The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: - IFF.org

The Shared Challengeof Quality Schools:A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis

Special thanks to Bill Taft, Executive Director, and Rachel McIntosh, Program Director, of Indianapolis LISC for their invaluable, early and ongoing assistance and support of this study.

IFF thanks the following individuals for their assistance with this project:

Study Advisory CommitteeCentral Indiana Community Foundation Roderick Wheeler, Senior Grants OfficerLaMont Hulse, Director of Community Collaborations

Central Indiana Corporate PartnershipMark Miles, President and CEO

City of IndianapolisJason Kloth, Deputy Mayor of EducationBeth Bray, Director of Charter Schools

Indiana Charter Schools AssociationRuss Simnick, President

Indiana Charter School Board Claire Fiddian-Green, Executive Director

Indiana Non-Public Education AssociationJohn Elcesser, Executive Director

School Choice Indiana Lindsay Brown, Executive Director

Stand for Children Linda Erlinger, Executive DirectorKarega Rausch, Indianapolis Director

The Friedman Foundation for Educational ChoiceRobert Enlow, President and CEO

The Mind Trust David Harris, Founder and CEOPatrick Herrel, VP of Education Initiatives

United Way of Central IndianaJay Geshay, Senior VP, Community Planning and Strategic Initiatives

University of Indianapolis, Center for Excellence in LeadershipDavid Dressler, EdD, Executive Director

IFF Project StaffJoe Neri, CEOTrinita Logue, PresidentR. Jovita Baber, PhD, Director of ResearchCristina Silva, Research Project ManagerMarc Brailov, VP, Public Policy and Communications John Kuhnen, Chief Administrative OfficerCandice Koveleskie, Administrative Assistant

Special thanks to:Dennis Brooks, EdD, Senior Advisor to State SuperintendentMoira O’Donovan Warnement, former ResearchProject Manager, IFF

Cover Photo Credit: MSD of Wayne Township, photo of Ben Davis University High SchoolDesign: Sam SilvioIFF © March 2013

Acknowledgements

The Shared Challengeof Quality Schools:A place-based analysis of school performance in Indianapolis

iv

Table of Contents

1 Preface

2 Brief Methodology

3 Executive Summary3 Key Findings4 Recommendations

5 Citywide Analysis7 Education Policy and Practice Overview7 Citywide Performing Capacity and Service Gap8 The State’s A-F System and School Performance9 School Performance and Service Gap10 The Top 11 Priority Areas12 Demographics12 Demographics and School Performance16 Demographics and School-Readiness16 High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income Students17 Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing Schools

22 Grade Division Analysis25 Grade K-835 Grade 9-12

44 Recommendations

46 Priority Areas Profiles48 Priority Area Rank 1: Area 37 (zip code 46227 in MSD Perry Township)50 Priority Area Rank 2: Area 19 (zip code 46222 in Indianapolis Public Schools)52 Priority Area Rank 3: Area 4 (zip code 46260 in MSD Washington Township)54 Priority Area Rank 4: Area 16 (zip codes 46241 and 46221 in MSD Wayne Township)56 Priority Area Rank 5: Area 3 (zip codes 46228, 46234 and 46254 in MSD Pike Township)58 Priority Area Rank 6: Area 32 (zip codes 46229 and 46235 in MSD Warren Township)60 Priority Area Rank 7: Area 14 (zip code 46214 in MSD Wayne Township)62 Priority Area Rank 8: Area 25 (zip code 46218 in Indianapolis Public Schools)64 Priority Area Rank 9: Area 35 (zip code 46221 in MSD Decatur Township)66 Priority Area Rank 10: Area 27 (zip code 46201 in Indianapolis Public Schools)68 Priority Area Rank 11: Area 30 (zip codes 46203 and 46227 in Indianapolis Public Schools)

70 Appendix: Detailed Research Methodology70 Supply71 Demand71 Service Gap71 Priority Areas72 Student Commute72 Data Sources

1

The Shared Challenges of Quality Schools: A place-basedanalysis of school performance in Indianapolis is a studyconducted by the Research Department of IFF and fundedby The Joyce Foundation and The Walton Family Foundation.IFF is a regional nonprofit community development financial institution. Since 1988, IFF has provided financingand real estate consulting to nonprofit corporations.Today, IFF provides comprehensive community developmentsolutions in five Midwestern states and its Research Department consults to municipalities, foundations, associations and nonprofit corporations throughout thecountry and provides analysis that improves focus and resource allocation. Since 1996, IFF's Research Departmenthas conducted needs assessments for school districts toidentify where the greatest numbers of children need better access to performing schools. IFF school studiesevolved out of a partnership with district leaders inChicago Public Schools (CPS), which, in 2003, recognizeda need to identify priority community areas in Chicago forthe location of new performing schools.

This allowed the district to focus their reform efforts andled to better distribution of choices for families. IFF’smethodology has evolved and been adapted to guideschool reform efforts in St. Louis, Milwaukee, Kansas City,Denver, and Washington, D.C.IFF’s school study is distinctive in its assessment of

capacity based on performance and facilities, as well as itsspatial analysis of performing capacity at a neighborhoodlevel. This neighborhood-level approach helps educationstakeholders focus investments where they will reach thegreatest number of underserved children. In other cities,the data and analysis has informed such decisions as the disposal of vacant buildings, targeted investment in district schools, identification of schools for potentialturnarounds, consolidation of underutilized buildings, investment in facilities modernization, locating magnetprograms, solicitations for charter schools applications,selection criteria for charter schools, and targeted communication to particular neighborhoods or populationsregarding school choice options.

Preface

2 3

A careful reading of the methodology is advised to assist in afull understanding of the report, its terminology and mappingmodels. A brief discussion of the methodology is presented here. A more detailed description of the methodology is presented in the Appendix: Detailed Research Methodology.Methodologically, the study is a supply and

demand needs assessment. Demand is the number of students living in a neighborhood. Supply is the capacityof high-performing schools. High-performing schoolsare schools that earned a grade A or B on the state accountability metrics (Public Law 221). This study calculates the Service Gap, the difference between the capacity of high-performing schools and number of students, for each of the 42 zip code based geographies(hereafter, called Areas) in Indianapolis. The study is predominately based on data from the

2010-11 academic year. However, because the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) introduced a newmethodology in 2012, which shifted the additive emphasisfrom cohort improvement to individual school growth, IFF calculated performing capacity for 2011 and 2012.

For each grade division (K-8 and 9-12), the study subtracts the number of children in each Area from the number of high-performing seats availableto children in the same Area, for each year. The difference in demand and supply is the Service Gap. After calculating the service gap for each Area, the 42 Areas were ranked by their need for high-performingseats, from highest to lowest, for each grade division and for each year. The core ranking includes district and charter schools. A supplementary ranking that incorporates fully accredited and accredited-freeway1

independent schools that report performance and enrollment data to IDOE is provided for reference. The Priority Areas are the Areas with the highest mean

rank across the grade divisions and years. Various meanranks were calculated to test the point of variance in the highest ranked Areas. The top 11 Priority Areas consistently and reliably remained the highest rankedAreas when various means were calculated, while the Area ranked 12th changed from year-to-year andacross the grade divisions.

The Shared Challenges of Quality Schools: A place-basedanalysis of school performance in Indianapolis is a study about neighborhoods, children and access to high-performing schools. It identifies where the greatest number of children need better access to high-performingschools in order to enhance the focus of education reform.It provides data and analysis that is actionable to maximizethe impact of resources. It assumes that all studentsshould have access to a high-performing school—regardlessof school type—in their neighborhood. At its heart lies thequestion, “What areas in Indianapolis have the greatestneed for high-performing seats?” In providing an answer to this question, it aims to unite district, charter, and independent school leaders around the shared goal of providing quality schools for all children.

Key FindingsMarion County has 11 districts with 182 schools, 22 charterschools and 52 independent schools serving 154,000 students. To provide every child with a seat in a high-performing school, Marion County needs approximately78,000 category A or B seats. Most of the citywide need is concentrated in the top 11 Priority Areas. Despitechanges to the state accountability metrics, from 2011 to2012, Indianapolis consistently needs approximately45,000 high-performing seats in the Priority Areas.

Performing Capacity. The performing capacity of districtand charter schools increased from 39,315 seats in 2011 to59,032 seats in 2012. Most of the change in performancewas due to changes in the methodology of the state accountability metrics. Independent schools had thelargest concentration of high-performing schools. They contributed approximately 15,000 high-performingseats across 2011 and 2012. Of the 45 independentschools in 2011, 93 percent were category A or B. In 2012, 87 percent of independent schools were category A or B.

Brief Methodology Executive Summary

1. Fully Accredited public and independent schools must conform to all legal standards, and annually submit a three-year school improvement plan to IDOE each fall. Independent schools also have the option of being Accredited-Freeway Schools and have more flexibility on state regulations and legal standards, and a contract with the State Board serves as the school improvement plan.

Charter schools had the second highest percent of high-performing schools. Of the 21 charter schools in 2011 and 23 in 2012, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively,were category A or B. District schools had the highestnumber of category A and B schools across both years, but the lowest percent of high-performing schools.

Service Gap.With the changes to the state accountabilitymetrics, the citywide service gap dropped by 20 percent,from a need for approximately 98,000 high-performingseats in 2011 to 78,000 in 2012. Despite the citywidechange, the service gap remained concentrated in 11 PriorityAreas. In 2011, Priority Areas needed 45,306 high-performingseats, which constituted 46 percent of the citywide need. In 2012, they needed 44,081 high-performing seats, whichconstituted 56 percent of the citywide need. The drop incitywide service gap intensified the concentration of needin the Priority Areas.

Priority Areas. The Priority Areas are not concentratedin one school district. They are located throughout the city. The Priority Areas that the study identified are:

1. Area 37 (46227 in MSD Perry Township)2. Area 19 (46222 in Indianapolis Public Schools)3. Area 4 (46260 in MSD Washington Township)4. Area 16 (46241 and 46221 in MSD Wayne Township)5. Area 3 (46228, 46234 and 46254 in MSD Pike

Township)6. Area 32 (46229 and 46235 in MSD Warren Township)7. Area 14 (46214 in MSD Wayne Township)8. Area 25 (46218 in Indianapolis Public Schools)9. Area 35 (46221 in MSD Decatur Township)10. Area 27 (46201 in Indianapolis Public Schools)11. Area 30 (46203 and 46227 in Indianapolis

Public Schools)

Demographics and School-Readiness.While the city center has seen a decline in school-age population, mostof the townships have experienced an influx of childrenand, for many, a parallel increase of low-income children.In examining factors that influence school-readiness inchildren, the Priority Areas on average have a slightly

54

higher percent of students living in low-income householdsand a slightly lower educational attainment for adults (individuals over 25 years of age). The Priority Areas average eight percent more children living in low-incomehouseholds, with 47 percent as compared to 39 percentcitywide. Four percent fewer adults have a high schooldiploma (84 percent citywide and 80 percent in the PriorityAreas), and eight percent fewer adults in these communitieshave attained a bachelor’s or advanced degree. Otherwise,the Priority Areas have comparable rates of mobility; 19 percent of households change residence each year in thePriority Areas and in Marion County. A similar percent of individuals do not speak English well (six percent citywideas compared to seven percent in the Priority Areas).

Priority Area Profiles.While the population in the PriorityAreas is not significantly different from the demographicaverage for Marion County, the individual Priority Areas are quite distinct from each other. In four Priority Areas, 32 percent of children live in low-income households and,in another four, between 58 and 72 percent of children livein low-income households. While on average seven percentof the individuals in Priority Areas do not speak English well,in Area 19, it doubles to 13 percent. The Area Profiles at theend of the report provide demographic and school data.

High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income Students.In light of the higher percent of children from low-incomehouseholds, schools serving students in the Priority Areasmay need strategies, programs, and resources that addressthe educational needs of low-income children. Althoughcharter schools served fewer students, charter schoolsserved a higher proportion of students from low-incomehouseholds in category A or B schools than district or independent schools. In a closer analysis of individual schools that remained

category A or B across 2011 and 2012, Indianapolis has six district, five charter and six independent schools that successfully provided high-performing seats to a student body with an above average percent of studentsfrom low-income households. These 17 schools are an important resource. They provide models for Indianapolisreform efforts.

Neighborhood Schools. In 2010-2011, 84 percent of students citywide attended a district school and, of these,76 percent attended their assigned neighborhood school.Five percent of students attended a charter school and 11 percent attended an independent school. A reformstrategy that focuses solely on expanding charter and independent schools, without investing to improve theschools that the vast majority of students attend, will notclose the service gap.

Priority Areas and Performance. Nearly half of the students(20,121) in the Priority Areas attended a neighborhoodschool with a category C grade in 2011. Directing publicand private resources to improve the performance ofneighborhood schools that consistently score just belowcategory A and B can be an efficient and cost-effectivestrategy. Finally, nearly 19,000 students in the PriorityAreas attend a neighborhood, magnet, or charter schoolthat was a category D or F in 2011.

Utilization.With few exceptions, schools that remainedcategory A and B in both 2011 and 2012 operated at full capacity. A few independent schools and several districtschools in Franklin Township, Beech Grove, and Speedwayhave unfilled seats. Creating opportunities for children toattend high-performing schools that have open seatsmight positively benefit the Priority Areas.

Recommendations1. Set a goal and timeline for new performing seats.2. Focus resources on the top 11 Priority Areas.3. Develop a differentiated strategy to increase the seats in each Priority Area based on an assessmentof the education needs of the communities, and the strengths and challenges of each school serving the community.

4. Create incentives for category A or B schools serving a higher-than-average percent of low-income students to replicate their schools, expand their programs and share their successes.

5. Complete an analysis for each persistently low-performing school serving a Priority Area to inform a decision on potential reconstitution or closure.

