Warren Elementary Transfer Study v2.01 Feb. 27, 2002

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On December 13, 1999, the Vigo County School Board voted to close Warren Elementary School at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. Warren students were transferred to Meadows Elementary School and Lost Creek Elementary School beginning with the 2000-2001 school year.

Comparing the two years following the Warren transition to the three years preceding it, the percentage of students meeting state standards on ISTEP+ testing has declined, on average, by 2.7 percent at Lost Creek and by 12.9 percent at Meadows. These numbers include adjustments for the lower passing rates of Warren students prior to the transfer and for the loss of Gifted/Talented students from Meadows. The unadjusted data show a decline of 8.9 percent at Lost Creek and 26.6 percent at Meadows. In the two years following the Warren closing, ISTEP+ scores for the total population attending schools affected by the transition -- Warren, Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove -- have shifted from exceeding the average of other Vigo County elementary schools and the state average to trailing them. Indiana Department of Education statistical models indicate that Meadows and Lost Creek currently have four of six ISTEP+ subscores below predicted. No other elementary schools in Vigo County have more.

Numerous studies by educational researchers have indicated a connection between school size and the educational outcomes of at-risk students. Most of these studies advise school sizes no larger than 350 students for at-risk populations, with some researchers suggesting that existing schools with as few as 100 students should be allowed to remain open if they serve at-risk populations. The National Association of Elementary School Principals endorses elementary school populations of not more than 400. At the time of its closing, Warren served a population of 197 students with the second highest percentage of free lunches among twenty elementary schools in Vigo County. The receiving schools currently have populations of 715 (Lost Creek) and 422 (Meadows).

The project management practices used by the Vigo County School Corporation in planning recent school closings and transitions have not followed a consistent process. Particular importance is suggested with respect to involvement of stakeholders, especially in light of the requirement of Indiana Public Law 221, and in the measurement of outcomes and other post project review steps.

The transfer of Warren students to Lost Creek and Meadows appears to have been associated with a significant decline in student outcomes. Additional studies to pinpoint the nature of this decline are recommended. It is recommended that the Vigo County School Corporation initiate a uniform process for school closing transitions that is consistent with Indiana Public Law 221. Finally, it is recommended that the school corporation refrain from transferring at-risk students from schools with populations less than 300 to schools with populations larger than 300, and immediately halt any such transitions that are currently being implemented.

INTRODUCTION

Warren Elementary School, located at 1300 N. 25th St., was named after Eliza B. Warren, the wife of Levi G. Warren who was at one time president of the Terre Haute Branch of the Second State Bank of Indiana.¹ Eliza B.Warren managed the Terre Haute Social Settlement and has been referred to as “Terre Haute’s Jane Addams.”² The building, which was designed by the architectural firm Johnson, Miller, and Miller, was dedicated on May 11th, 1917.³

Warren, which faces east on 25th Street, stands out from among the surrounding structures. It currently resides on approximately six acres of land which accommodates many sizable old growth trees to shade its grounds and frame the property with a sense of history and permanence.

The school that has educated generation after generation of students remains empty, deserted, no longer occupied with the sounds of children learning.

As a smaller neighborhood school, Warren was viewed as a centerpiece of the community. With the considerable size of the land and playground, even today it is visited often by children from the neighborhood, many of which attended the school prior to its closure.

Warren’s location was key to its contribution to the community for many reasons. None of the children had to be bused because the attendance district was in a small radius surrounding the school. Its location also made it convenient for families to participate in functions held at the school and to stay more involved in their children’s education.

The teaching staff has had a tremendous impact on the students that Warren has served. Former student Shelly Jones Moon wrote a touching letter to the Terre Haute Tribune-Star after learning about the closing of the school, fondly remembering one of the more influential teachers she encountered at Warren Elementary, James Morris.⁴

Former principal Bert Nelson, who taught at Warren from 1954 to 1977, described his experiences at Warren Elementary and the various changes that the school and the neighborhood have sustained throughout the years in relationship to the school and the local economy. He fondly recounted high parent participation in school activities like the Parent Teacher Organization, as well as ice cream socials and after school programs, despite the instability of the neighborhood at that time.

