional development, added resources and smaller class sizes at these schools. Middle school principals, teachers, parents, students and social workers report more social and academic difficulties in students transitioning to middle school from the homogeneous Barnes and Wheeler schools than from our other four heterogeneous elementary schools. The District currently helps students with greater challenges due to poverty. The Burlington School District for many years has devoted added resources to the Barnes and Wheeler schools, including provision of a health center at both schools and dental clinic at Wheeler available to all schools. The District also has formed partnerships with many non-profit and state organizations that bring resources to all our schools, such as social workers and after school programs. The School District has many partners. Fletcher Allen, Baird Center, Howard Center, Visiting Nurse Association, Vermont Department of Health, Vermont Department of Corrections, Vermont Dept. of Children and Families, Vermont Agency of Human Services, Community Health Center, University of Vermont School of Nursing, Boys and Girls Club, Sara Holbrook Center, 15 community preschools, City of Burlington Parks and Recreation Department, YMCA, and the United Way of Chittenden County. Based on these findings, task force members voted unanimously to develop one or more reorganization plans for our District that include socioeconomic integration and more equitable resource allocation in all our schools.

Elementary School

2006 Cost/student

Cost/student for core teaching staff (assuming

average salary and benefits of $50,000.)

Barnes $13,162 $6,149 Champlain $7,794 $3,805 Edmunds $7,190 $3,724 Flynn $7,622 $4,284 Smith $8,929 $4,013 Wheeler $14, 248 $6,293


21

Appendix F: Principles: Notes and Citations

The task force reviewed multiple sources of information related to our task. Listed below are several documents digested by the committee. Not everyone read all the documents, and all documents have been reviewed by some members of the committee. The purpose of their inclusion here is to assert the task force used relevant scholarship in its deliberations. The documents do not establish a priori evidence of causative findings for what the task force recommends. With the current “state of the art,” claims of this nature would be irresponsible. What these documents do is frame our deliberations and underscore the fact that others have covered similar territory. They show that our principles and strategies share a common discourse in the wider community and bear similar hopes, opportunities, and outcomes. The important scholarship to be done must be situated in the microenvironments and classrooms once this 21st century reform effort is underway.


22

Principle One Schools Need Community Partnerships

Fact

1. Stressors on schools are increasing. These include diminishing finances, higher standards, and student body of increasing socioeconomic, ethnic, and cultural diversity.

2. The BSD and City of Burlington are both stakeholders in making Burlington’s schools the best they can be.

Implications

1. Schools are not able to do this work alone. The issues impacting schooling to day are located beyond the control parameters of individual schools.

2. Private and public community and school agencies must work together in planned, coordinated efforts to make a difference.

3. The future vitality of Burlington is dependent upon our ability to educate our young people successfully, to graduate from a challenging, supportive program that gives them hope and direction in their lives.

Research

1. Bracey, G. “Other (community) institutions have to act simultaneously with the schools in order for the schools to make a difference.”

2. Berliner, D. (2006). Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12106

3. Gibson, J. O., T. G. , and McNeely, J. B. (1997). Community Building: Coming of Age. http://www.urban.org/publications/307016.html

4. Kirschenbaum, H. ( ). From Public Relations to Partnerships: A Changing Paradigm in School, Family, and Community Relations.�� http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/pop_schl.html

Models

• businesses working directly with schools • parent advisory boards • actively organized parent/citizen advocacy groups • regular ongoing meetings with realtors, police, chamber of commerce, mayor, city

council chair


23

Principle Two Diversity is a key strength in our schools

Fact

1. There are many kinds of diversity in Burlington’s schools. 2. Diversity can divide and separate us. It can also unify and enrich our shared lives. 3. There are many proven programs for working with diverse school populations in terms of

social and academic outcomes. 4. The Burlington School Department has ongoing professional development relative to

taking advantage of the opportunities its diversity provides us as a community. 5. The Burlington community has the responsibility to meet every student’s needs for

academic and social support. Implications

1. Social class, poverty, and diversity are separate dynamics in what makes a school and effective school.

2. Every school is a diverse school. Every school will be a welcoming school. 3. The great strength of Burlington’s schools – and the greater Burlington community – is

its diverse community of citizens. 4. All BSD personnel will be sensitive and receptive to the needs and culture of children

and families representing all levels of social class. 5. The greater Burlington community has to embrace, accept, and promote its commitment

to the opportunity of diversity in order for its schools to work for everyone. Research