Citywide Analysis

7

Education Policy and Practice OverviewThe current education landscape in Indianapolis emergedover the previous decade. In 2001, the Indiana General Assembly passed legislation to create charter schools inIndiana. Charter schools are independently operated public schools, which have more autonomy than districtschools. In Indiana, school boards, four-year public universities, certain private universities, and the mayor ofIndianapolis can authorize charter schools. The mayor'soffice and Ball State University have authorized the charter schools in this study. In 2011, the Indiana legislature and governor established the Indiana Charter School Board, an independent state agency that can authorize schools statewide, including Indianapolis. As of 2003-04, charter schools receive state per-pupil

funding based on their enrollment counts and reimbursed atthe rate of the district in which they reside. In Indianapolis,most charter schools have located in the IndianapolisPublic School district, partially influenced by the higherper-pupil reimbursement rate in that district. In comparison, independent schools are located

throughout Marion County. In the mid-1990s, when Indianaestablished freeway-accredited schools, many independent

schools began to report performance data as part of the state accreditation requirements. The majority of independent schools now are fully accredited or freeway-accredited schools. With the passage of the Choice Scholarship Program, in

2011, these schools qualified for government-funded tuitionvouchers for students from low-income and middle classfamilies. Families with incomes below 185 percent of theFederal Poverty Level (185 percent FPL) receive a voucherfor 90 percent of the per-pupil funding. Families with in-comes that are 150 percent of 185 percent FPL (approximately$64,000 for a four-person household) receive a voucher for50 percent of the per-pupil funding rate. Schools authorizedto accept vouchers are included in this study.

Citywide Performing Capacity and Service GapUsing the state accountability system, established by PublicLaw 221 (PL 221) in 1999, this study considers category Aand B schools as high performing. To provide every childaccess to a high-performing school, Indianapolis neededapproximately 98,000 additional seats in category A or Bschools in 2010-11. The need for high-performing seatsdropped to approximately 78,000 seats in 2011-12.

Corporation In-Study Enrollment

Number of Grade A & B

Schools

Performing Seats

ServiceLevel

Service Gap

Percent of Service Gap

District & Charter K-8 97,835 57 36,513 37% 61,322 62%

9-12 39,731 8 2,802 7% 36,929 38%Total 137,566 63 39,315 29% 98,251 100%

Independent K-8 10,274 33 10,126 99% 148 0%

9-12 6,031 11 6,395 106% -364 0%

Grand Total 153,871 103 55,836 36% 98,035 100%

District &Charter K-8 97,473 67 41,148 42% 56,325 72%

9-12 39,295 16 17,884 46% 21,411 28%

Total 136,768 80 59,032 43% 77,736 100%Independent K-8 10,593 31 9,148 86% 1,445 1%

9-12 5,986 12 6,683 112% -697 -1%

Grand Total 153,347 121 74,863 49% 78,484 100%

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12

Table 2: To provide every child access to a high-performing school, Indianapolis needs at least 78,000 additional seats in category A or B schools.Citywide Service by Corporation Type

Sources: 2010 and 2011 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010 and 2011 student-level data from Corporations; 2011 and 2012 student performance data.

6

Citywide Analysis

This study focuses on children in kindergarten to grade 12 and the public (district and charter) schoolsthat serve them. However, as an important supplement, it also includes children in independent schools that report performance and enrollment data to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE), namely fully accreditedand freeway-accredited schools.2 In essence, it includes the student population shown in red font in Table 1.

In 2010-11, approximately 154,000 school-age children enrolled in 256 schools. Enrollment numbers in 2011-12 remained largely the same. Eighty-four percent of Indianapolis students attended a district school, and 76 percent of those students attended their assigned neighborhood school. Eleven percent of students attended an independent school, and five percent a charter school.

Type of School Number ofCampuses

Pre-K Student Enrolled in2010-11

9-12 Students Enrolled in 2010-11

Total PercentStudentsEnrolled

Public Neighborhood 127 761 64,174 32,735 97,670

Public Magnet 48 100 23,220 4,798 28,118

Public Alternative 2 - 295 498 793

Public Special Services 1 - 156

Public Selective Enrollment 1 - 213

Public Early Learning 3 564 1,447

74

2,011

Total 182 1,425 89,431 38,105 128,961 84%

Catholic 31 380 7,317 4,773 12,470

Lutheran 4 - 412 254 666

Christian Other 6 55 676 480 1,211

Independent Other 4 67 432 418 917

Independent Special Services 1 79 112 191

Total 52 522 9,637 6,250 16,409 11%

Charter Ball State

17 15 4,633 1,703 6,351Charter Mayor's Office 4 1,792 166 1,958

Total 22 15 6,523 1,869 8,407 5%

Grand Total 256 1,962 105,591 46,224 153,777 100%

Dis

tric

tCh

arte

rIn

depe

nden

t

K-8 Students Enrolled in2010-11

82

213

-

-

-

-

Independent-not reporting performance data 6 721 213 954 20

Charter Ball State-Virtual 1 98 - 98 -

Source: 2010 Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) enrollment data.

Table 1: District schools serve 84 percent of Indianapolis students.School Type and Enrollment Numbers 2010–2011

2. Fully Accredited public and independent schools must conform to all legal standards, and annually submit a three-year school improvement plan to IDOE

each fall. Independent schools also have the option of being Accredited-Freeway

Schools and have more flexibility on state regulations and legal standards, and

a contract with the State Board serves as the school improvement plan.

8

School Performance and Service Gap. Districts had 56 category A or B schools in 2011 and 68 in 2012. Independent schools had the highest percent of high-performing schools relative to the total number of independent schools. Of the 45 independent schools in2011, 93 percent were category A or B. In 2012, 87 percentof the 46 independent schools were category A or B. Charter schools had the second highest percent of high-performing schools. Of the 21 charter schools in 2011and 23 in 2012, 38 percent and 48 percent, respectively,were category A or B. Overall, in 2011, 106 of 242 (44 percent) of all schools were category A or B. In 2012,this increased to 119 of 243 (49 percent) of all schools. Independent schools and charter schools have limited

influence on the service gap because they are small andtheir student bodies are dispersed. Most independent andcharter schools draw students from a median distance of 2.3miles, with 90 percent of students traveling less than sevenmiles. The 15,000 high-performing seats in independentschools have limited affect on the service gap in most Areas.High-performing charter schools mostly influence the service level in the Indianapolis Public School district.Districts manage the largest number of schools,

and have the largest number of high-performing schools. In 2011, 56 of 176 schools (32 percent) were category A or B. In 2012, 68 of 174 schools (39 percent) were category A or B (see Chart 1). While district schools have a lower percent of high-performing schools, they are largeschools and thus serve the most students. Districts also have the largest number of category

D and F schools, and the most schools that remained category D or F across both years. Schools that are category D or F in both 2011 and 2012 are low performing in achievement, improvement or student growth or all ofthese factors. Moreover, most district schools are large and predominately serve the children in a nearby neighborhood. Districts thus have the greatest impact onthe service gap and the service level across the city, and in the specific geographic Areas. As the state continues to refine its accountability

metrics, it is clear that there are high-performing district,charter, and independent schools. Likewise, to varying degrees, all school types have underperforming schools.

Chart 1Although districts have the most category A and B schools, independent schools have the highest percent of category A or B schools.

Performance Grade in 2011 and 2012 (PL 221)� A–Exemplary � B–Commendable� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation

Sources: 2011 and 2012 IDOE student performance data.

Dist

rict

Inde

pend

ent

Char

ter

2011 2012

Dist

rict

Inde

pend

ent

Char

ter

32

27

61

4

52

3

37

436

8 36

33

37

26

42

56

34

34556

5

9

Category A and B public (district and charter) schoolsprovided 39,315 seats citywide in 2011 and 59,032 seats in 2012, as Table 2 indicates. They enrolled 29 percent ofkindergarten to grade 12 students in 2011 and 43 percent in 2012. In both years, independent schools consistentlyprovided approximately 15,000 high-performing seats.When independent schools are included in the analysis, students enrolled in high-performing schools increasedfrom 29 percent to 36 percent in 2011 and from 43 percentto 49 percent in 2012.

The State’s A-F System and School Performance. The20,000-seat increase in category A and B schools, between 2011 and 2012, reflects changes in the state accountability system rather than whether Indianapolisschools improved or declined. From 2011 to 2012, the percent of students testing at or above grade level in Marion County increased by only 1.69 percent. In 2011, 59.5 percent of students in Marion County public schoolspassed both the English and Math components of ISTEP(Indiana State Test for Educational Progress). In 2012, it increased to 61.5 percent. Since the passing of PL 221, the percent of students

that score at or above grade level on the ISTEP –or, student achievement – has been the baseline of thestate’s accountability system. In 2005-06, the state refined its accountability system by introducing a tieredsystem that raised or lowered a school’s baseline category with a formula based on a school’s improvementin student achievement over the previous years. Schoolsinitially were categorized as “exemplary progress,” “commendable progress,” “academic progress,” “academic watch” and “academic probation,” and later by A, B, C, D or F grades. In 2012, the state replaced theimprovement component of the A-F system, as it is known,with the Indiana Growth Model. As of 2012, a formula that examines each student's individual growth relative to his or her statewide cohort raises or lowers a school’s grade.While achievement scores and ISTEP underlie the

calculations for both 2011 and 2012, replacing school improvement with individual student growth significantlytransforms the A-F system. For most schools, their 2011

grade does not predict their 2012 grade because the methodology measures different qualities ofperformance.3 The significant change in the A-F system,between 2011 and 2012, prompted IFF researchers to run the full service gap analysis for both 2011 and 2012 performance data, as opposed to only 2011 data as initially planned (see Appendix 1: Detailed ResearchMethodology, for further discussion).Importantly, recognizing the differences between the

A-F system in 2011 and 2012 can assist stakeholders in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Indianapolisschools. Variance in a school's category between 2011 and 2012 largely reflects schools’ performances inregards to improvement (2011) or individual studentgrowth (2012), as opposed to whether a school is betteror worse. Schools that remained category A or B across 2011 and 2012 display their high performance in achievement (the baseline for both years), cohort improvement (the additive component in 2011) and individual student growth (the additive component in2012). Thirty-seven of the 52 public schools (71 percent)remained category A or B across 2011 and 2012 (see Chart 1). Eight of 11 charter schools (73 percent), and 35 of 40 private schools (88 percent) that were category A or B in 2011 remained category A or B in 2012. Some schools had sufficient achievement and

improvement in 2011 to be category A or B, but did nothave sufficient student growth in 2012 to receive the samehigh rating. For example, 15 of the 52 district schools (29 percent) that were category A or B in 2011 scoredlower in 2012. Conversely, 32 district schools improvedfrom category C or below in 2011 to category A or B in 2012.4

3. To illustrate, there was only a 66 percent correlation (.664 correlation coefficient)between the categories derived from the two methodologies—when test data

(2011 test data) is held constant. In January 2012, IDOE released an estimated 2012

category, which applied the 2012 methodology to the 2011 test data. The data

analytics of the categories calculated for each school, using the distinct methodology,

also reveals that only 45 percent (square of Pearson's R) of the variability between

schools’ old and new categories could be explained by a consistent notion

of performance.

4. While some of these changes reflect high individual student growth in 2012, the state also capped schools at category C in 2011 if target student

populations showed insufficient improvement. The cap was removed in 2012,

with the introduction of the growth model.

10

Map 1Priority Areas are distributed throughout the city: four are in the urban core and seven are in the townships.

Priority Areas: Rank based on 2011 and 2012 Service Gaps

Area NumberPerformance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation� Traditional Public School� Charter School

Sources: 2010 Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) audited enrollment data; 2010-2011 student-level data from Corporations; 2011 Student performance data.

Area Rankings for Grade K–121–11 (Priority Areas)12–2223–3233–42Study GeographySchool District BoundaryPark

11

The Top 11 Priority AreasThis study helps to focus reform efforts by identifying andranking the areas where an investment of resources willreach the greatest number of children. The citywide needfor at least 78,000 high-performing seats is concentratedin 11 Areas, called Priority Areas. Accounting for thechanges in the A-F system, this study calculated performingcapacity and service gap for both 2011 and 2012 to identifyand confirm the Priority Areas. In 2011, 46 percent of the need for high-performing seats was concentrated in the identified Priority Areas, and in 2012, the concentration increased to 56 percent. Despite the increase in the number of category A and B schools citywide, the need inthe Priority Areas remained constant: they needed 45,306additional high-performing seats in 2011 and 44,081 seatsin 2012, as Table 3 indicates. When independent schoolsare included in the calculations, the Priority Areas continueto need around 45,000 seats. The stability of need acrossyears, despite the changes in the methodology, affirms theimpact that focused reform efforts can have in Indianapolis. The top 11 highest need areas are located throughout

the city; four Priority Areas are in IPS and seven are in thetownships, as illustrated in Map 1. The Priority Areas, as indicated by the bold numbers in Map 1, are the Areas with the highest mean rank of need across the grade divisions

(K-8 and 9-12). To test for consistency, different meanswere calculated, using single years and multipleyears, and including and excluding independent schools. These 11 Areas remained constant as the top 11, while the Area ranked 12th varied. The ranking model is the meanrank of the two grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12) for districtand charter schools, across 2011 and 2012. The final rankfor the top 11, in order of need, are:

1. Area 37 (46227 in MSD Perry Township)2. Area 19 (46222 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools)3. Area 4 (46260 in MSD Washington Township)4. Area 16 (46241 and 46221 in MSD Wayne Township)5. Area 3 (46228,46234 and 46254 in MSD

Pike Township)6. Area 32 (46229 and 46235 in MSD Warren Township)7. Area 14 (46214 in MSD Wayne Township)8. Area 25 (46218 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools)9. Area 35 (46221 in MSD Decatur Township)10. Area 27 (46201 in MSD Indianapolis Public Schools)11. Area 30 (46203 and 46227 in MSD Indianapolis

Public Schools)

Providing quality schools for all children is a citywide challenge, not the unique challenge of one district.

Table 3: See Report Text for heading.

20

10

-20

11

20

11

-20

12


9-12 15,450 6 668 4% 14,782 15%Total 56,320 40 11,014 20% 45,306 46%

Independent K-8 3,633 31 3,085 85% 548 1% 9-12 2,367 10 2,055 87% 312 0%

Grand Total 62,320 79 16,154 26% 46,166 47%


9-12 15,494 10 2,315 15% 13,179 17%Total 56,351 43 12,270 22% 44,081 56%

Independent K-8 3,938 27 2,785 71% 1,153 1% 9-12 2,329 10 2,140 92% 189 0%

Grand Total 62,618 78 17,195 27% 45,423 58%

Corporation In-Study Enrollment

Number of Grade A & B

Schools

Performing Seats

Service Level

Service Gap

Percent ofService Gap

See Report TExt for sub-heading.


