1

New Orleans’s public school system has been lauded as an example for the nation. A system that

was once rife with corruption and failure, New Orleans schools are emerging from their past to a future

that looks promising. However, while substantial progress has been made, the city’s schools still have a

long way to go. Failing schools remain, and those schools that have recently emerged from failure

cannot rest on their accomplishments. Children in New Orleans deserve more than schools that aren’t

failing; every child in New Orleans deserves access to an excellent education.

New Orleans schools are currently overseen by two entities—the Recovery School District (RSD)

and the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB). Prior to Hurricane Katrina, although the RSD was already in

existence, OPSB managed all of the schools in New Orleans. The school system was widely viewed as an

abject failure due to political corruption and financial mismanagement. School performance was dismal,

and students were not receiving the education that they needed. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck the

city. In the wake of the hurricane’s devastation, the RSD took over any school that was below the state

average at that time, including schools that had previously been under the jurisdiction of OPSB. OPSB

retained authority over the few schools that had been succeeding prior to Hurricane Katrina. Those

schools continue to thrive.

In the meantime, the RSD has taken on the gargantuan task of turning around over 60 schools in

New Orleans. The RSD has used two strategies to accomplish this task: encouraging high-quality charter

schools and attempting to directly run schools. This report summarizes the school performance data for

schools located in New Orleans during the 2011−2012 academic year. The report uses school

performance data beginning with the 2007−2008 academic year through the most recent data available

from 2011−2012. The report includes longitudinal performance data for 74 non-alternative schools. The

report does not include schools that opened for the 2012−2013 academic year, including G. W. Carver

Preparatory Academy, G. W. Carver Collegiate Academy, McDonogh 42 Charter School, Joseph Craig

Elementary, John McDonogh High School, Cohen College Prep, and Crescent Leadership Academy.

2

The report opens with an overall summary and analysis of school performance and school

performance growth in New Orleans. The remainder of the report includes performance information

about each school in New Orleans, including:

Demographic information about the student population at the school

The school’s 2011−2012 operator and the number of years that the school has been under that

operator

School’s letter grade

School Performance Score (SPS) ranking in New Orleans (see Appendix A for a chart of score

ranges)

Average change per year in the school’s baseline SPS between 2007−2008 and 2011−2012

Average SPS change ranking (out of 72 schools)

Explanations for the calculation of each school report item are included in the appendix at the end of the

report.

3

In 2011−2012, New Orleans had a total of 53 elementary schools. Elementary schools ranked in

the Top 10 for performance and average growth are listed below, starting with the highest scoring and

with their letter grades shown in parentheses.1,2,3 Schools that appear in both lists ar in bold; Lake

Forest Elementary Charter School and KIPP Central City Academy are the only two schools with high

performance and high growth.

1 Middle schools were included in the list of elementary schools. 2 Performance is based on schools’ 2011−2012 SPS, and growth is measured by the average change in baseline SPS from year to year. 3A complete list of elementary schools and their rankings is included in Appendix B. 4 “T” stands for turnaround. A turnaround school is a previous F school still in its first two years with a new operator.

4

It is important to note that besides KIPP Central City Academy and Lake Forest Elementary Charter

School, most of the schools with the highest average growth are low-performing or turnaround schools

that are quickly improving. In fact, Batiste Cultural Arts Academy, Success Preparatory Academy, and

SciTech at Laurel Elementary are among the lowest performing schools in New Orleans, but their rapid

growth shows promise. However, while these three particular schools are on a positive trend towards

improvement, they continue to require substantial progress until they become high-performing schools.

The following tables show the lowest performing schools in New Orleans, starting with the

lowest scoring, as well as the schools with the lowest levels of average annual growth. Schools that

appear in both lists are indicated in bold; these schools—Crocker Arts and Technology School, Lagniappe

Academy of New Orleans, Murray Henderson Elementary School, and Pride College Preparatory

Academy5—are particularly alarming because they are low performing and not rapidly improving.

Several of the other schools on the average growth list are higher performing, so their low levels of

growth should not raise too much alarm.

5 As of December 4, 2012, the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education has revoked this school’s charter.

5

Because New Orleans had only 15 high schools in 2011−2012, all high schools are included in the

following tables. Schools are listed from highest to lowest scoring.

Several high schools—Warren Easton Senior High School, O. Perry Walker Senior High School, and Sci

Academy—are high performing and show high growth. Other high schools—Sarah T. Reed Senior High

School, G. W. Carver High School, and Walter L. Cohen High School—demonstrate low performance and

low growth, meaning that these schools are not improving at the rate necessary to serve students.