1. Cohen, E. & Lotan, R. (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in action. NY: Teachers College Press.

2. James Banks. Various articles and research on multicultural education. 3. Kahlenberg, R. D. (2000). Socioeconomic Integration: A Promising Alternative

http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=NC&pubid=896


24

Principle Three Create an environment to attract and support quality teaching

Fact

1. The Burlington School Department has a cadre of well educated teachers. 2. Constant exposure to classrooms full of children from backgrounds of profound poverty

shifts a teacher’s academic focus to that of maintaining order. 3. Teachers across Burlington’s schools face remarkably different academic environments.

Implications

1. Burlington’s teachers must have equitable chances for instructional success. 2. Both academically motivated student populations and academically challenging student

populations should be evenly distributed across schools. 3. Teachers should have an opportunity to teach some of what they find exciting to teach as

well as the responsibility to teach curricula that are common across school settings. Research

1. Haas, M. (2003). New Research Finds School Hiring and Support Practices Fall Short http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news/features/ngt04222003.html

2. Quartz, K., Olsen, B., and Duncan-Andrade, J. (2003). The Fragility of Urban Teaching: A Longitudinal Study of Career Development and Activism. http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=idea

3. Nieto, S. (2003). What Keeps Teachers Going? 4. Lezotte, L. W. (199_). Revolutionary and Evolutionary: The Effective Schools

Movement. http://ali.apple.com/ali_media/Users/1000059/files/others/lezotte_article.pdf#search='ron%20edmonds%20effective%20schools'

5. Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (2000). Challenges of improving instruction: A view from the classroom. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dkcohen/DKC_Recent_Pubs.html

Models

• Prof. Development Schools • Responsive Classroom • Charter Schools


25

Principle Four District provides opportunities and resources for each student to reach her/his potential

Fact

1. Children in Burlington achieve at different rates. 2. Deep, generational poverty creates requires coping strategies different from those

strategies that auger for school success. 3. There is a point at which the academic failure of some children in a school creates a

condition of academic failure for all children in a school. 4. Economically diverse neighborhoods support greater learning opportunities. 5. A democratic society and a caring community cannot choose to relegate significant

portions of its youth to academic failure and expect to thrive as a society. Implication

1. Burlington school children and faculty should be provided opportunities at every age to meet and learn from children/staff with different learning abilities, physical abilities, racial, cultural and economic backgrounds, and family and community expectations.

2. Communities have to organize to promote and maintain the academic success of all children in their schools.

Research

1. Coleman, J. (1961). Equality of Educational Opportunity Study. http://www.ecs.org/html/Document.asp?chouseid=4519

2. Langer, J. with Close, E., Angelis, J., and Preller, P. Teaching Middle and High School Students To Read And Write Well. http://flare.ucf.edu/Research/Guidelines%20for%20Teaching%20Middle%20and%20High%20School%20Students%20to%20Read%20and%20Write%20Well%20.pdf#search='judith%20langer%20beat%20the%20odds'

3. Berliner, D. (2006). Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform. http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=12106

Models

• High Scope Early Childhood Program • Adolescent Literacy Success – CELA (Langer)


26

Principle Five District facilities will be strategically utilized

Fact

1. All schools have increasing numbers of highly challenging learners. 2. The effects of the worst kind of poverty are being felt in increasing numbers in all

Burlington’s schools. 3. District resources have been inequitably distributed with mixed results in terms of student

performance outcomes. 4. Every school has two kinds of resources: resources that occur through parent

participation in the school and resources that come to the school through district allocations.

Implications

1. All Burlington school facilities should be used for their highest and best purpose in terms of student learning.

2. Every learner should have the highest resource base possible urging their academic pursuits and personal well-being.

3. District resources should be equitably distributed across grades. Research

1. Stiefel, L., Rubenstein, R., and Schwartz, A. E. (2004). From Districts to Schools: The distribution of Resources Across Schools in Big City School Districts. http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/csl/resources/from_districts_to_schools.pdf#search='resources%20poverty%20schools'

2. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dkcohen/DKC_Recent_Pubs.html

Models

• Charter Schools – every school known for something distinctive


27

Appendix G: Superintendent's Message on NECAP Scores Jeanne Collins Superintendent of Schools

May 12, 2006

The media recently reported on the state’s new standardized assessment for students in Grades 3-8. Parents, guardians or families of students in those grades should have received their student’s assessments by mail this month.