Table 3: Up to 58 percent of the need for high-performing seats is concentrated in 11 Priority Areas. Top 11 Priority Areas Service by Corporation Type


Map 2 Areas with high concentrations of poverty radiate from the urban core out into the townships.

Density of Households with School-Age Children Below 185 of Federal Poverty Level

Performance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation

Percent of Population Under 185% FPL� 0%–20%� 21%–40%� 41%–60%� 61%–80%� 81%–100%

School Type� Traditional Public School� Charter School� Private School

Study GeographySchool District BoundaryInterstatePark

Sources: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2007-2011; 2011 IDOE student performance data.

13

DemographicsIndianapolis has experienced notable demographic shiftsover the past decade. Between the 2000 and 2010 decennialcensus, the density of school-age population shifted fromthe city center, especially the northern neighborhoods, tothe townships, as illustrated in Maps 3 and 4. Between 2007 and 2011, during the Great Recession,

the percent of children living in low-income households(low-income in this report refers to incomes below 185percent Federal Poverty Level (185 percent FPL)) increasedby 10 percent, from 32 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in 2012.5 Similarly, in 2007, Marion County public schools(district and charter) reported that 56 percent of studentsqualified for the federal free or reduced priced lunch program,which uses the 185 percent FPL as an income threshold.Qualified students increased to 66 percent in 2011. The density of low-income households with children is

concentrated in the city center and radiates out to the adjacent Areas in the townships, as illustrated in Map 2. In essence, the evidence suggests that the increase in low-income households accompanied a parallel shift of childrenfrom the city center out to the townships. While the citycenter has seen a decline in school-age population, mostof the townships have experienced an influx of childrenand, for many, a parallel increase of low-income children.

Demographics and School Performance.While the largest number of low-income children attended districtschools, charter schools served a higher percent of low-income children. Sixty percent of students in districtschools, and 69 percent of the students in charter schoolsreported household incomes below the poverty threshold.Of the 36 independent schools that reported data for the federal lunch program, only 13 percent of students were eligible. Chart 2 compares the percent of householdsabove and below 185 percent of FPL, based on school-leveldata, for each corporation type.Citywide, 18,930 students living in households below

185 percent FPL attended a category A or B school. In 2010-2011, district schools provided 14,053 of thosehigh-performing seats. Although charter schools servedfewer students, a higher percent of charter students in low-income households attended a category A or B school

than district or independent schools. Thirty-eight percent ofthe children from low-income households who enrolled in acharter school attended a category A or B school. In contrast,for both district and independent schools, 11 percent ofchildren in low-income households attended a category A or B school. Regardless of differences in numbers and percents, every corporation type has schools that successfullyteach low-income students at grade-level or above.

5. ACS 2007 1-year estimates and ACS 2010 1-year estimates. 2000 Decennial US Census, 2010 Decennial US Census, 2011 HHS Poverty

Guidelines: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/11poverty.shtml

Chart 2: See Report Text for chart heading.

Below185%

FPL

9%

12%

28%

1%

10%

4%

4%

20%

1%

10%

185% FPL

Above Below185%

FPL

2%2%

9%

4%

4%

79%

185% FPL

Above

7%

13%

12%

38%

11%

4%

4%

11%

District Charter Independent

Below185%

FPL185%

FPL

Above

All Schools

Below185%

FPL

8%

11%

25%

1%

12%

185% FPL

Above

5%

4%

17%

1%

17%

See Report Text for chart sub-heading

A- Exemplary

B- Commendable

C- Acad Progress

D- Watch

F- Proba!on

Performance Grade in 2011 (PL 221)

Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2011 student performance data.

Chart 2Charter schools serve the highest percent of low-income students in category A or B schools.

Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2011 student performance data.

12

1514

Maps 3 and 4From 2000 to 2010 U.S. Census count, the high concentrations of school-age children shifted slightly from the urban core to the townships.

Density of School-Age Children in Indianapolis, 2000 Density of School-Age Children in Indianapolis, 2010

Performance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation

School-Age Children (5-17)Per Square Mile� 100� 101–250� 251–500� 501–1,000� >1,000

School Type� Traditional Public School� Charter School� Independent Schools

ParkSchool District BoundaryInterstate

Sources: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census; 2011 IDOE student performance data. Sources: 2000 and 2010 U.S. Census; 2011 IDOE student performance data.

16

high-performing schools throughout the city, across mostneighborhoods. Speedway, in particular, has neighborhoodswith high concentrations of low-income households andhigh-performing schools. In a close analysis of schools that serve populations

with an above average percent of low-income students, thestudy found six district, five charter and six independentschools that were category A or B in both 2011 and 2012(see Table 4). By successfully maintaining a high rating,these schools have met achievement, improvement andgrowth standards for their students regardless of changingmeasurements. In light of the increase in low-incomehouseholds in Indianapolis and the higher percent of childrenfrom low-income households in the Priority Areas, theselocal schools and districts are an important resource forimproving schools across the city.

Student Commutes and Access to High-Performing SchoolsExamining student commute patterns provides insight intohow current education policy shapes family decisions and student access to high-performing schools. Studentcommute analysis is provided in this citywide section and

in the Priority Area Profiles. Both provide an analysis based on student-level data. Indianapolis Public Schools, MSD ofDecatur Township, MSD of Perry Township, MSD of WarrenTownship, MSD of Washington Township, MSD of WayneTownship, Speedway Schools, the mayor’s office charterschools, Indiana Math & Science Academy, St. Joan of ArcSchool and Holy Name School provided student-level data.Because not all districts or schools provided student-leveldata, the data set is incomplete. To complement the student-level data, this section analyzes student commutepatterns with IDOE data that documents students who attend a school outside their districts. Both data sets show that most students do not

commute. According to the student-level data provided, 72 percent of students (72,693) enrolled in their assigneddistrict neighborhood school and the remaining 28 percentof students (28,642) opted to commute to a district magnet, district selective enrollment, another district or a charter school. According to the IDOE data, 91 percentstay in their district. One percent of students leave theirdistrict to attend another district and eight percent leave to attend a charter school.

Table 4: High-performing schools, of every school type, successfully serve populations with an above average percent of students from low-income households.High-Performing Schools with Above Average Percent of Students Below 185 FPL

Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2011 and 2012 student performance data.

Table 4: See Report Text for table heading.

School Corporation Grades Area 2010Audited

Enrollment

Percent of Students

in Households Below

185% FPL

Grade 2011 Grade 2012 Percent of Students

in Households Below

130% FPL

See Report Text for sub-heading.

Andrew J Brown Academy Charter School K-8 Area 24 660 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 79% 70%Ben Davis University High School MSD Wayne Township 10-12 Area 16 298 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 63% 48%Carl Wilde School Indianapolis Public Schools PK-6 Area 18 616 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 87% 82%Central Catholic School Independent PK-8 Area 30 167 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 75% 65%Central Elementary School Beech Grove City Schools 2-3 Area 39 365 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 64% 51%

Charles A Tindley Accelerated School Charter School 6-12 Area 22 422 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 63% 50%Christel House Academy Charter School K-8 Area 29 456 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 89% 72%Ernie Pyle School Indianapolis Public Schools PK-6 Area 19 341 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 87% 79%Holy Cross Central School Independent PK-8 Area 27 202 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 85% 75%Indiana Math & Science Academy Charter School K-10 Area 19 483 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 74% 61%James A Allison Elementary School Speedway Schools K-6 Area 17 208 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 66% 56%Lutheran High School Independent 9-12 Area 40 254 B- Commendable A- Exemplary 91% 91%Merle Sidener Gifted Academy Indianapolis Public Schools 2-6 Area 21 213 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 68% 54%Providence Cristo Rey High School Independent 9-12 Area 19 88 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 83% 58%Saint Philip Neri School Independent PK-8 Area 27 188 A- Exemplary A- Exemplary 98% 94%South Grove Intermediate School Beech Grove City Schools 4-6 Area 39 520 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 64% 51%

The Challenge Foundation Academy Charter School K-5 Area 22 420 A- Exemplary B- Commendable 80% 62%

17

Demographics and School-Readiness. As a group, the demographic statistics in the Priority Areas are not significantly different from the demographics for the rest of Marion County. In examining factors that can influenceschool-readiness in children, the Priority Areas averageeight percent more children living in low-income households,with 47 percent as compared to 39 percent citywide. Eight percent fewer adults in these communities have attained a bachelor’s or advanced degree, and four percentfewer have attained a high school diploma or beyond. While slight, when looking at the mean for each rank group, the Priority Areas have slightly higher levels of low-incomehouseholds and slightly lower educational attainment.In two other areas, mobility and English-

language proficiency, which also often affect student academic performance, the Priority Areas are essentially

the same as the rest of the city. The percent of householdsthat change residence each year in the Priority Areas is 19percent. Likewise, in Marion County, as a whole, there is 19percent mobility. Finally, six percent of individuals citywidedo not speak English well in their home, while seven percentin the Priority Areas have limited English proficiency. Despitethe similarities when compared to the mean of other Arearank groups and the city, the individual Priority Areas arequite diverse, as will be discussed in Priority Area Profiles.

High-Performing Schools Serving Low-Income Students. Although the Priority Areas have slightly higher rates oflow-income households, that data does not support theconclusion that low-income households and underperformingschools correspond. In mapping schools by performanceand type against the distribution of poverty, Map 2 reveals

Chart 3: See Report Text for Chart heading.

27%

84%80%

87% 88%86%

Individuals 25 years or older with more than a

high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%

Individuals 25 years orolder with more than a

bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%

Individuals who have changed residence in

the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%

Individuals who who do not speak

English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%

Households with childrenbetween 5 and 17 years, withincomes below 185 Percent

Federal Poverty Level

Citywide Average

Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-42

See Report Text for chart sub-heading.

Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey 2007-2011.

Chart 3: On average, the Priority Areas have slightly higher rates of low-income households and slightly lower educational attainment, compared to citywide means.


--- Citywide Average � Rank 1-11 (Priority Areas)� Rank 12-22� Rank 23-32 � Rank 33-42

18

the same rate. Forty-one percent of the 574 students who enrolled in a charter school attended a category A or Bschool, and 42 percent of the students who stayed in aLawrence district school attended a category A or B school. The third highest numbers of students (597 students)

who commute out of their district leave Pike Township. In Pike, those who left attended a category A or B school at a higher rate. Fifty-one percent of the 477 students who enrolled in a charter school enrolled in a category A or Bschool, and only 15 percent of those enrolled in a Pike district school attended a category A or B school. Maps 5 and 6 show the category of schools attended by

children who commute out of their home district. The sizeof the pie charts represents the number of students commuting out, and the color and size of each pie slice reflects the proportion of students attending schools of each category. This district-level analysis complementsthe student-level commute analysis. Likewise, the maps and data provided in Priority Area Profiles, at the end ofthis report, further detail the commute patterns for all the children living in the top 11 Priority Areas. This commute analysis, in the context of local knowledge

and goals, should inform the differentiated strategies developed for each district and for each Priority Area.

19

Citywide, according to the student-level data, nearly half of the students who attend their neighbor-hood schools (48 percent) attended a category C school in 2010-11 (see Chart 4). Improving neighborhood schools that consistently score just below category A and B would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for improving the educational opportunities for Indianapolis students.A higher percent of students (34 percent) who commute

out of their neighborhood attend a category A or B school;only 21 percent of those who stay in their neighborhoodschool have that option. However, nearly half (42 percent)of the students who commute out of their neighborhood attended a category D or F school. In further analyzing the student-level data, attending

category A or B school in one's neighborhood school wasmore difficult for students in the Priority Areas. Of the reporting districts and charter schools, 50 percent of thestudents lived in a Priority Area. Only 14 percent (5,365) of the students enrolled in

neighborhood schools in the Priority Areas attended a category A or B. This percent doubled for those who enrolled in schools outside their neighborhood to 28 percent (3,600). Similar to the rest of the city, the largestproportion, 53 percent (20,121), of the students enrolled in a neighborhood school attended a category C school in 2011. The largest proportion of students who opted out of a neighborhood school in the Priority Areas, 44 percent (5,657) attended a category D or F school. According to the IDOE data, 43 percent of students who

commute out of district attend a category A or B school,but 35 percent attend a category D or F school. In examining specific districts, the largest numbers of students commute out of Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS).Of the 7,824 students who leave IPS, 46 percent (3,616)attend a category A or B charter school and 26 percent(173) attend a category A or B township school. If they had stayed in IPS, only 11 percent of students would haveattended a category A or B School. The second highest numbers of students (707 students)

who commute out of their district leave Lawrence Township.For Lawrence, those who left the district and those who stayed attended a high-performing school at about

7,082

5,204

20,121

1,050

4,315

Rank 1-11

4,978

1,535

7,723

1,617

Rank 12-22

5521,049

4,177

2,665

Rank 23-32

7261,213

3,128

346

5,212

Rank 33-42

A�end Neighborhood School

Do Not A�end Neighborhood School

A- Exemplary

B- Commendable

C- Acad Progress

D- Watch

F- Proba!on

Chart 4: See Report Text for chart heading.

3,128

2,529

3,658

239

3,361

Rank 1-11

1,875

1,089

1,801

2,445

Rank 12-22

578532795109

1,692

Rank 23-32

9121,247634219

1,797

Rank 33-42

See Report Text for chart sub-heading.

Performance Grade in 2011 (PL 221)

Sources: 2010 IDOE student-level data from Corporations; 2011 student performance data.

Priority Areas( ) Priority

Areas( )

Chart 4Nearly half of the students in the Priority Areas attend a category-C neighborhood school.


2120

Map 5 Most students commuting out of a district to another district’s schools do not attend a category A or B school.