Bill Kirby, who later served as deputy superintendent of the Vigo County School Corporation, later recalled his experiences as a fifth and sixth grade student at Warren while Nelson was principal. On one occasion, Nelson took Kirby to his home where they dug up some of the principal’s own bushes to take back to Warren for landscaping.⁵

As time passed, Warren began to face more challenges because of its age. In 1976, a detailed study by Indianapolis architectural firm Everett I. Brown showed renovation and repair costs totaling $1.3 million were required to correct code violations and modernize the school.⁶

By the 1990s, low enrollment and building age made Warren a convenient target for cost-cutting efforts. In January, 1993, the closing of Warren along with two other schools was an alternative considered, but not recommended, by the Vigo County School Corporation administration in response to a projected $2.8 million deficit in 1993.^7,8

Beginning in the fall of 1993, a Vigo County School Facilities Advisory Committee began meeting to consider the replacement or consolidation of older schools in the county. At this time, Warren was the oldest school among the group of buildings being studied.⁹ The committee presented its recommendations to the school board on February 28, 1994. The major recommendations were

Replacement of Riley Elementary and Sarah Scott Middle School in their existing neighborhoods, by fall 1998
Replacement of Franklin Elementary and Warren Elementary by one new school accommodating 500 students, by fall 2002
Replacement of Consolidated Elementary and Fayette Elementary by one new school accommodating 500 students, by fall 2002
Redistricting to occur after the facility recommendations were finalized and after one or two more years of the recently reconfigured K-5 elementary, 6-8 middle school structure¹⁰

Three public hearings were held in April and May of 1994.^11-13 The final recommendation made by the school administration in June, and approved by the board on July 25, 1994, included the Riley and Sarah Scott replacements as well as additions or renovations to Terre Town Elementary and West Vigo High School. It set a deadline of April, 1995 for the administration to present a report on redistricting to the board, and a deadline of June, 1996 for a report on the recommendations to merge Consolidated/Fayette and Warren/Franklin.¹⁴

The redistricting report proved to be controversial, and new districts were not adopted by the school board until March, 1996. Seven schools were affected at the elementary school level, but Warren was not one of them. In fact, all the affected schools were located near the southern and eastern outskirts of the county.¹⁵

It appears as though the Consolidated/Fayette and Warren/Franklin proposals were not followed up as originally scheduled. Eight months after the June, 1996 deadline, school board member Mel Burks was cited in a Terre Haute Tribune-Star article, “Burks said … he’s concerned about a public perception that the needs of other schools – including Franklin, Warren, Consolidated and Fayette elementary schools – continue to go unmet.”¹⁶

By August 4, 1998, the Terre Haute Tribune-Star was reporting, “A Vigo County School Corp. budget committee recommends an updated feasibility study to look at long-term building needs that will focus at least in part on eight elementary schools – Consolidated, Crawford, Franklin, Warren, Fayette, Rio Grande, Fuqua, and West Vigo Elementary.” The article continued by citing then-interim school superintendent Dan Tanoos, “A few years ago, a facility advisory committee made recommendations related to some of the eight buildings, but the recommendations have not been carried out.” Later, the article added, “Tanoos emphasized after the meeting that officials are not talking about closing buildings. We’re committed to the neighborhood school program, he said.”¹⁷

It is not clear why the original recommendations were not carried out. Nor is it clear what caused the abrupt change regarding the closing of Warren as a neighborhood school. Prior to closing the school at the end of the 1999-2000 school year, Vigo County School Corporation and Warren staff indicated that they were having a difficult time educating the children, however it is unclear that the age of the building was in any way responsible. To date, VCSC administrators have not been able to cite any other reason for closing Warren.

Between 1997 and 1999 Warren showed a steady decline in its ISTEP+ scores, which is only one symptom of the underlying problems that the Warren children faced academically.