The new test is called the New England Common Assessment Program or NECAP. I wanted to share with you some information about those reports.

First, any standardized test is, at its best, an objective measure of a snapshot in time. Using that measure over a number of years will give us a picture of the effectiveness of our curriculum and the achievement of our students. Many other achievement measures also need to be considered, and are reflected in our Action Plans and our Annual Report.

Second, a test score alone cannot reflect the true progress being made. Students in poverty who do not have access to a language rich pre-school environment and students whose native language is not English have a much longer race to run meet a standard than students from environments rich in the English language. This deficit upon school entry may look like minimal progress is made, when actually, a great deal of progress is made even if the standard has not been met. Test scores that do not measure progress from start to finish can feel quite demoralizing for students and teachers who work very, very hard and should feel proud.

Third, the recently published results are preliminary and/or inaccurate. This includes what the media reported and the information provided to the Burlington Schools by the state that we were required to send to student’s families.

The state allowed only a week for schools to review the scores and submit corrections. Results were then published before all errors could be fixed. We continue to find errors in the data received, such as switched or missing scores, or students who took the test being reported as being absent. We are working with the state now to clean all of these errors up.

Fourth, some students, especially English Language Learners, missed the proficiency level only by one or two questions. In the long run, we are not concerned, as over time this does let us know where we need to focus more instruction. But for the first year of the test, these results can be misleading.

Finally, for the first year, this test included our entire population of students in grades 3-8, including the non-English speaking refugees who arrived last fall. A student whose native language is not English takes the entire test after one year in American schools and must take the math test as of the first day in the country. Therefore students who never held a book in their life were being tested on English academic fluency and content.


28

The good news is that students whose native language is not English who have been in our schools for a few years or more did quite well on the assessments.

These tests are important for us to look at as we measure the progress of our schools. We are beginning now to analyze the data, identify where our students are not meeting the state standard and seek ways to improve our instruction or services to raise every students’ achievement. Over time, as we give the test annually, we will be able to make necessary changes that improve instruction for everyone. We also are working on improving our process of using data received in classes each day to adapt daily instruction and assessment. We are excited about the new tools we are starting to use, and will be sharing more about this topic in the future.


29

Appendix H: Additional Charts and Information The mobility of students and families is a significant challenge in collecting data for the Burlington School District. Student numbers change frequently. Since information is compiled at different times, it is certain that there will be discrepancies in the population figures. It is also certain that percentages will not always total 100%. The numbers used in the charts were accurate as of the date identified. Please direct questions to the superintendent's office.


30

BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT HISTORY

School 1965 1975 1985 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Adams 306 186 School closed

Barnes k 414 308 248 193 200 191 183 156 155 164 161

Champlain k 238 458 255 307 289 293 284 283 287 278 295

Converse 243 School closed

EES k 0 75 249 216 266 292 288 306 303 280 293

Flynn k 426 585 335 451 403 370 359 344 328 323 329

Ira Allen 207 118 School closed

Smith k 424 320 267 336 331 348 321 305 292 277 280

Taft 281 191 School closed

Thayer - new 244 498 205 School closed

Thayer - old 240 School closed

Wheeler k 424 409 257 248 270 257 255 235 224 221 188 Edmunds Middle * 834 779 263 386 356 384 376 380 371 382 373

Hunt Middle * 504 651 278 436 465 456 463 472 468 436 442

High School * 1287 1715 1323 1092 1031 998 1071 1105 1137 1160 1163

Totals 6072 6293 3680 3665 3611 3589 3600 3586 3565 3521 3524

6072 3.64% -41.5% -0.41% -

1.47% -

0.61% 0.31% -

0.39% -

0.59% -

1.23% 0.09%

* The high school was only grades 10-12 prior to 1985. In 1985 it housed grades 9-12.

* Hunt and Edmunds Jr. High were only grades 7and 8 prior to 1985.

k Smith, Champlain, Flynn and Edmunds Elementary went to fulltime Kindergarten in FY03.

k Barnes went to fulltime Kindergarten in FY01, Wheeler went in FY99.