Students Commute out of District to District Schools by Performance Grade of School Attending

Corporation

Total Students in

District Schools

Performance Category A

District Students

Performance Category B

District Students

Performance Category C

District Students

Performance Category D

District Students

Performance Category F

District StudentsM S D Decatur Township 6,316 35 0 25 1 2Franklin Township Community School 7,506 38 16 14 20 2M S D Lawrence Township 14,788 46 16 51 6 14M S D Perry Township 14,448 64 4 32 17 17M S D Pike Township 10,783 32 0 67 12 9M S D Warren Township 11,620 25 15 20 10 7M S D Washington Township 11,041 7 1 14 5 10M S D Wayne Township 15,988 26 4 22 6 0Beech Grove City Schools 2,714 0 1 1 1 1Indianapolis Public Schools 31,761 155 18 356 71 47Speedway Schools 1,624 0 0 16 2 3


Pair with Map 5


Pair with Map 6

Corporation

Total Students in

District Schools


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter StudentsM S D Decatur Township 6,316 21 4 8 13 1Franklin Township Community School 7,506 33 11 12 63 6M S D Lawrence Township 14,788 230 7 59 50 228M S D Perry Township 14,448 55 1 24 28 5M S D Pike Township 10,783 245 0 95 128 9M S D Warren Township 11,620 157 2 61 164 201M S D Washington Township 11,041 189 3 82 30 31M S D Wayne Township 15,988 56 3 54 18 3Beech Grove City Schools 2,714 8 1 9 9 1Indianapolis Public Schools 31,761 3,609 7 1,373 1,307 1,528Speedway Schools 1,624 13 0 13 1 0

Corporation

Total Students in

District SchoolsM S D Decatur Township 6,316 35 0 25 1 2Franklin Township Community School 7,506 38 16 14 20 2M S D Lawrence Township 14,788 46 16 51 6 14M S D Perry Township 14,448 64 4 32 17 17M S D Pike Township 10,783 32 0 67 12 9M S D Warren Township 11,620 25 15 20 10 7M S D Washington Township 11,041 7 1 14 5 10M S D Wayne Township 15,988 26 4 22 6 0Beech Grove City Schools 2,714 0 1 1 1 1Indianapolis Public Schools 31,761 155 18 356 71 47Speedway Schools 1,624 0 0 16 2 3


Pair with Map 5


Pair with Map 6

Corporation

Total Students in

District Schools


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter Students


Charter StudentsM S D Decatur Township 6,316 21 4 8 13 1Franklin Township Community School 7,506 33 11 12 63 6M S D Lawrence Township 14,788 230 7 59 50 228M S D Perry Township 14,448 55 1 24 28 5M S D Pike Township 10,783 245 0 95 128 9M S D Warren Township 11,620 157 2 61 164 201M S D Washington Township 11,041 189 3 82 30 31M S D Wayne Township 15,988 56 3 54 18 3Beech Grove City Schools 2,714 8 1 9 9 1Indianapolis Public Schools 31,761 3,609 7 1,373 1,307 1,528Speedway Schools 1,624 13 0 13 1 0

Sources: 2010-2011 IDOE commute out; performance data. Sources: 2010-2011 IDOE commute out; performance data.

Map 6 Most students commuting out of a district to a charter school do not attend a category A or B school.

Students Commute out of District to Charter Schools by Performance Grade of School Attending

2322

Grade Division AnalysisGrade Division Analysis

To support stakeholders in developing differentiatedstrategies for each Priority Area, this section presents a series of maps and tables that detail the service gap andcommute analysis for each grade division. The 2011 and2012 maps for each grade division (K-8 and 9-12) for public(district and charter) schools is the detailed data that underlies the top 11 Priority Areas. The Priority Area rankspresented in the previous section provide information in aformat that can enhance the focus of educational reform efforts. The grade division analysis and maps, in this section, reveal nuances to inform differentiated strategies.A close examination of the grade division analysis will

reveal whether an Area needs high-performing seats ingrade K-8 or 9-12 or both. A comparison of the 2011 mapand table without the independent schools, and the 2011map and table with the independent schools will illustrate theinfluence of school types on the service level and servicegap. The tables and maps across the years reveal slightvariances in rank from year-to-year. Finally, some schools in an Area performed better when assessed with an improvement model than with a growth model or vice-versa.High-performing schools perform well under both models. There are nearly 98,000 K-8 students and almost

40,000 grade 9-12 students in district and charter schools.To provide every student with a seat in a category A or Bschool, Indianapolis needs approximately 56,000 additional

high-performing K-8 seats and 22,000 additional high-performing 9-12 seats. Several Areas not ranked in the top 11 Priority Areas

have a zero-percent service level. These Areas have low student density. The ranks, which are based on numbers ofstudents that need access to high-performing schools, do not capture these Areas. Nonetheless, they should notbe ignored. In many cases, a low-density Area with zero percent performance can close their service gap with a single high-performing school.There are four maps for each grade division. The first

map illustrates the service gap data for public schools in 2011. The second map presents the service gap data for 2012. The third integrates independent schools into the 2011 analysis. For each of these maps, the Areas are color-coded to indicate their rank and the shape and color of the schools indicates their type and their A-F category.The accompanying tables provide detailed data on the demand, service gap and service level of each school. Additionally, to understand how location affects access,the fourth map presents student commute patterns. It shows the category of schools attended by children in each Area. The size of the pie charts represents thenumber of students, and the color and size of each pieslice reflects the proportion of students attending schoolsof each category.

24

Map 7 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in 2011

Performance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation� Traditional Public School� Charter School


Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010-2011 student-level data from Corporations; 2011 Student performance data.

25

Grade K-8A comparison of the tables and maps reveals slight variancesin rank across the years in schools serving grade K-8. Forexample, in 2011, Area 11 in Lawrence Township ranked inthe top 11 for K-8, but moved to rank 27 in 2012 (see Maps7 and 8). Conversely, Area 35 in Decatur Township ranked18 in 2011 and eighth in 2012. These changes in servicegap rank predominately reflect changes in the state accountability methodology. Some schools rated higherwhen improvement was rewarded and others benefitedfrom the introduction of the growth model. There were 88category A and B schools serving children in kindergartento grade 8 in 2011 and 102 in 2012. With the largest increaseamong district schools, in 2011, there were 49 category A or B district schools, and in 2012, there were 60. Concurrently, the number of category C district schools declined from 48 in 2011 to 30 in 2012.Area 37 in Perry Township is also unique. In 2011, all

elementary schools serving students in K-5 in Area 37were category A or B. Under the new methodology, in2012, several dropped to category C, D and F. The schoolsserving grade 6-8, however, were category C and belowboth years. Because of the school categories and thedensity of school-age population, Area 37 ranked in thetop 11 for both years, despite its successful elementaryschools. In 2011, it ranked third; and in 2012, it ranked first.In comparing the 2011 maps and tables with and

without the independent schools, there is little change in the service gap rank of Areas but a notable increase in service level when independent schools are includedin the analysis. The need for performing K-8 seats remained relatively stable across 2011 and 2012. In 2011,50 percent (30,524 of 61,322) of the need for high-performing seats was in the Priority Areas. In 2012, thisincreased slightly to 55 percent (30,902 of 56,325).

Source: 2011 and 2012 IDOE audited enrollment data.

2011K-8 Need Rank

Area Number

2011K-8 Demand

2011 K-8 Service Gap

2011K-8 Service Level

1 Area 19 4,661 -3,810 18%2 Area 16 3,976 -3,589 10%3 Area 37 5,389 -2,932 46%4 Area 30 3,360 -2,930 13%5 Area 4 3,380 -2,893 14%6 Area 25 3,276 -2,830 14%7 Area 27 3,030 -2,698 11%8 Area 14 2,799 -2,538 9%9 Area 11 2,454 -2,314 6%10 Area 3 4,181 -2,273 46%11 Area 32 4,349 -2,247 48%12 Area 13 2,715 -2,030 25%13 Area 18 2,581 -1,980 23%14 Area 24 2,050 -1,970 4%15 Area 23 2,143 -1,888 12%16 Area 35 2,470 -1,785 28%17 Area 22 2,030 -1,757 13%18 Area 9 1,903 -1,745 8%19 Area 15 1,714 -1,655 3%20 Area 34 1,604 -1,591 1%21 Area 10 1,765 -1,577 11%22 Area 12 1,374 -1,295 6%23 Area 6 1,951 -1,198 39%24 Area 2 2,101 -1,175 44%25 Area 1 2,014 -1,142 43%26 Area 20 1,490 -1,071 28%27 Area 8 1,168 -1,062 9%28 Area 28 1,226 -843 31%29 Area 21 902 -676 25%30 Area 26 842 -563 33%31 Area 33 1,416 -527 63%32 Area 7 1,363 -498 63%33 Area 40 2,738 -418 85%34 Area 38 1,250 -386 69%35 Area 39 1,897 -383 80%36 Area 31 1,853 -358 81%37 Area 29 1,328 -57 96%38 Area 5 1,049 -55 95%39 Area 17 1,633 116 107%40 Area 42 1,860 231 112%41 Area 41 1,892 311 116%42 Area 36 3,081 336 111%

Table 8: See Report Text for table heading.(Place with Map 7)Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in 2011

A- Exemplary B-Commendable C- Academic Progress

D- Watch F- Probation Total

2011 45 4 48 26 29 152

2012 21 30 32 34 156

2011 29 3 3 0 0 34

2012 27 5 5 1 0 38

2011 7 0 4 3 4 18

2012 5 5 5 3 4 22

2011 81 7 54 29 33 204

2012 71 31 40 36 38 216

District

Independent

Charter

Total

39

Table 5: See Report Text for table heading.See Report Text for sub-heading.


Table 5: Number of Schools Serving Students in Grade K-8 in Each Category

2726


2012K-8 Need Rank

Area Number

2012K-8 Demand

2012K-8 Service Gap


1 Area 37 5,389 -3,871 28%2 Area 19 4,686 -3,717 21%3 Area 4 3,388 -3,268 4%4 Area 16 3,985 -2,906 27%5 Area 32 4,372 -2,902 34%6 Area 3 4,075 -2,862 30%7 Area 27 3,034 -2,611 14%8 Area 35 2,470 -2,439 1%9 Area 14 2,809 -2,175 23%10 Area 25 3,287 -2,085 37%11 Area 30 3,361 -2,065 39%12 Area 24 2,063 -1,910 7%13 Area 2 2,250 -1,801 20%14 Area 1 2,043 -1,653 19%15 Area 34 1,604 -1,591 1%16 Area 15 1,719 -1,545 10%17 Area 36 3,081 -1,499 51%18 Area 13 2,722 -1,469 46%19 Area 18 2,603 -1,466 44%20 Area 22 2,038 -1,332 35%21 Area 23 2,156 -1,295 40%22 Area 28 1,231 -850 31%23 Area 6 1,952 -793 59%24 Area 38 1,250 -651 48%25 Area 20 1,496 -640 57%26 Area 41 1,869 -616 67%27 Area 11 2,797 -613 78%28 Area 9 2,094 -609 71%29 Area 21 905 -593 34%30 Area 31 1,863 -568 70%31 Area 42 1,833 -549 70%32 Area 7 1,367 -527 61%33 Area 10 1,958 -518 74%34 Area 12 1,554 -445 71%35 Area 39 1,897 -374 80%36 Area 8 1,294 -373 71%37 Area 29 1,332 -359 73%38 Area 26 845 -322 62%39 Area 5 1,053 -322 69%40 Area 33 1,419 -245 83%41 Area 17 1,654 -73 96%42 Area 40 2,677 175 107%

Table 9: See Report Text for table heading.(Place with Map 8)

Map 8 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in 2012

Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010-2011 student-level data from Corporations.


Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade K-8 in 2012

2928

Map 9 Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade K-8 in 2011

2011K-8 Need Rank

Area Number

2011K-8 Demand

2011K-8 Service Gap


1 Area 19 4,973 -3,851 23%2 Area 16 4,072 -3,445 15%3 Area 37 6,101 -3,183 48%4 Area 30 3,924 -3,137 20%5 Area 4 3,871 -3,122 19%6 Area 27 3,438 -2,863 17%7 Area 25 3,676 -2,823 23%8 Area 14 2,871 -2,553 11%9 Area 11 2,929 -2,507 14%

10 Area 3 4,493 -2,273 49%11 Area 32 4,513 -2,182 52%12 Area 18 2,674 -2,030 24%13 Area 13 2,764 -2,016 27%14 Area 22 2,535 -2,009 21%15 Area 24 2,133 -1,988 7%16 Area 23 2,407 -1,915 20%17 Area 15 1,763 -1,665 6%18 Area 35 2,572 -1,641 36%19 Area 9 2,074 -1,584 24%20 Area 34 1,604 -1,502 6%21 Area 10 2,001 -1,419 29%22 Area 12 1,509 -1,268 16%23 Area 20 1,826 -1,157 37%24 Area 1 2,018 -1,062 47%25 Area 2 2,265 -1,062 53%26 Area 6 2,228 -1,042 53%27 Area 8 1,279 -888 31%28 Area 28 1,398 -863 38%29 Area 21 1,182 -799 32%30 Area 7 1,706 -544 68%31 Area 39 2,168 -498 77%32 Area 40 3,112 -480 85%33 Area 38 1,479 -441 70%34 Area 26 963 -406 58%35 Area 33 1,584 -332 79%36 Area 31 2,057 -277 87%37 Area 5 1,192 39 103%38 Area 29 1,481 68 105%39 Area 17 1,741 87 105%40 Area 42 1,938 330 117%41 Area 41 2,043 437 121%42 Area 36 3,462 486 114%

Table 10: See Report Text for table heading. (Place with Map 9)

Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade K-8 in 2011

Performance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation� Traditional Public School� Charter School� Independent Schools



3130

Map 10In 2011, 50 percent (66,723) of K-8 grade students who attended a district school commuted to a failing (category F) school. Fifteen percent (20,017) commuted to a category C school.6

Performance Grade of District School Attended by Students Living in Each Area, Grade K-8 Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 10

Table 12: Charter Students, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 11

Table 17: District Students, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 15


Pair with Map 16

Area Number

Performance Category AK-8 District Students

Performance Category BK-8 DistrictStudents

Performance Category CK-8 District Students

Performance Category DK-8 DistrictStudents

Performance Category FK-8 DistrictStudents

TotalK-8 DistrictStudents

Area 1 0 0 2 1 0 3

Area 2 12 0 12 5 5 34

Area 3 20 0 31 9 15 75

Area 4 112 0 1,325 610 1,236 3,283Area 5 488 0 87 260 67 902Area 6 525 0 930 21 295 1,771Area 7 822 0 484 4 9 1,319Area 8 12 0 8 1 0 21Area 9 5 1 2 0 3 11