Despite the educational challenges Warren faced, consolidation may not have been the best course of action for these at-risk children. Aside from the fact that numerous studies indicate that at-risk children perform better in smaller schools, the decision to close the school effectively removed whatever support structure they had left. The children would no longer benefit from the more intimate teaching environment and smaller class sizes, and the families would not be able to remain as involved in the children’s education.

It is even more surprising, knowing that the school was looking at an unfavorable recommendation from Superintendent Dan Tanoos in early August of 1999, that the school corporation would offer the current Warren principal a position at another school, potentially destabilizing the children’s last year at Warren further.¹⁸

This report will show that the schools impacted by the Warren transition have displayed a marked decline in performance while the rest of Vigo County schools have improved, which only raises more concerns about the quality of the decision that was made for the Warren students. Seeing the impact that Warren’s closure had on Lost Creek, Meadows, and Sugar Grove raises questions about the appropriateness of the decision to consolidate these students into larger school populations where they would have to be bused into areas that have a tenuous connection to the community that Warren served.

The trend to consolidate smaller schools into larger ones in Vigo County has been a matter of deep concern for many families. In order to determine whether or not the decision to absorb the Warren children into much larger student populations is a sound one, it became imperative to examine the project management practices of the Vigo County School Corporation and to scrutinize the educational outcomes of the children that have been impacted by the decision to close Warren Elementary School.

A review of the news articles concerning Warren from the time of the decision through the transition phase of consolidation and discussions with some of the parents of the former Warren students indicated that the Vigo County School Corporation made every effort to make the transition as smooth as possible for the children and their families. Despite the best efforts of the Vigo County School Corporation and its dedicated staff to accommodate the children from Warren, the impact and lasting effects of the decision to close the school can best be viewed by comparing their current and past academic performance.

Whatever the intended benefit of the transition process might have been, it is distressing to see what has been lost. Over half of the transferred Warren students lost their Title 1 status, which gives at risk students assistance with reading and language arts. It is possible that outward migration of families from the Warren community has further depressed the local real estate market and local economy leaving many homes and small businesses empty.

It is the intended purpose of this study to illustrate the educational outcomes of the children impacted by the decision to close Warren Elementary School and to examine the project management practices of the Vigo County School Corporation in relationship to the transition of the Warren students into Lost Creek and Meadows.

CLOSING OF WARREN

Warren’s Last Year

It was burdensome for the Warren students and their families to start the school year with so many unanswered questions. In an article in the July 3 Terre Haute Tribune-Star, Vigo County School Superintendent Dan Tanoos confirmed that the administration was studying the closure of Warren, saying, “It’s a possibility this could be the last year of Warren School.” In the same article, parents expressed concern, but expressed a desire to work with the administration. Charlene Robinson, president of the Warren Parent Teacher Organization, was quoted, “We want to go with ideas and solutions, not problems.”¹⁹

In an article appearing in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star on August 10th, 1999 Superintendent Daniel Tanoos confirmed, “Warren is looking at its last year.” Parents continued to express concern about the local economy, the stability of the neighborhood, and what it would mean for the entire community if Warren closed.¹⁸

On September 20, school administrators held a two-hour meeting with concerned parents, staff members, and citizens, at the request of the Warren PTO. Parents expressed concerns about losing the small neighborhood school, about having to bus their children, about losing full-day kindergarten, and about larger class sizes.²⁰

Parents also questioned why the recommendation to combine Warren and Franklin, made back in 1994, had not been revisited. According to the newspaper account, VCSC controller Tom Thornton and VCSC director of personnel John Orr stated, “that would create a school with too high a percentage of minorities, based on a court order from years ago.”²⁰

It is unclear what this comment meant or to which court order the administrators were referring. Franklin Elementary does have one of the highest percentages of non-white enrollment in Vigo County (64 out of 235 students, or 27.2 percent, in 2001-2002)⁴¹ but Warren’s non-white enrollment in its last year was 32 out of 197 students, or 16.2 percent⁵⁹, near the average for Vigo County. Moving some Warren students to Franklin rather than Lost Creek would have reduced the percentage of minorities at Franklin. It is interesting the school which received just under one-half the Warren transfers, Meadows Elementary, currently has 116 non-white students out of 422, or 27.5 percent.⁵² Why was it acceptable to create a higher total number and a higher percentage of non-white students at Meadows than would have been created at Franklin? No explanation has ever been given for this, and no evidence of the “court order” has ever been provided by the school corporation.