6 KIPP Renaissance High School only has one year of data available. Thus, growth was not able to be calculated.

6

New Orleans has six schools that serve both elementary and high school grades. These are

included, from highest scoring to lowest scoring, in the table below. Most of the combination schools

are performing well and showing strong growth. However, one school—Abramson Science and

Technology School—shows very low performance and low growth as well.

7

The following school performance reports include demographic and performance information

about all 2011−2012 New Orleans schools.7 School performance and average growth information was

used to classify the schools into five tiers:

Tier 1: Tier 1 includes all A and B schools, regardless of their rate of growth. These schools are

excellent and represent high-quality learning opportunities for the vast majority of students who

attend them.

Tier 2: Tier 2 includes all C schools, regardless of their growth. At schools that receive a letter

grade of C, approximately 64-75% of students are on grade level. While this is good, Stand

believes that this does not yet represent excellence.

Tier 3: This tier includes D schools and F and turnaround schools that grow more than 10 points

per year. This tier includes failing and turnaround schools with rapid growth because their rapid

growth suggests that they may be able to enter D status relatively soon.

Tier 4: This tier includes remaining turnaround schools and F schools that have an SPS between

70 and 74.9 and growth between 4 and 9.9 points per year. The F schools included in this tier

are those schools with a combination of SPS and average growth that indicates that they are on

the cusp of emerging from failure. Additionally, many turnaround schools have not had sufficient

time under their new operators to have the opportunity to demonstrate growth.

Tier 5: These schools are F schools with performance below 70 and/or with average growth

below 4 points per year. These schools should raise alarm.

Stand for Children Louisiana believes that all students should have access to a Tier 1, excellent

education. Stand will continue to work tirelessly with parents by educating them about school quality,

by advocating for improved schools, and by acting to ensure that school policies are in the best interest

of all children. 7 This report does not include alternative schools.

8

2

2

F -18.6

3

C -10.4

4

D 11.9

5

D 11.5

6

D 4.9

7

A 4.1

8

F 5.1

9

T 9.5

10

B 3.6

11

B 1.9

12

D 3.3

13

F 5.9

14

T 33

15

D 8.7

16

F 8.4

17

F -1.2

18

T 6.6

19

A 13.4

20

C 4.3

21

D 3.8

22

T 8.4

23

F 2.6

24

B 0.3

25

A 8.1

26

T 4.4

27

D 4.9

28

D 5.5

29

T 8.7

30

B 7.5

31

F 0.5

32

D 10.2

33

A 4.5

34

F 2.3

35

C N/A

36

D N/A

37

F 4.3

38

A 10.1

39

C 2.3

40

B 3.6

41

B 10.2

42

D N/A

43

C -0.8

44

D 0.9

45

D N/A

46

C 8.7

47

F 1.2

48

C 27.8

49

B 10.1

50

F 13.3

51

A 8.1

52

F 2.0

53

F 5.4

54

C 5.0

55

F 4.8

56

B 6.7

57

F 1.2

58

A 7.5

59

D 3.6

60

B 10.1

61

F -2.0

62

T 9.1

63

F 4.4

64

F 3.4

65

B 12.7

66

T 11.3

67

F 4.6

68

F 11.4

69

T 5.6

70

D 1.3

71

B 15.0

72

D 6.6

73

D 4.9

74

D 5.2

75

D 1.2

76

All data that were used in this report are publically available from the Louisiana Department of

Education (LDOE).

Demographic Information: Demographic information for each school was attained through the

LDOE. This information is from October 2010.

School Operator Information: For schools under the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB), we

note the OPSB as the operator. For charter schools under the RSD, we report the current

charter management operator. If the school is not a charter, then we note that the school is

operated directly by the RSD. We also note year in which the current operator took over the

school and the number of years that the school has been run by its current operator.

School Letter Grade: School letter grades are assigned based upon SPS as calculated by the

LDOE.

Letter Grade SPS Range

(2010-2011)

Approx. % of Students

Below Basic

A 200.0-120.0 0-12%

B 119.9-105.0 13-24%

C 104.9-90.0 25-36%

D 89.9- 75.0 37-61%

F 74.9- 0 62-100%

Average Change Per Year in Baseline SPS: Average change per year in SPS is calculated by

calculating the total change in baseline SPS between 2007−2008 and 2011−2012. For schools

77

where there is no 2007−2008 SPS data available, calculations were completed using the oldest

SPS data available. The total change in SPS was then divided by the number of years for which

data were available.

Rankings: For SPS and Average Change Per Year in SPS, schools were ranked from highest to

lowest with the highest performing and highest growth schools receiving a 1 in their respective

rankings. There were a total of 74 schools included in the SPS rankings and 70 schools in the SPS

change rankings.

78

79

80