Area 10 13 0 4 3 13 33Area 11 3 0 3 1 1 8Area 12 3 0 5 7 6 21Area 13 716 0 1,143 33 539 2,431Area 14 2 0 1,790 246 520 2,558Area 15 9 0 1,005 379 296 1,689Area 16 32 0 2,728 131 745 3,636Area 17 1,000 0 12 2 2 1,016Area 18 405 0 420 156 1,109 2,090Area 19 584 0 629 1,728 854 3,795Area 20 174 0 633 205 341 1,353Area 21 171 0 91 44 38 344Area 22 229 0 439 214 803 1,685Area 23 157 0 518 100 1,071 1,846Area 24 101 0 374 47 748 1,270Area 25 216 0 1,433 183 1,278 3,110Area 26 88 0 139 177 203 607Area 27 272 4 1,530 234 897 2,937Area 28 268 9 577 39 292 1,185Area 29 411 0 264 472 162 1,309Area 30 235 1 1,686 527 849 3,298Area 31 803 77 208 282 373 1,743Area 32 1,691 95 529 980 872 4,167Area 33 183 360 397 428 2 1,370Area 34 25 0 7 1,151 381 1,564Area 35 424 0 5 1,389 603 2,421Area 36 2,058 25 0 997 1 3,081Area 37 2,599 1,149 376 1,256 7 5,387Area 38 824 14 138 274 0 1,250Area 39 1,461 0 8 425 0 1,894Area 40 19 9 4 6 1 39Area 41 7 3 2 2 0 14Area 42 4 0 2 0 0 6

Area 1 30 0 16 3 2 51Area 2 49 0 33 5 8 95Area 3 77 0 16 1 3 97Area 4 53 0 11 9 9 82Area 5 118 0 9 9 4 140Area 6 148 0 4 16 2 170Area 7 8 0 6 0 0 14Area 8 11 0 9 2 2 24Area 9 8 0 7 0 1 16Area 10 4 0 0 1 0 5Area 11 3 0 5 0 0 8Area 12 22 0 31 0 7 60Area 13 151 0 92 2 26 271Area 14 63 0 137 2 19 221Area 15 8 0 1 0 7 16Area 16 150 0 73 14 84 321Area 17 449 0 53 55 19 576Area 18 417 0 27 3 1 448Area 19 396 0 150 116 154 816Area 20 36 0 42 3 44 125Area 21 160 0 26 119 244 549Area 22 71 0 20 203 20 314Area 23 136 0 16 3 38 193Area 24 363 0 79 20 227 689Area 25 52 0 1 41 4 98Area 26 168 0 16 36 7 227Area 27 23 0 3 32 2 60Area 28 5 0 1 0 0 6Area 29 7 0 0 2 3 12Area 30 33 0 2 4 10 49Area 31 12 0 1 0 0 13Area 32 18 0 0 1 1 20Area 33 9 0 1 8 0 18Area 34 18 0 4 18 0 40Area 35 20 0 7 4 17 48Area 36 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 37 2 0 0 0 0 2Area 38 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 39 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 40 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 41 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 42 0 0 0 0 0 0

District Students, by Area and Performanceof School Attending

6. The MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships did not provide student-leveldata. Data in Map 10 for Areas 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 40, 41 and 42 reflect studentsthat commuted out to other district schools in 2010-11. The Maps and Tables do notreflect students from MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships.

Sources: 2010-2011 student-level data from Corporations.

3233

Map 11 In 2011, 50 percent (6,098) of K-8 grade students who attended a charter school commuted toa failing (category F) school. Twenty-seven percent (3,303) commuted to a category C school.

Performance Grade of Charter School Attended by Students Living in Each Area, Grade K-8Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 10


Pair with Map 11


Pair with Map 15


Pair with Map 16

Area Number

Performance Category AK-8 Charter

Students

Performance Category BK-8 Charter

Students

Performance Category CK-8 Charter

Students

Performance Category DK-8 Charter

Students

Performance Category FK-8 Charter

Students

TotalK-8 Charter

StudentsArea 1 30 0 16 3 2 51Area 2 49 0 33 5 8 95Area 3 77 0 16 1 3 97Area 4 53 0 11 9 9 82Area 5 118 0 9 9 4 140Area 6 148 0 4 16 2 170Area 7 8 0 6 0 0 14Area 8 11 0 9 2 2 24Area 9 8 0 7 0 1 16Area 10 4 0 0 1 0 5Area 11 3 0 5 0 0 8Area 12 22 0 31 0 7 60Area 13 151 0 92 2 26 271Area 14 63 0 137 2 19 221Area 15 8 0 1 0 7 16Area 16 150 0 73 14 84 321Area 17 449 0 53 55 19 576Area 18 417 0 27 3 1 448Area 19 396 0 150 116 154 816Area 20 36 0 42 3 44 125Area 21 160 0 26 119 244 549Area 22 71 0 20 203 20 314Area 23 136 0 16 3 38 193Area 24 363 0 79 20 227 689Area 25 52 0 1 41 4 98Area 26 168 0 16 36 7 227Area 27 23 0 3 32 2 60Area 28 5 0 1 0 0 6Area 29 7 0 0 2 3 12Area 30 33 0 2 4 10 49Area 31 12 0 1 0 0 13Area 32 18 0 0 1 1 20Area 33 9 0 1 8 0 18Area 34 18 0 4 18 0 40Area 35 20 0 7 4 17 48Area 36 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 37 2 0 0 0 0 2Area 38 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 39 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 40 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 41 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 42 0 0 0 0 0 0

Charter Students, by Area and Performanceof School Attending


34

Map 12 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2011



Area Rankings for Grade 9–121–11 (Priority Areas)12–2223–3233–42Study GeographySchool District BoundaryPark

35

Grade 9-12The service gap rank for high schools is more volatile thanthe K-8 service gap rank. Eight of the 11 highest rankedareas remained the same but the order changes (see Maps12 and 13). In some Areas, the shift in 9-12 rank reflectschanges in the category of a single school while in others the source of the change is less clear. In 2011, there were only 2,802 seats in high-performing high schools. In 2012, there were 17,884 high-performing seats servinggrade 9-12. Similarly, in 2011, there were 18 schools rated as category A or B. This number increased to 28, in 2012. The change in performance category is partiallydue to state policy that capped schools at category C, if target populations in the school were not making adequate progress. This policy appears to have affectedhigh schools more than elementary or middle schools. A comparison of the 2011 maps, with and without

the independent schools, shows that the service gaprank shifted only slightly with the inclusion of independentschools and children. However, the service levels increased significantly.

Table 6: Number of Schools Serving Students in Grade 9-12 in Each CategoryTable 6: See Report Text for table heading.


25

26

12

14

9

10

46

50

A- Exemplary B-Commendable C- Academic Progress

D- Watch F- Probation Total

2011 3 0 13 1 8

2012 6 7 3 6

2011 10 1 1 0 0

2012 10 2 2 0 0

2011 4 0 3 2 0

2012 4 2 1 2 1

2011 17 1 17 3 8

2012 18 10 10 5 7

District

Independent

Charter

Total

4


Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2011

20119-12 Need Rank

Area Number

20119-12 Demand

20119-12 Service Gap

20119-12 Service Level

1 Area 37 2,110 -2,086 1%2 Area 32 1,928 -1,921 0%3 Area 11 1,407 -1,406 0%4 Area 19 1,441 -1,392 3%5 Area 36 1,396 -1,368 2%6 Area 4 1,369 -1,344 2%7 Area 3 1,365 -1,322 3%8 Area 16 1,563 -1,295 17%9 Area 35 1,290 -1,281 1%10 Area 9 1,199 -1,195 0%11 Area 14 1,309 -1,185 9%12 Area 25 1,168 -1,120 4%13 Area 13 1,237 -1,096 11%14 Area 10 1,091 -1,077 1%15 Area 41 964 -955 1%16 Area 42 957 -955 0%17 Area 27 958 -931 3%18 Area 1 939 -928 1%19 Area 2 932 -913 2%20 Area 30 950 -906 5%21 Area 6 878 -863 2%22 Area 33 812 -782 4%23 Area 23 799 -780 2%24 Area 8 756 -750 1%25 Area 12 747 -746 0%26 Area 31 780 -744 5%27 Area 22 727 -695 4%28 Area 18 695 -685 1%29 Area 40 666 -657 1%30 Area 34 636 -634 0%31 Area 7 651 -623 4%32 Area 24 572 -570 0%33 Area 15 610 -556 9%34 Area 20 573 -540 6%35 Area 5 529 -495 6%36 Area 38 503 -494 2%37 Area 29 428 -387 10%38 Area 28 354 -334 6%39 Area 26 261 -222 15%40 Area 21 203 -182 10%41 Area 17 631 -31 95%42 Area 39 813 51 106%

Table 14: See Report Text for map heading.(Place with Map 12)

3736

Map 13 Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2012


20129-12 Need Rank

Area Number

20129-12 Demand



1 Area 37 2,110 -1,671 21%2 Area 3 1,389 -1,346 3%3 Area 4 1,369 -1,344 2%4 Area 19 1,441 -1,338 7%5 Area 16 1,563 -1,296 17%6 Area 35 1,290 -1,281 1%7 Area 14 1,309 -1,185 9%8 Area 13 1,237 -1,096 11%9 Area 25 1,172 -1,045 11%10 Area 32 1,939 -956 51%11 Area 1 955 -944 1%12 Area 2 947 -928 2%13 Area 27 961 -886 8%14 Area 6 879 -861 2%15 Area 30 952 -832 13%16 Area 23 807 -739 8%17 Area 22 729 -647 11%18 Area 34 636 -634 0%19 Area 18 695 -633 9%20 Area 7 653 -612 6%21 Area 24 576 -556 3%22 Area 15 610 -556 9%23 Area 20 573 -501 13%24 Area 5 529 -495 6%25 Area 38 503 -492 2%26 Area 29 428 -336 21%27 Area 28 357 -300 16%28 Area 26 261 -170 35%29 Area 21 203 -152 25%30 Area 42 961 -66 93%31 Area 40 669 -41 94%32 Area 41 969 -41 96%33 Area 17 631 -31 95%34 Area 39 813 58 107%35 Area 31 791 109 114%36 Area 8 757 124 116%37 Area 12 745 148 120%38 Area 10 1,091 263 124%39 Area 11 1,402 342 124%40 Area 9 1,182 422 136%41 Area 36 1,396 464 133%42 Area 33 814 671 182%


Service Gap, District and Charter Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2012

Sources: 2010 IDOE audited enrollment data; 2010-2011 student-level data from Corporations.


3938

Performance Grade (PL 221)� A–Exemplary Progress� B–Commendable Progress� C–Academic Progress� D–Watch� F–Probation� Traditional Public School� Charter School� Independent Schools

Map 14 Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2011

20119-12 Need Rank

Area Number

2011 9-12 Demand



1 Area 37 2,442 -2,223 9%2 Area 32 1,997 -1,882 6%3 Area 4 1,888 -1,608 15%4 Area 19 1,697 -1,452 14%5 Area 11 1,476 -1,394 6%6 Area 3 1,660 -1,264 24%7 Area 35 1,320 -1,246 6%8 Area 36 1,491 -1,230 18%9 Area 14 1,413 -1,211 14%10 Area 16 1,631 -1,183 27%11 Area 9 1,287 -1,143 11%12 Area 25 1,403 -1,119 20%13 Area 10 1,278 -1,082 15%14 Area 13 1,307 -1,078 18%15 Area 27 1,209 -988 18%16 Area 23 1,068 -933 13%17 Area 30 1,157 -918 21%18 Area 2 1,162 -909 22%19 Area 42 998 -882 12%20 Area 41 1,024 -859 16%21 Area 7 1,039 -804 23%22 Area 1 939 -773 18%23 Area 8 871 -756 13%24 Area 22 956 -745 22%25 Area 6 1,086 -744 31%26 Area 12 797 -728 9%27 Area 40 865 -727 16%28 Area 18 776 -722 7%29 Area 31 867 -639 26%30 Area 33 864 -636 26%31 Area 38 677 -598 12%32 Area 34 636 -588 8%33 Area 24 601 -568 5%34 Area 15 644 -559 13%35 Area 20 755 -513 32%36 Area 5 640 -363 43%37 Area 28 457 -322 30%38 Area 29 502 -283 44%39 Area 21 382 -218 43%40 Area 26 313 -74 76%41 Area 17 719 -67 91%42 Area 39 970 -36 96%


Service Gap, District, Charter and Private Schools, Grade 9-12 in 2011



4140

Map 15 In 2011, 50 percent (26,583) of high school students who attended a district school commuted to a failing (category F) school. Thirty-nine percent (20,635) commuted to a category C school.

Performance Category of District Schools Attended by Students Living in Each Area, Grade 9-127Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 10


Pair with Map 11


Pair with Map 15


Pair with Map 16


Area Number

Performance Category A9-12 District

Students

Performance Category B9-12 District

Students

Performance Category C9-12 District

Students

Performance Category D9-12 District

Students

Performance Category F9-12 District

Students

Total9-12 District

StudentsArea 1 0 0 11 0 0 11Area 2 0 0 21 0 1 22Area 3 1 0 24 3 6 34Area 4 0 0 1,339 1 2 1,342Area 5 0 0 452 0 3 455Area 6 0 0 798 0 2 800Area 7 0 0 636 0 4 640Area 8 0 0 10 0 1 11Area 9 0 0 6 0 1 7

Area 10 0 0 6 0 3 9Area 11 0 0 10 0 2 12Area 12 1 0 12 1 4 18Area 13 110 0 1,035 0 0 1,145Area 14 62 0 1,161 2 3 1,228Area 15 39 0 550 0 1 590Area 16 109 0 1,321 0 3 1,433Area 17 452 0 12 0 1 465Area 18 0 0 506 42 82 630Area 19 26 0 843 53 377 1,299Area 20 0 0 359 33 131 523Area 21 0 0 55 0 25 80Area 22 1 0 347 29 224 601Area 23 0 0 134 49 572 755Area 24 0 0 83 24 279 386Area 25 0 0 571 34 524 1,129Area 26 0 0 133 10 37 180Area 27 0 0 493 26 397 916Area 28 1 0 72 10 263 346Area 29 0 0 65 15 337 417Area 30 0 0 281 18 634 933Area 31 0 0 758 2 3 763Area 32 0 0 1,900 0 7 1,907Area 33 0 0 792 0 2 794Area 34 0 0 601 0 15 616Area 35 1 0 1,056 0 36 1,093Area 36 0 0 1,393 0 3 1,396Area 37 0 0 2,108 0 2 2,110Area 38 0 0 502 0 1 503Area 39 780 0 29 0 3 812Area 40 0 0 10 0 1 11Area 41 0 0 5 0 0 5Area 42 0 0 1 0 1 2

District Students, by Area and Performance of School Attending

7. The MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships did not provide student-leveldata. Data in Map 15 for Areas 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 40, 41 and 42 reflect studentsthat commuted out to other district schools in 2010-11. The Maps and Tables do notreflect students from MSD of Pike, Lawrence and Franklin Townships.