In a December 9th Terre Haute Tribune-Star article, school officials are quoted as saying, “The [facility] does not meet the academic needs of students.”²¹ As an academically disadvantaged student population, the continued deterioration of the Warren facility had only served to put undue stress on an already difficult situation.

The departure of Bill Bonar, the principal at Warren in the 1998-1999 school year also was a destabilizing force for the children who depend on predictability to achieve their educational goals. When asked about leaving Warren, Mr. Bonar said, "Mr. Tanoos said he wanted me to take the job at Ouabache. I didn't decline," according to the Terre Haute Tribune-Star, on August 10th, 1999. Mika Cassell was named as his replacement.¹⁸

Parents and community members were not optimistic that the school board would keep the school open after seeing the news media coverage that the situation was getting. The general consensus among the community stakeholders was that the decision had already been made.

When asked about communicating with officials from the Vigo County School Corporation Charlene Robinson, former PTO president of Warren and parent of a former student, indicated that the parents were never given a feasibility study and that they were never involved in the decision making process.

The Decision

On December 13th, 1999 the Vigo County School Board voted 5-1 to close Warren Elementary School at the end of the 1999-2000 school year. Superintendent Dan Tanoos described the decision as difficult, but necessary. His staff explained in detail the challenges of trying to educate children in a building 82 years old,” according to the Terre Haute Tribune-Star on December 14th, 1999.^22,23

The decision to close Warren at this time would mean sending 135-140 children to Lost Creek and about 60-65 to Meadows, according to the redistricting proposal submitted by Superintendent Daniel Tanoos. As a byproduct of incorporating the Warren students into Meadows, the Gifted and Talented program was subsequently moved from Meadows to Sugar Grove Elementary School.²³

Charlene Robinson, president of the Warren Parent Teacher Organization at that time, reacted by saying, “I want people to think about the kids.” Another parent said, “We don’t feel we had a voice in the decision made”, according to the newspaper article.²³

Parents and community members were very disturbed by the vote to close Warren, and were even more distraught by the lack of interest by the Vigo County School Corporation in including them in the decision making process. As stakeholders in the Warren Elementary School area, they felt completely overlooked.

Members of the administration assured them that this was in the best interest of the children. They indicated that empty seats in other schools needed to be filled before they could justify the building of a new Warren Elementary. John Orr, director of personnel for the Vigo County School Corporation said, "Lost Creek and Meadows can accommodate the adjustments in enrollment", according to a Terre Haute Tribune-Star article on September 21st, 1999.²⁰ Despite Mr. Orr's statement, the school corporation did in fact require Meadows to move its entire Gifted and Talented program to Sugar Grove Elementary in order to make enough space to accommodate the Warren students.

The Transition

At this stage, the impact of the Vigo County School Corporation’s decision to close Warren could not be gauged. Naturally, the students’ families had concerns that needed to be addressed. They did not feel that process included them in any substantive way and that the decision itself was not data driven or sensitive to community needs.

Some parents were concerned that the emotional impact that consolidation would have on the children would be devastating and that it wouldn’t be addressed by the school corporation during the transition phase in an appropriate fashion over the course of the children’s last year at Warren.

The level of instability the Warren children had to contend with at the inception of the 1999-2000 school year had been elevated enough by the foreshadowing media coverage, statements made by VCSC administration members, and the added stress of Bill Bonar's departure from the Warren staff.

Fortunately, the Vigo County School Corporation's transition plan included input from the community to try to assist the families throughout the last school year at Warren and to help them get better acquainted with the schools their children would be attending the following school year, Lost Creek and Meadows.

Staff members from the Vigo County School Corporation including teachers and the principals from the receiving schools started meeting with the Warren families to discuss the transition process. Families started suggesting involvement by the PTO, and by parents on an individual basis.