31

Free & Reduced Lunch

5-Year History

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 (as of 05/06)

School # % # % # % # % # % # %

BHS 332 33 317 30 327 29 573 38 370 32 418 39

Champlain 116 39 107 37 107 37 117 40 99 36 129 44

EES 103 35 87 30 105 35 105 35 86 31 92 31

EMS 201 53 167 44 176 46 180 49 190 50 185 50

Flynn 145 39 126 39 126 36 168 36 155 48 160 49

Hunt 172 37 157 34 148 31 150 47 181 39 208 48

Smith 61 17 66 20 71 23 89 30 88 32 101 36 Totals 1130 1027 1060 1382 1169 1293 **Barnes & Wheeler are not tracked the same as under Provision D, they are considered 100% free lunch.


32

Federal Definition of Free and Reduced Lunch Program


33

Cost Per Student Assuming Average Teacher Salary of $50,000

Barnes Champlain EES Flynn Smith Wheeler K-4 K-4 K-4 K-4 K-4 K-4 Enrollment - grades K-4 128 251 248 268 235 153 Enrollment - grade 5 20 43 43 62 45 23 Total enrollment 148 294 291 330 280 176 FTE clsrm tchr 9.00 15.00 14.00 18.00 14.00 12.00 ESL 1.00 1.00 0.40 2.00 1.00 1.60 FTE beh spec 0.10 consult 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 FTE guidance 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FTE Intensive Special Needs 00 consult 1.00 0.50 1.00 consult FTE librarian 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FTE sped tchr 3.10 1.45 1.00 2.20 2.50 3.25 FTE speech 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FTE Title tchr 1.50 1.55 1.00 1.30 0.50 0.80 Reading Coach (inc. 1.5 District) 0.50 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.50

Teaching staff per school 18.20 22.38 21.78 28.28 22.48 22.15

Total salaries & benefits @ $50,000/teacher including benefits $ 910,000 $1,118,750 $1,088,750 $1,413,750 $1,123,750 $1,107,500

Avg. cost/student per school $ 6,149 $ 3,805 $ 3,741 $ 4,284 $ 4,013 $ 6,293 Note: This does not include art, music, PE, nursing or district content specialists.


34

Parent-Requested School Variances

2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Neighborhood School Request to # Req'd Request to # Req'd Request to # Req'd Barnes Champlain 3 Champlain 1 Champlain 2 EES 5 EES 7 Flynn 2 Flynn 1 Flynn 4 Smith 2 Wheeler 2 Smith 3 Wheeler 5 Wheeler 11 Dovetail 9 Dovetail 5 Champlain EES 5 EES 3 EES 3 Wheeler 1 Dovetail 8 Wheeler 4 Dovetail 4 Edmunds Elementary (EES) Barnes 1 Barnes 3 Barnes 4 Champlain 2 Champlain 2 Champlain 4 Flynn 2 Wheeler 3 Wheeler 2 Smith 2 Wheeler 1 Flynn Barnes 1 Champlain 1 Smith 4 EES 3 EES 1 Dovetail 4 Smith 7 Smith 8 Smith Champlain 1 Champlain 3 Barnes 1 Flynn 10 EES 4 Flynn 3 Flynn 9 Wheeler 2 Wheeler 1 Dovetail 2 Dovetail 3 Wheeler Barnes 3 Barnes 4 Champlain 4 Champlain 2 Champlain 1 EES 2 EES 11 EES 5 Dovetail 7 Smith 4 Dovetail 6 Approved 58 87 61 Denied 9 9 9 Total Variances 67 96 70


35

BSD Demographics 03/05/06

HOME LANGUAGE RACE/ETHNICITY LUNCH STATUS SPECIAL SERVICES LANGUAGE SERVICES

Gra

de

#

Eng-

lis

h

N/A

Oth

er

Whi

te

Bla

ck

Asi

an

Am

In

d

Mul

ti-cu

lt His

p-

anic

Free

Red

- uc

ed

N/A

504

EST

IEP

Med

i-ca

id

ESL

LEP

FEP

NEL

B

BHS 9 324 279 0 45 260 34 18 3 1 7 115 33 176 15 41 44 35 32 27 16 45 10 290 251 0 39 242 30 13 0 0 5 86 19 185 17 2 39 23 25 23 11 40 11 253 222 0 31 219 15 15 0 0 4 64 19 170 20 1 21 15 14 10 4 30 12 217 186 0 31 182 10 17 3 0 5 49 21 147 22 3 28 20 9 10 8 31