43

Map 16 In 2011, 50 percent (2,096) of high school students who attended a charter school commuted to a failing (category F) school. Twenty percent (847) commuted to a category A school.

Performance Category of Charter Schools Attended by Students Living in Each Area, Grade 9-12

Charter Students, by Area and Performance of School Attending

Table 11: District Student, by area and performance of school attending

Pair with Map 10


Pair with Map 11


Pair with Map 15


Pair with Map 16


Area Number

Performance Category A9-12 Charter

Students

Performance Category B9-12 Charter

Students

Performance Category C9-12 Charter

Students

Performance Category D9-12 Charter

Students


9-12 CharterStudents

Total9-12 Charter

StudentsArea 1 35 0 20 0 0 55Area 2 19 0 20 0 0 39Area 3 38 0 15 0 0 53Area 4 21 0 6 0 0 27Area 5 29 0 13 7 25 74Area 6 18 0 8 4 48 78Area 7 4 0 4 1 0 9Area 8 3 0 10 0 0 13Area 9 0 0 2 0 0 2

Area 10 1 0 3 0 0 4Area 11 1 0 3 0 0 4Area 12 10 0 24 0 0 34Area 13 23 0 67 1 1 92Area 14 38 0 37 1 5 81Area 15 11 0 7 0 2 20Area 16 65 0 56 4 5 130Area 17 57 0 38 25 46 166Area 18 24 0 19 0 21 64Area 19 74 0 30 26 11 141Area 20 36 0 11 1 2 50Area 21 48 0 25 49 0 122Area 22 25 0 5 74 19 123Area 23 19 0 13 2 0 34Area 24 53 0 112 12 4 181Area 25 5 0 6 20 3 34Area 26 20 0 14 19 27 80Area 27 9 0 5 17 7 38Area 28 3 0 2 0 0 5Area 29 4 0 7 0 0 11Area 30 10 0 3 2 0 15Area 31 4 0 0 0 0 4Area 32 3 0 4 1 0 8Area 33 4 0 6 5 0 15Area 34 9 0 4 6 1 20Area 35 122 0 58 8 9 197Area 36 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 37 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 38 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 39 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 40 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 41 0 0 0 0 0 0Area 42 0 0 0 0 0 0

42


44

1. Set a goal and timeline for new performing seats.This study documents that the City of Indianapolis needs approximately 78,000 high-performing seats to provide every student with a high-performing seat. Settinga goal and timeframe for additional high-performing seats can focus resources and leadership.

2. Focus resources on the top 11 Priority Areas.This study documents that approximately 50 percent of thecitywide need for high-performing seats is concentrated in 11 Areas, called the Priority Areas. Focusing on these Areaswill provide the greatest opportunity to serve the most families and the greatest number of students. While reformefforts to create better schools throughout the city should notbe abandoned, a focused investment of time and resourceson the Priority Areas can best meet a citywide goal.

3. Develop a differentiated strategy for each of the Priority Areas based on an assessment of the educationalneeds of the communities, and the strengths and challenges of each school serving the community.This study documents the past school performance and demographics in the Priority Areas. Many are similar, but each Priority Area also has specific needs, strengths and demographic characteristics. For example, an elementary school strategy, needed in a number of the priority areas, would be disruptive and unnecessaryin Area 37 (Perry Township) where elementary schools are predominately high performing and many of the district, middle and high schools are performing just below category A or B. An effective strategy wouldfocus on improving performance in grades 6-12.

4. Create incentives for high-performing schools serving a higher-than-average percent of low-income students to replicate their schools, expand their programs and share their successes.This study documents 17 schools in Indianapolis that serve a higher-than-average percentage of low-income children in performing schools. These schools are district, charter, and independent schools. They provide valuable local models for school reform. What pedagogy,methodology, or educational principles have led to their success? What strategies have they successfully employed to educate low-income students? How can other Indianapolis districts and schools replicate thoseconditions and strategies to increase high-performingseats? Concurrently, what barriers need to be removed to encourage these high-performing successful schools to expand to serve more children?

5. Complete an analysis for each persistently low-performing school serving a Priority Area to inform a decision on potential reconstitution or closure.Transparent processes that combine data and local knowledge leading to decisions to close or reconstituteschools are a critical component of all school reform efforts. As this study shows, a small percent of both district and charter schools are failing children over a number of years. Out of 22 charter schools, three werecategory D or F in both 2011 and 2012. These schoolsserved 1,288 students. Districts had 33 out of 182schools that remained category D or F in both 2011 and2012. These district schools served 22,180 students.

RecommendationsRecommendations

45

4746

Approximately 50 percent of the need for category A and B schools is in 11 Priority Areas. Addressing theservice gaps in these Areas can transform the educationlandscape in Indianapolis. To facilitate planning based on local community needs, the following neighborhoodprofiles include maps, tables, charts, and analysis that detail the demographics, service gap, enrollment,commute patterns, and school performance for both 2011and 2012 for each Priority Area. These details can best be analyzed in light of additional local knowledge. Stakeholders and school leaders will decide the most efficient approach to increasing performance and the

appropriate formulas for the individual strategic plans. While the population in the Priority Areas is not

significantly different from the demographic average forMarion County, the individual Priority Areas are quite distinct from each other. In four Priority Areas, 32 percentof children live in low-income households and, in anotherfour, between 58 and 72 percent of children live in low-income households. While on average seven percentof the individuals in Priority Areas are limited English proficient, in Area 19, it doubles to 13 percent. The AreaProfiles in this section provide demographic and schooldata to inform differentiated strategies.

Top Eleven Priority Areas Profiles Top Eleven Priority Areas Profiles

4948

Priority Area Rank 1: Area 37 (zip code 46227 in MSD Perry Township)

Student Commute to School

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendance patterns, 7,499 students lived in Area 37. Of those, 3,748 attendedneighborhood schools; and 3,751 attended non-neighborhoodschools (3,749 in public magnet schools).

2011� While most of the children in grade K-5 attend a high-performing school, children in the middle and upper grades have fewer or no high-performing school options.

� In 2011, the demand data analysis calculates that district and charterschools in Area 37 had 5,389 students from grade K-8 and 2,110 students from grade 9-12. When students attending independentschools were included the demand number increased to 6,101 students from grade K-8 and 2,442 students from grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,932 seats, meaning that 54 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 46 percent were in categoryA or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap number increased to 3,183 seats, meaning that 52 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools

and 48 percent were in category A or B schools. � For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was2,086, meaning that 99 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 1 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap number increased to 2,223, meaning that 91 percent of seatsin Area schools were in underperforming schools and ninepercent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 37 demand for grades K-8 and 9-12 did not change from 2011.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap increased from 2011 to 3,871, meaning that 72 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 28 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 1,671, meaning that 79 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 21 percentwere in category A schools.

Area 37

Map Symbol Number School Name Corpora!on

2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total

Enrollment CapacityU!liza!on

Mean

Percent of Students from

Households Below 185% FPL

1 William Henry Burkhart Elementary M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 86% A- Exemplary 87% K-5 427 447 385 112% 47%2 Mary Bryan Elementary School M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 77% B- Commendable 78% PK-5 616 631 624 101% 45%3 Clinton Young Elementary School M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 66% C- Acad Progress 60% K-5 673 677 723 94% 88%4 Douglas MacArthur Elementary School M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 80% C- Acad Progress 74% K-5 609 596 572 105% 41%5 Homecro� Elementary School M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 79% D- Watch 67% K-5 401 423 385 110% 73%6 Abraham Lincoln Elementary School M S D Perry Township A- Exemplary 66% F- Proba�on 59% K-5 865 852 815 101% 73%7 Saint Jude Elementary School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 93% A- Exemplary 93% K-8 512 500 500 100% -8 Roncalli High School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary - A- Exemplary - 9-12 1,113 1,090 1,000 101% -9 Calvary Lutheran School Lutheran Schools of Indiana A- Exemplary 84% A- Exemplary 8% K-8 172 153 191 90% -

10 Saint Roch School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 90% A- Exemplary 88% PK-8 253 289 350 73% -11 Southport Elementary School M S D Perry Township B- Commendable 71% C- Acad Progress 67% K-5 471 523 504 100% 68%12 Winchester Village Elementary M S D Perry Township B- Commendable 57% D- Watch 61% K-5 624 649 555 109% 88%13 Saint Mark School Office of Catholic Educa�on B- Commendable 81% B- Commendable 78% PK-8 201 211 225 94% -14 Southport 6th Grade Academy M S D Perry Township C- Acad Progress 72% A- Exemplary 68% 6 570 541 513 100% 66%15 Perry Meridian High School M S D Perry Township C- Acad Progress - B- Commendable - 9-12 2,207 2,250 2,128 100% 44%16 Southport High School M S D Perry Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9-12 2,141 2,189 1,931 106% 54%17 Southport Middle School M S D Perry Township D- Watch 68% C- Acad Progress 68% PK-8 1,121 1,103 1,725 63% 60%18 Perry Meridian Middle School M S D Perry Township D- Watch 72% C- Acad Progress 71% 7-8 1,155 1,095 1,850 63% 46%19 Perry Meridian 6th Grade Academy M S D Perry Township D- Watch 70% C- Acad Progress 73% 6 502 544 569 100% 51%

Data for Schools in Close Proximity or within Area 37 Attendance Boundaries

Area 37

8%

84%

6%

27%

Area 37Citywide Average

Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



84%

22%

17%

32%


--- Citywide Average Area 37

� Rank 1-11 (Priority Areas) � Rank 12-22� Rank 23-32 � Rank 33-42


Area 37

Schools Serving Area 37Students

� District School� Charter School� Park

Schools Not Reporting Student Data or Not Enrolling Area 37 Students in 2010

Charter SchoolIndependent SchoolsDistrict School

Schools in Close Proximity or within Area 37 Attendance Boundaries


5150

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 6,051 students lived in Area 19. Of those, 3,222 studentsattended neighborhood schools; and 2,829 attended non-neighborhood schools (1,841 in public magnet schools, 31 in public selective enrollment schools and 957 in charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data calculates that district and charter schools in Area 19 had 4,661 students from grade K-8 and 1,441 students from grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 4,973 for grade K-8 and 1,697 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 3,810, meaning that 82 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 18 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 3,851, meaning that 77 percent of seats in Area schools are in underperforming schools and 23 percent are in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,392, meaning that 97 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and three percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 1,452, meaning that 86 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 14 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 19 demand for grade K-8 increased to 4,686; demand for grade 9-12 did not change from 2011.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 3,717, meaning that 79 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 21 percentwere in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased slightly from 2011 to 1,338, meaning that 93 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and seven percent were in category A or B schools.

Area 19


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Ernie Pyle School Indianapolis Public Schools A- Exemplary 73% A- Exemplary 77% PK-6 341 359 450 77% 87%2 Indiana Math & Science Academy Indiana Math and Science Academy A- Exemplary 58% B- Commendable 65% K-10 483 502 752 46% 74%3 Cold Spring School Indianapolis Public Schools A- Exemplary 50% C- Acad Progress 64% K-8 377 262 225 143% 87%4 Padua Academy Padua Academy A- Exemplary 63% A- Exemplary 71% K-7 - 135 136 99% -5 St. Michael The Archangel School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 77% B- Commendable 69% PK-8 217 219 450 54% -6 Cardinal Ri�er Jr High & High School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 79% A- Exemplary 80% 7-12 580 583 900 60% -7 Providence Cristo Rey High School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary - B- Commendable - 9-12 88 77 300 28% -8 Wendell Phillips School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 36% D- Watch 53% K-6 442 441 625 83% 90%9 Northwest Community High School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress - F- Proba�on - 9-12 837 837 1,975 48% 77%

10 Indianapolis Metropolitan High School Indianapolis Metropolitan High School C- Acad Progress - D- Watch - 9-12 344 431 480 76% 83%11 Stephen Collins Foster School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 58% B- Commendable 65% K-8 751 771 900 83% 86%12 William Penn School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 57% D- Watch 58% K-6 747 793 1,000 70% 91%13 Clarence Farrington School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 35% F- Proba�on 41% K-6 438 389 525 82% 90%14 Riverside School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 38% F- Proba�on 24% PK-6 379 534 625 66% 95%15 George Washington Community School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 23% C- Acad Progress 32% 5-12 763 700 1,750 46% 77%


Area 19

13%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



72%

10%

22%

58%


Area 19

Schools Serving Area 19 Students




Schools in Close Proximity or withinArea 19 Attendance Boundaries




Priority Area Rank 2: Area 19 (zip code 46222 in Indianapolis Public Schools)



5352

Area 4


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grades

2010- 2011 Total

Enrollment

2011- 2012 Total


Mean



1 Hasten Hebrew Academy of Indianapolis Independent Non-Public Schools A- Exemplary 96% A- Exemplary 97% PK-8 180 176 217 93% -2 Saint Luke School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 97% A- Exemplary 96% K-8 577 560 650 90% -3 North Central High School M S D Washington Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9-12 3,392 3,493 3,782 89% 41%4 Spring Mill Elementary School M S D Washington Township C- Acad Progress 77% C- Acad Progress 69% K-5 701 727 825 82% 53%5 Fox Hill Elementary School M S D Washington Township C- Acad Progress 65% D- Watch 60% K-5 680 711 725 91% 67%6 Westlane Middle School M S D Washington Township D- Watch 71% C- Acad Progress 68% 6-8 899 889 900 98% 51%7 Greenbriar Elementary School M S D Washington Township F- Proba�on 51% C- Acad Progress 57% K-5 726 837 625 101% 77%8 Northview Middle School M S D Washington Township F- Proba�on 58% F- Proba�on 53% 6-8 722 790 1,375 55% 64%Area 4

9%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



90%

43%

20%

44%




Priority Area Rank 3: Area 4 (zip code 46260 in MSD Washington Township)


Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 4,734 students lived in Area 4. Of those, 4,618 attendedneighborhood schools; and 116 attended non-neighborhoodschools (109 in charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data analysis calculates that district and charter schools in Area 4 had 3,380 students from grade K-8 and 1,369 students from grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 3,871 for grade K-8 and 1,888 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,893, meaning that 86 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 14 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap number increased to 3,122, meaning that 81 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 19 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,344, meaning that 98 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and two percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap number decreased to 1,608, meaning that 85 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 15 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 4 change in demand for grades K-8 and 9-12 was nominal.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap increased from 2011 to 3,268 seats, meaning that 96 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and four percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap did not change from 2011.