The day after the school board vote to close Warren, transition teams were put together that consisted of staff members and parents from the receiving schools, as well as parents from Warren to assist the children during the transition. In a Terre Haute Tribune-Star article dated December 15th, 1999 Sandy Mutchler, the Meadows Parent-Teacher Association president, said, “I think it’s good to address these issues. The more you can bring things out in the open, the better it has to be.”²⁴

The welcoming staff members from the schools that were to receive the children were very cordial and inviting to the Warren students. They made every effort to welcome them at many events that were held at the receiving schools. Some of the events included the Lost Creek Christmas program where principal Ray Azar, made an outstanding effort to start forging relationships with the students that would be coming to Lost Creek the following year.²⁵

In addition to making trips to Lost Creek and Meadows, the Warren students maintained electronic mail pen-pals to get better acquainted with their future classmates.

Community Impact

Closing neighborhood schools can be, and often is, counterproductive to local community planning. Neighborhood associations and business development groups work hard to increase the standard of living on many levels while school corporations tend to neglect the impact their decisions have. This is why it is paramount that the Vigo County School Corporation maintain an increased level of communication with the stakeholders in the community.

It has been visibly counterproductive for community growth in the Warren Elementary area for the school corporation to exclude stakeholders from school facilities planning projects.

The value of real estate is based on several factors, amenities being one. Real estate listings frequently mention neighborhood schools as a selling point because families with children are more likely to purchase property based on that type of information.

Setting aside the value of real estate, the location of the school is extremely important. People most generally choose to live in an area where they can keep their place of employment and their children’s school in close proximity to home. When a neighborhood school is removed from an established community, one can anticipate the negative impact it will have on the lives of the families in the area. As in the case with Warren, the area has suffered an outward migration of families due to the closure of the school, according to Charlene Robinson, former PTO president at Warren, and active community member.

Data supporting the degree of this migration is found in the actual number of Warren students transferring in August, 2000 – approximately 150³⁷ – compared to the school population of 197 in its final year.⁵⁹ The decrease in transfers was especially severe at Lost Creek, a school located 4.3 miles from Warren, where an original estimate of 135 to 140 transfer students²³ actually amounted to approximately 80.³⁷ Enrollment at Franklin Elementary, which had already been at its highest level in five years prior to Warren’s closing, has increased by eight percent since Warren closed.⁴¹ It is likely some former Warren families relocated in order to attend Franklin, a nearby neighborhood school.

Despite the fact that Warren is no longer open, it is evident that the children still think of it fondly as the playground frequently plays host to its former students.

Deferred Maintenance

Deferred maintenance is, in part, an unfortunate byproduct of the lack of federal and state funding for updating and maintaining older facilities for public agencies like school districts, according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and other similar groups. The lack of funding, however, should not preclude them from doing renovation projects. The National Trust has cited many instances where renovating was more cost effective in the long run.^26,27 One such example is found in Terre Haute. Woodrow Wilson Middle School was rehabilitated for $8 million as compared to a $21 million estimate for replacement.²⁸

Currently, Warren stands in stark contrast to the contribution it formerly made to the children and the neighborhood it once served so well. Looking at Warren Elementary School today, one can hardly imagine that this building was once a thriving center of the community. In examining the grounds of the school, one can find a great deal of litter on the ground. Screens from windows, a rusty chain, extensive graffiti, empty soda cans, and paper are lurking around every corner on the grass, bushes, and playground. The air of desolation is evident in the surrounding structures as well. Empty commercial property mirrors the deserted school on the east side of 25th Street.