Alt. 9 NI 14 21 0 0 20 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 14 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 Alt. 10 TE 18 17 0 1 14 2 0 0 0 2 3 0 15 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Alt. 11 EL 14 13 0 1 11 2 0 0 0 1 7 0 7 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 Alt. 12 TW 13 12 0 1 11 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 10 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 Adult AD 14 4 0 10 4 9 1 0 0 0 2 0 12 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 9 *No ALT TOT* 1084 938 0 146 903 89 63 6 1 21 314 92 678 74 47 132 93 80 70 39 146

EMS 6 118 72 29 17 89 13 12 0 0 3 43 4 71 3 1 18 10 15 12 6 15 7 136 76 38 22 102 11 16 1 2 4 58 7 71 10 4 18 12 17 14 3 20 8 114 67 34 13 85 19 5 0 0 4 49 10 55 3 7 12 9 12 9 3 13 TOT 368 215 101 52 276 43 33 1 2 11 150 21 197 16 12 48 31 44 35 12 48

HMS 6 142 107 8 27 113 14 9 1 1 0 60 12 70 6 9 14 12 24 22 5 26 7 146 107 13 26 115 9 13 0 1 3 59 13 74 4 6 26 20 21 18 3 22 8 149 124 12 13 125 9 7 0 2 1 48 13 88 14 5 20 12 9 7 6 13 TOT 437 338 33 66 353 32 29 1 4 4 167 38 232 24 20 60 44 54 47 14 61

BARNE K 35 26 1 8 20 12 1 0 2 0 32 0 3 0 11 0 0 9 8 1 9 1 32 23 0 9 15 11 2 0 4 0 27 0 5 0 7 3 3 10 8 2 10 2 18 15 0 3 11 4 2 0 0 1 18 0 0 1 7 3 0 3 3 0 3 3 28 20 1 7 16 8 3 0 1 0 27 0 1 1 7 8 8 8 7 1 8 4 25 18 0 7 16 5 3 0 1 0 24 0 1 1 4 3 3 6 5 1 6 5 25 19 0 6 13 10 2 0 0 0 24 0 1 0 6 9 8 6 6 0 6 TOT 163 121 2 40 91 50 13 0 8 1 152 0 11 3 42 26 22 42 37 5 42

CHAMP K 56 50 0 6 40 5 3 1 5 2 25 6 25 0 0 7 6 6 6 0 6 1 55 49 0 6 44 6 1 0 3 1 23 3 29 0 0 5 5 7 7 0 7 2 54 47 0 7 42 6 2 1 1 2 23 4 27 0 8 3 3 7 7 0 7 3 41 32 1 8 35 5 1 0 0 0 10 2 29 0 8 2 0 7 7 0 8 4 43 41 0 2 37 5 1 0 0 0 11 1 31 0 5 3 2 2 2 0 2 5 46 45 0 1 41 2 3 0 0 0 11 3 32 0 3 4 3 2 2 0 2 TOT 295 264 1 30 239 29 11 2 9 5 103 19 173 0 24 24 19 31 31 0 32


36

HOME

LANGUAGE RACE/ETHNICITY LUNCH STATUS SPECIAL SERVICES LANGUAGE SERVICES

Gra

de

#

Eng-

lis

h

N/A

Oth

er

Whi

te

Bla

ck

Asi

an

Am

In

d

Mul

ti-cu

lt His

p-

anic

Free

Red

- uc

ed

N/A

504

EST

IEP

Med

i-ca

id

ESL

LEP

FEP

NEL

B

EDMUN K 46 44 0 2 36 1 4 1 4 0 9 3 34 0 0 4 2 2 2 0 2 1 51 48 0 3 44 1 1 0 5 0 12 5 34 0 5 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 55 54 0 1 48 1 3 0 3 0 10 1 44 0 7 6 4 1 0 1 2 3 51 47 0 4 44 3 2 0 1 1 17 1 33 5 7 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 48 44 0 4 39 1 6 0 0 2 14 1 33 2 12 1 1 3 3 0 4 5 43 40 0 3 32 4 1 1 1 3 15 3 25 3 6 2 2 3 2 1 3 TOT 294 277 0 17 243 11 17 2 14 6 77 14 203 10 37 20 14 14 12 4 17