Area 4 --- Citywide Average Area 4

� Rank 1-11 (Priority Areas)� Rank 12-22� Rank 23-32 � Rank 33-42




5554

Priority Area Rank 4: Area 16 (zip codes 46241 and 46221 in MSD Wayne Township)


Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 5,520 students lived in Area 16. Of those, 4,957 studentsattended neighborhood schools; and 563 attended non-neighborhoodschools (112 in public magnet schools and 451 in charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data analysis calculates that district and charter schools in Area 16 had 3,976 students from grade K-8 and 1,563 students from grade 9-12. When independent schools were included the demand number increases to 4,072 for grade K-8 and 1,631 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8, the service gap is 3,589, meaning that 90 percentof seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 10percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schoolswere included, the service gap decreased to 3,445, meaning that85 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 15 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12, the service gap was 1,295, meaning that 83 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 17 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 1,183, meaning that 73 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 27 percent were in category A or B schools.



� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the change in service gap was nominal.

Area 16


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Ben Davis University High School M S D Wayne Township A- Exemplary - A- Exemplary - 10-12 298 349 500 50% 63%2 Bridgeport Elementary School M S D Wayne Township A- Exemplary 63% B- Commendable 66% PK-6 849 802 900 89% 53%3 Rhoades Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 67% B- Commendable 68% PK-6 806 840 800 100% 76%4 Ben Davis High School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 10-12 3,414 3,365 2,950 112% 58%5 Ben Davis Ninth Grade Center M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9 1,264 1,179 1,450 83% 67%6 Stout Field Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 58% C- Acad Progress 59% PK-6 629 647 792 82% 90%7 McClelland Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 56% D- Watch 57% PK-6 683 661 800 81% 75%8 Maplewood Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 52% F- Proba�on 48% PK-6 718 683 768 89% 84%9 Lynhurst 7th & 8th Grade Center M S D Wayne Township F- Proba�on 50% C- Acad Progress 58% 7-8 1,149 1,231 1,430 84% 77%


Area 16

7%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



73%

8%

19%

45%










Area 16


5756

Priority Area Rank 5: Area 3 (zip codes 46228, 46234 and 46254 in MSD Pike Township)


Area 3

Map Symbol Number School Name Corpora on

2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total

Enrollment CapacityU liza on Mean

Percent of Students from Households

Below 185% FPL1 Eagle Creek Elementary School MSD Pike Township A- Exemplary 75% A- Exemplary 74% K-5 535 512 550 89% 45%2 Indiana Math and Science Academy Indiana Math and Science Academy A- Exemplary 60% B- Commendable 62% K-11 483 502 752 46% 74%3 New Augusta Public Academy South MSD Pike Township A- Exemplary 70% A- Exemplary 82% K-5 535 535 650 81% 44%4 Guion Creek Elementary School MSD Pike Township A- Exemplary 67% B- Commendable 75% K-5 590 586 575 97% 57%5 Deer Run Elementary MSD Pike Township C- Acad Progress 52% C- Acad Progress 64% K-5 785 720 650 114% 64%6 Snacks Crossing Elementary School MSD Pike Township C- Acad Progress 61% C- Acad Progress 66% PK-5 717 622 900 75% 63%7 Central Elementary School MSD Pike Township C- Acad Progress 54% D- Watch 61% K-5 668 674 850 82% 66%8 Pike High School MSD Pike Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9-12 3,025 3,080 2,850 103% 46%9 New Augusta Public Academy North MSD Pike Township C- Acad Progress 66% C- Acad Progress 66% 6-8 816 785 900 91% 36%

10 Fishback Creek Public Academy MSD Pike Township D- Watch 72% C- Acad Progress 72% PK-5 580 562 600 95% 29%11 Guion Creek Middle School MSD Pike Township F- Proba�on 44% F- Proba�on 49% 6-8 874 899 950 90% 66%12 Lincoln Middle School MSD Pike Township F- Proba�on 46% F- Proba�on 47% 6-8 869 913 900 99% 66%

Area 3

10%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



89%

35%

19%

33%



Area 4





Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsArea 3 schools did not report student level data. Based on data reported by other corporations, 269 students commute out of Area3. Of those, 109 students attend district schools in other districts,10 attend independent schools and 150 attend charter schools.

2011� In 2011, the demand data calculates that district and charter schools in Area 3 had 4,181 students in grade K-8 and 1,365 students in grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 4,493 for grade K-8 and 1,660 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,273, meaning that 54 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 46 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap did not change.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,322, meaning that 97 percent of seats in Area schools

were in underperforming schools and three percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased slightly to 1,264, meaning that 76 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 24 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 3 demand for grade K-8 decreased to 4,075; and demand for grade 9-12 increased to 1,389.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap increases from 2011 to 2,862, meaning that 70 percent of seats in Area schools are in underperforming schools and 30 percent are in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap changes slightly from 2011 to 1,346, meaning that 97 percent of seats in Area schools are in underperforming schools and three percent are in category A or B schools.






5958

Priority Area Rank 6: Area 32 (zip codes 46229 and 46235 in MSD Warren Township)


Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 6,102 students lived in Area 32. Of those, 5,548 students attended neighborhood schools; and 554 attended non-neighborhood schools (526 in public magnet schools and 28 in charter schools).


� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,247, meaning that 52 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 48 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 2,182, meaning that 48 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 52 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,921, meaning that 100 percent of seats in the schools serving the area were in underperforming schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 1,882, meaning that 94 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and six percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 32 demand for grade K-8 increased to 4,372; change in demand for grade 9-12 was nominal.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap increased from 2011 to 2,902, meaning that 66 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 34 percentwere in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 956, meaning that 49 percent of seats inArea schools were in underperforming schools and 51 percent were in category A or B schools.

Area 32


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Brookview Elementary School M S D Warren Township A- Exemplary 68% B- Commendable 77% K-5 447 596 480 111% 53%2 Sunny Heights Elementary School M S D Warren Township A- Exemplary 68% C- Acad Progress 66% K-5 382 472 550 80% 58%3 Grassy Creek Elementary School M S D Warren Township A- Exemplary 61% C- Acad Progress 63% K-5 383 379 570 66% 48%4 Andrew J Brown Academy Andrew J Brown Academy A- Exemplary 64% B- Commendable 60% K-8 660 633 704 91% 79%5 Eastridge Elementary School M S D Warren Township A- Exemplary 61% D- Watch 58% K-5 487 427 550 79% 55%6 Warren Central High School M S D Warren Township C- Acad Progress - B- Commendable - 9-12 3,620 3,691 3,200 119% 46%7 Creston Middle School M S D Warren Township C- Acad Progress 63% C- Acad Progress 60% 6-8 841 554 600 144% 55%8 Lakeside Elementary School M S D Warren Township D- Watch 56% A- Exemplary 73% K-5 576 547 480 109% 54%9 Creston Intermediate Academy M S D Warren Township D- Watch 62% B- Commendable 69% 5-6 841 584 600 97% -

10 Stonybrook Intermediate Academy M S D Warren Township F- Proba�on 56% C- Acad Progress 57% 5-6 - 630 650 97% -11 Stonybrook Middle School M S D Warren Township F- Proba�on 50% D- Watch 52% 6-8 920 614 650 140% 50%


Area 32

6%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



85%

14%12%

44%










Area 32


6160

Priority Area Rank 7: Area 14 (zip code 46214 in MSD Wayne Township)


Area 14


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Covenant Chris�an High School Independent Non-Public Schools A- Exemplary - A- Exemplary - 9-12 101 325 379 95% -2 Robey Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 72% A- Exemplary 81% PK-6 793 790 850 91% 42%3 Chapelwood Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 51% B- Commendable 61% PK-6 764 874 800 97% 74%4 Ben Davis High School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 10-12 3,414 3,365 2,950 112% 58%5 Ben Davis Ninth Grade Center M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9 1,264 1,179 1,450 83% 67%6 Chapel Glen Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 64% D- Watch 62% PK-6 824 757 840 87% 70%7 North Wayne Elementary School M S D Wayne Township C- Acad Progress 51% F- Proba�on 50% PK-6 863 874 900 92% 71%8 Westlake Elementary School M S D Wayne Township D- Watch 54% D- Watch 51% PK-6 814 848 800 97% 64%9 Chapel Hill 7th & 8th Grade Center M S D Wayne Township F- Proba�on 55% D- Watch 54% 7-8 1,085 1,126 1,450 79% 63%

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 4,088 students lived in Area 14. Of those, 3,716 attendedneighborhood schools; and 372 attended non-neighborhoodschools (70 in public magnet schools, 302 in charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data analysis calculates that district and charter schools in Area 14 had 2,799 students from grade K-8 and 1,309 students from grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 2,871 for grade K-8 and 1,413 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,538, meaning that 91 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and nine percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included,the service gap number increased to 2,553 seats, meaning that 89 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 11 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,185, meaning that 91 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and nine percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap number increased to 1,211, meaning that 86 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 14 percent were in category A or B schools.





Area 14

6%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



88%

27%24%

32%











6362

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 4,371 students lived in Area 25. Of those, 2,861 studentsattended neighborhood schools; and 1,510 attended non-neighborhood schools (1,360 in public magnet schools, 18 in selective enrollment schools and 132 attended charter schools).


� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,830, meaning that 86 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 14 percent were in categoryA or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 2,823 meaning that 77 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 23 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12, the service gap was 1,120, meaning that 96 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and four percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included the service gap was 1,119, meaning that 80 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 20 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 25 change in demand for grades K-8and 9-12 was nominal.


� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 1,045, meaning that 89 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 11 percent were in category A or B schools.

Area 25


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Charles A Tindley Accelerated School Charles A Tindley Accelerated School A- Exemplary 74% A- Exemplary 81% 6-12 422 463 400 93% 63%2 The Challenge Founda�on Academy Challenge Founda�on Academy A- Exemplary 58% B- Commendable 67% K-5 420 475 438 86% 80%3 Arlington Woods Elementary School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 54% A- Exemplary 61% PK-6 541 550 525 86% 88%4 Arsenal Technical High School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress - D- Watch - 9-12 2,374 2,202 3,000 72% 83%5 James Russell Lowell School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 28% F- Proba�on 35% K-6 566 600 650 71% 85%6 Brookside School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 47% F- Proba�on 38% K-6 493 454 625 72% 94%7 Anna Brochhausen School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 37% F- Proba�on 37% PK-6 370 449 350 103% 88%8 KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory KIPP Indianapolis College Preparatory C- Acad Progress 48% A- Exemplary 60% 5-8 207 247 300 77% 59%9 Andrew Academy Andrew Academy D- Watch 49% C- Acad Progress 34% K-8 - 150 168 89% -

10 Arlington Community High School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 14% F- Proba�on 20% 5-12 1,395 1,063 1,750 77% 82%11 Joyce Kilmer School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 23% F- Proba�on 19% K-6 398 410 500 80% 86%12 Thomas Carr Howe Community High School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 33% F- Proba�on 31% 5-12 1,131 1,283 1,650 64% 86%13 Paramount School of Excellence Paramount School of Excellence Inc F- Proba�on 45% C- Acad Progress 50% K-8 - 372 585 64% -


Area 25

2%

84%

6%

27%

Area 25 Citywide Average

Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%

80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



73%

9%

23%

73%













6564

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendancepatterns, 3,759 students lived in Area 35. Of those, 3,510 studentsattended neighborhood schools; and 249 attended non-neighbor-hood schools (243 in charter schools).


� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,785, meaning that 72 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 28 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 1,641, meaning that 64 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 36 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 1,281, meaning that 99 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and one percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap decreased to 1,246, meaning that 94 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and six percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district and charter schools in Area 35 demand for grades K-8 and 9-12 did not change from 2011.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap increased from 2011 to 2,439, meaning that 99 percent of seats in Area schools are in underperforming schools and one percentare in category A or B schools.


Area 35


2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Stephen Decatur Elementary School M S D Decatur Township A- Exemplary 72% D- Watch 66% K-4 405 443 650 66% 64%2 Decatur Central High School M S D Decatur Township C- Acad Progress - C- Acad Progress - 9-12 1,781 1,800 2,200 78% 47%3 Blue Academy M S D Decatur Township D- Watch 66% C- Acad Progress 72% 5-6 507 676 700 77% 62%4 Valley Mills Elementary School M S D Decatur Township D- Watch 71% D- Watch 70% 1-4 656 619 750 79% 51%5 Gold Academy M S D Decatur Township D- Watch 67% D- Watch 66% 5-6 500 669 700 77% 64%6 West Newton Elementary School M S D Decatur Township D- Watch 69% D- Watch 70% 1-4 648 616 675 91% 49%7 Decatur Discovery Academy M S D Decatur Township F- Proba�on 58% D- Watch 47% 7-12 173 - 400 35% 49%8 Decatur Middle School M S D Decatur Township F- Proba�on 57% F- Proba�on 56% 7-8 935 983 1,800 53% 56%


Area 35

2%

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



85%

13%16%

31%





Area 35






Priority Area Rank 9: Area 35 (zip code 46221 in MSD Decatur Township)



6766

Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendance patterns, 3,951 students lived in Area 27. Of those, 2,604 studentsattended neighborhood schools; and 1,347 attended non-neighborhood schools (1,226 in public magnet schools, 23 in selective enrollment school and 98 attended charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data calculates that district and charter schools in Area 27 had 3,030 students in grade K-8 and 958 students in grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 3,438 for grade K-8 and 1,209 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,698, meaning that 89 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 11 percent were in categoryA or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 2,863, meaning that 83 percent of seatsin Area schools were in underperforming schools and 17 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 931, meaning that 97 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and three percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 988, meaning that 82 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 18 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district andcharter schools in Area 27 change in demand for grades K-8 and 9-12 was nominal.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 2,611, meaning that 86 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 14 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 886, meaning that 92 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and eight percent were in category A or B schools.