After Closing

A program “Remembering Warren 1917-2000” was held in the school on May 24, 2000, followed by an open house.^29,30 Hundreds of former students, teachers, and parents turned out. One of them, 81-year-old Ruth Compton Brocklehurst, reminisced about memories of attending the school in the 1920s, still remembering her fifth grade teacher, Miss Yahn.³¹

Warren’s last day was June 2, 2000. Its children were dispersed to Meadows and Lost Creek. Six Warren teachers were transferred to those schools to aid in the transition. Even the turtle and fish that had been in the school aquarium were sent away – to the Dobbs Park pond. The newspaper account of the final day closes with Charlene Robinson’s words, “It’s sad, but I think they’ll manage. It’ll work out. It’ll work out.”³²

An accompanying article highlighted the fact that Warren students would be attending newer, better-equipped schools with higher ISTEP test scores. VCSC director of elementary education Ramona Wedding was quoted, “[W]e are going to make sure we monitor very closely how these [former Warren] students are doing.”³³

Many families that once took advantage of Warren’s Title 1 status, lost the benefits that it had to offer their children as a result of consolidating the former Warren students into the Lost Creek and Meadows schools. Meadows Elementary maintains its Title 1 status, which is based upon the amount of free and reduced lunches, while Lost Creek Elementary does not meet the requirements. Upon redistricting, Lost Creek was to receive the majority of the Warren students. To make up for the lack of Title 1 status, Lost Creek did institute a Reading Recovery program in the fall of 2000.³⁴

In addition to losing Title 1 status for a majority of the transferred Warren students, Lost Creek and Meadows Elementary Schools did not have full day kindergarten, which Warren did have prior to being closed by the Vigo County School Corporation. As of the current school year, 2001-2002, Lost Creek still has four half day kindergarten classes but no full day kindergarten. Meadows currently has one full day kindergarten class and two half day classes.³⁵

Warren Elementary Title 1 funds were used to pay for a special four week jump-starting program at St. Mary of the Woods College Day Care/Pre-school during July, 2000. This was open to students who would be entering kindergarten in the fall of 2000 and no longer had the opportunity to attend full day at Warren. Nine children from the Warren district attended, though more were eligible.³⁶ It is not known whether the program continued in future years; if it did, some other source of funding would have been necessary.

An article in the August 23, 2000 Terre Haute Tribune-Star described the first day of school for the transferred students, beginning with students waiting for a bus ride. “[T]he day went off without a hitch with transportation,” according to the article. Other details to aid in the transition to Meadows were noted – the fact that several Warren teachers had been transferred there, and lobby furniture and an aquarium moved there from Warren. The article quoted Meadows principal Alice Fuller, “We’re really excited about this year.”³⁷

STUDENT ASSESSMENT DATA

ISTEP Score Trends

ISTEP+ stands for Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress. This is Indiana’s statewide assessment program, administered to students at grades 3, 6, 8, and 10. Grade 3 ISTEP+ assesses Indiana Academic Standards, testing students on the skills they have built in Kindergarten through grade 2. A minimum performance standard is established by the Indiana State Board of Education, based upon recommendations by a group of educators, parents, business and community leaders, legislators, and students.^38,39

According to Dr. Suellen Reed, State of Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, “ISTEP+ provides important information for school systems to determine if they have developed effective educational programs. In this way, the statewide assessment program can help your child’s school improve.”³⁸

A variety of subscores are included in ISTEP+ assessment reports, measuring student achievement in the following subcategories -- Language Expression, Language Mechanics, Vocabulary, Reading Comprehension, Math Concepts and Applications, and Math Computation. Subscores are combined to determine whether a student has met the minimum performance standard in Language Arts and in Mathematics. One of the most commonly reported ISTEP+ measurements is the percentage of students meeting Indiana Academic Standards in both Language Arts and Mathematics. Frequently, this percentage is used to compare and to assess trends in student performance at individual schools, within school corporations, and throughout the state of Indiana.

Table 1 contains percentages of students meeting Indiana Academic Standards at each of the Vigo County elementary schools for the past five years.^40-59 The year indicated at the top of each column is the year in which the test was taken. For example, the results under 1997 represent tests taken in September, 1997 during the 1997-98 school year.

The data in Table 1 illustrate some general tendencies. Statewide, there has been little variation in the percentage of students meeting standards during the last five years. The percentage has ranged from a high of 60 percent in 1999 to a low of 56 percent in 2000. The general trend over this period has been flat; the percentage meeting standards is the same in 2001 as it was in 1997. There have been no major revisions to the test and its structure during this period. Prior to 1997, the amount of fluctuation in statewide percentages was much larger. For that reason, we have chosen to use data since 1997 in order to minimize variation associated with the test itself.