FLYNN K 47 33 2 12 34 4 5 0 1 2 25 1 21 0 4 2 2 13 13 0 13 1 51 40 2 9 41 8 1 0 1 0 15 2 34 0 5 6 3 8 8 3 11 2 57 25 8 24 45 6 4 0 2 0 23 10 24 0 5 5 4 25 25 0 26 3 57 43 1 13 44 5 6 1 1 0 21 7 29 0 5 4 4 12 14 0 14 4 53 36 1 16 43 5 5 0 0 0 20 4 29 2 5 3 2 15 16 0 16 5 62 50 3 9 53 4 1 0 2 2 22 9 31 3 6 8 4 9 8 2 10 TOT 327 227 17 83 260 32 22 1 7 4 126 33 168 5 30 28 19 82 84 5 90

SMITH K 39 32 0 7 30 5 2 0 2 0 14 0 25 0 10 2 1 6 6 0 7 1 50 39 0 11 39 5 3 0 2 0 22 3 25 1 18 7 3 9 9 0 9 2 46 44 0 2 35 4 1 0 5 1 10 1 35 0 12 4 2 2 2 0 3 3 51 48 0 3 47 3 0 0 0 1 16 3 32 1 10 8 5 3 3 0 3 4 49 45 0 4 43 3 0 0 1 2 12 3 34 1 8 5 2 2 2 0 2 5 45 42 0 3 38 4 0 0 1 2 8 4 33 1 4 4 1 3 3 0 3 TOT 280 250 0 30 232 24 6 0 11 6 82 14 184 4 62 30 14 25 25 0 27

WHEEL PK 32 14 2 16 15 9 6 0 0 0 27 1 4 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 4 K 35 19 0 16 19 9 5 0 1 0 31 0 4 0 3 5 5 14 14 1 15 1 32 23 0 9 21 5 4 0 2 0 29 1 2 1 6 7 7 9 9 0 9 2 37 29 0 8 23 7 6 0 0 1 35 1 1 1 7 3 1 10 10 0 10 3 33 21 0 12 20 10 3 0 0 0 27 3 3 1 5 6 4 12 12 0 11 4 28 17 1 10 14 6 6 0 1 1 23 3 2 1 5 3 5 10 9 1 9 5 23 17 0 6 16 5 1 0 0 0 19 1 3 2 3 2 2 6 6 0 6

*No PK TOT* 188 126 1 61 113 42 25 0 4 2 164 9 15 6 29 26 24 61 60 2 60


37

LANGUAGE DEMOGRAPHICS

as of May 30, 2006 Language BAR CHA EES FLY SMI WHE EMS HUN BHS Totals Albanian 1 4 1 1 7

Arabic 1 1 3 5 Bosnian 2 3 2 40 5 6 4 20 19 101

Cambodian 2 1 3 6 Chinese 1 1 1 2 3 8

Dinka 3 2 3 2 2 12 English** 2 3 1 1 7

Ewe 2 2 French 7 1 3 2 1 4 18 German 2 2 Grebo 1 1 Hindi 1 1

Japanese 1 1 2 Kirundi 1 1 2 Korean 1 1 2 Laotian 1 1 2 Lingala 1 1

MaayMaay 25 9 5 18 20 5 7 11 100 Mina 1 1 Moro 3 1 4

Nepali 2 2 Nuba 2 2

Romanian 1 1 2 4 Russian 2 3 5 Somali 4 1 1 1 3 10

Spanish 1 1 3 3 3 11 Swahili 1 1 2 1 5 10 Tetela 3 3

Tibetan 1 1 1 3 3 8 17 Vietnamese 6 4 3 12 3 21 20 14 19 102

45 31 11 82 28 62 48 56 84 447 ** This includes students from Liberia, adopted non-native students, and students with non-native English speaking parents, who have a significant English language deficit but for whom English is the primary language.


38

Appendix I: Maps

Green = Flynn Black = Smith Light Blue = Barnes Dark Blue = Wheeler Yellow = Edmunds Purple = Champlain


39

building burlington’s future - burlington school district · delivery of curriculum and school...

Documents