Area 27

Map Symbol Number School Name Corpora�on

2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total

Enrollment CapacityU�liza�on

Mean



1 Chris�an Park School Indianapolis Public Schools A- Exemplary 57% D- Watch 53% K-6 425 439 375 103% 89%2 Scecina Memorial School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary - A- Exemplary - 9-12 332 332 700 49% -3 St. Therese Li�le Flower School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 74% D- Watch 70% PK-8 143 188 400 52% -4 Saint Philip Neri School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 59% A- Exemplary 63% PK-8 185 185 224 77% -5 Holy Cross Central School Office of Catholic Educa�on A- Exemplary 64% A- Exemplary 62% PK-8 202 172 225 72% -6 Arsenal Technical High School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress - D- Watch - 9-12 2,374 2,202 3,000 72% 83%7 Theodore Po�er School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 54% D- Watch 62% K-6 310 310 500 62% 83%8 Thomas D Gregg School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 38% F- Proba�on 39% PK-6 676 645 775 76% 90%9 Washington Irving School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 49% F- Proba�on 44% PK-6 532 615 875 68% 86%

10 Brookside School Indianapolis Public Schools C- Acad Progress 47% F- Proba�on 38% K-6 493 454 625 72% 94%11 H L Harshman Middle School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 61% B- Commendable 66% 7-8 559 390 775 64% 74%12 William McKinley School Indianapolis Public Schools D- Watch 47% F- Proba�on 47% PK-6 632 547 675 83% 82%13 Thomas Carr Howe Community High School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on - F- Proba�on - 5-12 1,131 1,283 1,650 64% 86%14 Ralph Waldo Emerson School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 41% F- Proba�on 46% K-6 454 390 525 72% 85%15 Emma Donnan Middle School Indianapolis Public Schools F- Proba�on 33% F- Proba�on 26% 7-8 534 612 1,250 45% 84%16 Paramount School of Excellence Paramount School of Excellence Inc F- Proba�on 45% C- Acad Progress 50% K-8 - 372 585 64% 84%


Area 27

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



68%

14%

20%

7%

72%










Area 27




6968

Area 30

Map Symbol Number Corpora!onSchool Name

2011Performance

Grade

2011 Percent

Pass ISTEP

2012 Performance

Grade

2012 Percent

Pass ISTEP Grade

2010-2011Total

Enrollment

2011-2012Total


Mean



1 Christel House AcademyChristel House Academy A- Exemplary 71% A- Exemplary 75% K-8 456 524 510 86% 89%2 Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter Indianapolis Lighthouse Charter School A- Exemplary 53% C- Acad Progress 52% PK-9 625 631 615 87% 88%3 Indianapolis Public SchoolsChris�an Park School A- Exemplary 57% D- Watch 53% K-6 425 439 375 103% 89%4 Independent Non-Public SchoolsBap�st Academy A- Exemplary 72% C- Acad Progress 68% PK-12 161 207 207 89% -5 Office of Catholic Educa�onCentral Catholic School A- Exemplary 74% A- Exemplary 74% K-8 167 163 225 70% -6 Indianapolis Public SchoolsFrederick Douglass School C- Acad Progress 55% A- Exemplary 63% PK-6 382 290 500 54% 90%7 Indianapolis Public SchoolsPaul I Miller School C- Acad Progress 62% D- Watch 58% PK-6 562 567 725 69% 94%8 Indianapolis Public SchoolsEleanor Skillen School C- Acad Progress 55% D- Watch 57% K-6 510 529 650 83% 87%9 Indianapolis Public SchoolsArsenal Technical High School C- Acad Progress - D- Watch - 9-12 2,374 2,202 3,000 72% 83%

10 Fountain Square AcademyFountain Square Academy C- Acad Progress 58% D- Watch 49% 5-12 253 269 300 74% 91%11 Indianapolis Public SchoolsWilliam McKinley School D- Watch 47% F- Proba�on 47% PK-6 632 547 675 83% 82%12 Indianapolis Public SchoolsEmmerich Manual High School F- Proba�on - F- Proba�on - 9-12 957 784 1,875 56% 73%13 Indianapolis Public SchoolsEmma Donnan Middle School F- Proba�on 33% F- Proba�on 26% 7-8 534 612 1,250 45% 84%14 Indianapolis Public SchoolsRaymond F Brandes School F- Proba�on 49% F- Proba�on 53% K-6 296 294 375 73% 90%15 SE Neighborhood School of ExcellenceSE Neighborhood School of Excellence F- Proba�on 46% C- Acad Progress 48% K-6 280 300 330 80% 75%


Area 30

84%

6%

27%


Rank 1-11

Rank 12-22

Rank 23-32

Rank 33-4284%80%

87% 88%86%


high school diploma

19%

33% 32% 31%


bachelor’s degree

19%19% 18% 18% 20%


the past year

6%7% 7%

3%5%


English well

39%

47%

36%

31% 31%



68%

9%

19%

5%

66%





Schools Serving Area30 Students





Enrollment & Service Gap FindingsUsing the data reported by corporations to analyze attendance patterns, 4,295 students lived in Area 30. Of those, 2,693 attendedneighborhood schools, while 1,602 attended non-neighborhoodschools (1,508 in public magnet schools, 30 in public selective enrollment schools and 64 in charter schools).

2011� In 2011, the demand data analysis calculates that district and charter schools had 3,360 students from grade K-8 and 950 students from grade 9-12. When independent schools were included, the demand number increased to 3,924 for grade K-8 and 1,157 for grade 9-12.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 2,930 seats, meaning that 87 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 13 percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 3,137, meaning that 80 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 20 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap was 906 seats, meaning that 95 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and five percent were in category A or B schools. When independent schools were included, the service gap increased to 918, meaning that 79 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 21 percent were in category A or B schools.

2012� In 2012, the demand data analysis calculates that for district andcharter schools in Area 30 change in demand for grades K-8 and 9-12 was nominal.

� For grade K-8 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 2,065, meaning that 61 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 39 percent were in category A or B schools.

� For grade 9-12 in district and charter schools, the service gap decreased from 2011 to 832, meaning that 87 percent of seats in Area schools were in underperforming schools and 13 percent were in category A or B schools.

Area 30

Priority Area Rank 11: Area 30 (zip codes 46203 and 46227 in Indianapolis Public Schools)



7170

The methodology for this study is a supply and demand needs assessment. It calculates the number ofperforming seats available in district and charter schools (and independent schools as a supplement), and subtracts the count from the number of children living in the designated geography. It calculates the difference between supply (performing seats) and demand(students) for each of the two grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12). The data used for this study is from the 2010-2011academic year. However, in light of the new methodologyused by Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) in 2012 to determine school performance, A-F categoriesunder Public Law 221, supply/demand calculations were completed for both 2010–2011 and 2011–2012. Finally, supply/demand is calculated for each of the

42 Areas. The Areas are ranked by the size of their servicegap (difference between supply and demand) and the mean of the ranks across grade division and year, which determines the final rank. The Priority Areas are the 11 areas with the highest overall service gap, based on this ranking system. The study identified these 11 Priority Areas by testing the results of meaning the ranks by year, grade division and school type. The top 11 Areas consistently and reliably remained in the top ranks, while the 12th rank changed. The results of the study are presented by geographic area based on highest to lowest need. In essence, the three components that are the backbone of this study are supply, demand and service gap.

SupplySupply is the number of high-performing seats availablewithin the city; seats in category A or B schools servingeach area are counted as the supply for the geographicarea. Identifying the number of performing seats begins with defining performance, measuring the capacity of performing schools, and mapping the geographic distribution of performance across the county. This studyrelies on the state accountability metrics as defined in Public Law 221, as calculated by IDOE for each year. In Indianapolis, students are tested in grades 3 through 8,and grade 10. IDOE provided the PL 221 results for eachschool, for 2011 and 2012.

To create a uniform unit of comparison acrossschools—regardless of the school’s grade configuration—the grade division analysis disaggregated performanceinto two grade divisions, K-8 and 9-12. This provides amore precise analysis of the service gaps across the city.Schools performing at the A or B level of each grade division count toward the performing seats (supply) forthat grade division. Aggregated to the geographic areas,this approach provides a nuanced assessment of the existing performing seats by grade division.

Performing capacity is the capacity or number of seatsavailable in grade A and B schools for each grade division,and distributed across the areas they serve. For districtschools, the mayor’s charter schools and most Catholicschools, the individual corporation (district, authorizer, or diocese) reported capacity. For the schools that did notprovide a capacity number, the capacity was estimatedbased on the highest enrollment over the past five years.The data presented on capacity and utilization should beinterpreted accordingly. The capacity of a performing school contributed to the

seat count of its respective grade division. If the gradeconfiguration of a category A or B school crossed the K-8and 9-12 grade divisions, the performing capacity wasproportioned across the grades in the school. Minor adjustments were made for several schools that had significantly higher enrollment in particular grades orgrade divisions. Finally, performing capacity is further proportioned to each neighborhood cluster based on theattendance boundary or enrollment pattern of the school.For district neighborhood schools, the performing

capacity was proportioned to geographic areas based onthe percent of overlap between the attendance boundaryand the designated geography. For magnet or specializedschools that draw evenly from the entire district, performing capacity is distributed evenly across the district. For the magnet schools that draw from a boundedarea, the school’s supply was distributed across the attendance magnet boundary. The performing capacity of charter schools and independent schools was based on an analysis of the average distance traveled by private and charter students. In the sample population,

Appendix: Detailed Research Methodology

50 percent of charter and independent school students in Indianapolis traveled 2.3 miles and 90 percent traveledless than seven miles. Thus, half of the performing capacity of charter and independent schools was distributedacross 2.3-mile radius and half between 2.3 miles andseven miles.

DemandDemand is the number of students enrolled in a district or charter school based on where students live—not where they attend school. For districts and charter schools that provided data, each student was assigned an anonymous random identification, each address was mapped, and each was counted in the demand tally for the geographic area in which they lived. Indianapolis Public Schools, MSD of Decatur Township, MSD of Perry Township, MSD of Warren Township, MSD of Washington Township, MSD of Wayne Township, Town of Speedway IndependentSchools, Office of the Mayor Charter Schools, IndianaMath & Science Academy, St. Joan of Arc School and Holy Name School provided data for each student, as of October 5, 2010. This data set is similar to but not the same as the October 2010 audited enrollmentdata, and therefore will be slightly different from published enrollment counts that rely on the school-wideaudited enrollment. For the districts that did not provide data (Beech

Grove City Schools, Franklin Township Community School Corporation, MSD of Pike Township and MSD of Lawrence Township), student data was recreatedwith audited enrollment for each year, and distributedacross the attendance boundary of the schools based on the density of school-age children. For the charter schools (Imagine Schools, Hoosier Academy) and most of the independent schools, a similar methodology distributed students across the mean radius traveled by students (described above). Finally, to calculate the demand for each grade division, IFF counted the total of students living in each designated area by grade division. The grade divisionsums for each designated area represent the current demand for high-performing school seats.

Service GapThe service gap is the difference between the number ofstudents enrolled in schools (demand) and the capacity of category A or B schools (supply). The service gap wascalculated for the public (district and charter) schools and students—for each grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12) andfor each year (2011 and 2012). In addition to these fouranalyses of public schools and students, the service gapwas calculated for all fully accredited and accredited-freeway independent schools, for each grade division andeach year. To identify where the greatest number of children by grade division need access to a high-performingschool, for each year, the study ranks each Area based on its service gap. The highest ranked Area (#1) has thelargest number of students without access to a high-performing school. The independent schools had limitedinfluence on the ranks. The report thus only presents the 2011 data for independent schools as a supplement. At the core of the study is the rank of Area based on its service gap for public schools, for each grade division,for each year.

Priority AreasThe top 11 Priority Areas have the highest mean rank across the grade divisions (K-8 and 9-12) and across the years (2011 and 2012) for district and charter schools (supply) and children (demand). This methodology intentionally finds the Areas with more persistent need across grade division and time. The mean rank across the grade divisions identifies the Areas with the highest need for K-8 and for 9-12, independently. (As an alternative methodology, for example, raw service gap numbers would skew the Priority Areas toward the K-8 rank due to the largernumber of students in the K-8 grades.) The mean rank across the years identifies the Areas with the most persistent need for high-performing seats across time and changes in the performance methodology. The methodology intentionally brings stability and balance to the analysis. The independent schools are not included in the mean calculation for Priority Areas because their inclusion did not significantly alter the service gap or ranking of the Areas.

72

Student CommuteFor student commute out of districts, the IDOE data was used. To analyze student commute patterns fromschools, the home address of the student and the schoolthe student attends was mapped and compared. For the districts and schools that did not provide studentlevel data, no analysis is provided. This data was used to provide two types of analysis. First, IFF analyzed thegrade of schools that served each of the designated geographies. For this analysis, student home addresseswere grouped into their home geographic areas, and presented in a pie chart that represented the grade ofschool attended by the students from each geography(see maps 10, 11, 15 and 16). Second, the study examinedwhere students from the Priority Areas were enrolled, the grade and operator of the school they attended, andthe distance they commuted to the school.

Data SourcesThe Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) provided performance data and audited school enrollment for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, for all schools. Building dataand student-level data were requested from each school district, each charter school authorizer and all the independent schools. All of the district schools, mayor’s office charter schools and most of the Catholicschools provided building data. Seven of the 11 districts provided student-level data: Indianapolis Public Schools, MSD of Decatur Township, MSD of Perry Township, MSD of Warren Township, MSD of Washington Township,MSD of Wayne Township, Town of Speedway IndependentSchools. The mayor’s office charter schools provided data for their schools, and Indiana Math & Science Academy of Ball State provided data. Finally, of the independent schools, St. Joan of Arc School and HolyName School provided student level data. Shapefiles for mapping were provided by Indiana Spatial Data Portal-Indiana University, IndyGIS at The Official Website of the City of Indianapolis and Marion County. Demographic data comes from the 2000 US Census, 2010US Census, 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-YearEstimates, and the 2007-2011 American Community Survey(ACS) 5-Year Estimates.

The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: - IFF.org

Documents

Transcript of The Shared Challenge of Quality Schools: - IFF.org