Similarly, data for Vigo County indicate little variation in the percentage of students meeting standards during the years 1997-2001. The percentage has ranged from a high of 58 percent in 2001 to a low of 53 percent in 2000. The general trend over this period appears to be slightly upward. The most recent data, from 2001, show the highest percentage meeting standards of the time period and also exceed the percentage meeting standards statewide for the first time in the five years shown. Furthermore, the change from 2000 to 2001 was an increase from 53 percent to 58 percent, a rather large increase.

Table 1.

Percentage of Students Meeting Indiana Academic Standards

at Vigo County Elementary Schools, 1997-2001.

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
Consolidated	67	56	67	69	49
Crawford	38	22	31	24	57
Davis Park	52	48	45	38	47
Deming	39	33	39	24	44
DeVaney	50	59	57	53	68
Dixie Bee	76	85	80	75	85
Farrington Grove	66	41	52	55	40
Fayette	68	53	61	57	61
Franklin	54	65	72	36	54
Fuqua	47	52	56	46	46
Hoosier Prairie	63	54	57	46	59
Lost Creek	68	67	72	61	59
Meadows	62	73	65	41	39
Ouabache	55	54	49	42	69
Riley	71	59	68	61	81
Rio Grande	65	70	71	81	81
Sugar Grove	53	68	67	67	58
Terre Town	37	46	54	53	43
Warren	38	25	19
West Vigo Elem.	30	41	26	41	36

Vigo County	55.9	56.4	57.1	52.7	58.2
Indiana public schools	57	58	60	56	56
All Indiana schools	58.3	58.7	60.7	56.9	57.6

Data for individual elementary schools show larger variation from year to year. This is expected for two reasons. First, the number of students taking the test at an individual school is much smaller than at the county or statewide level. It is a principle of statistics that the smaller a sample is, the larger the variation associated with statistics measured from the sample.^60-62 Second, there are occasional changes in the school population in individual schools. These are due to attendance boundary adjustments, school closings, and changes in the location of programs such as Gifted/Talented and Learning Disabled.

Looking in particular at trends in these percentages for the last two years, since the closing of Warren Elementary, there are some interesting observations. Only three of seventeen schools showed declines in both 2000 and 2001 – Lost Creek, Meadows, and Terre Town. In the case of Terre Town, the decline represented a change from an unusually high percentage in 1999 to percentages closer to 1997-98 levels in 2001. It is a principle of statistics, known as regression to the mean, that unusually high or unusually low observations are frequently followed by reversals in a trend.^60-62

The data for Lost Creek and Meadows, however, show a fundamentally different pattern. At those two schools, the percentages in 2000 and 2001 are not a return to typical values following a high observation. Instead, they represent a shift from a set of typical percentages in 1999 and prior years to low percentages. The amount of the change is most dramatic at Meadows, but it is noteworthy at Lost Creek because Lost Creek is a large school, with over 600 students in all years listed in the data. Larger schools are expected to have less variation in percentages from year to year because of the sample size effect, in the same way that county and state percentages have little variation.^60-62

Statistical analysis is used to determine whether such a shift could have occurred by chance or random variation, or whether it is a significant difference. It is not surprising that there is a significant difference between average percentages meeting state standards during 1997-99 and average percentages during 2000-01 at Lost Creek and Meadows schools. At Lost Creek, the decrease was from 69.4 percent to 60.5 percent, and at Meadows, from 66.3 percent to 39.7 percent. The only other elementary school in Vigo County that shows a comparable decline is Franklin, which unlike Meadows and Lost Creek, has a history of instability in its ISTEP+ scores. The decrease is significant at a 6.2 percent level at Lost Creek and at a 1.2 percent level at Meadows. There are three potential explanations for the significant decrease.

From 1997-99, a much smaller percentage of the Warren Elementary population was meeting standards than the student populations at Lost Creek and Meadows. Averaging this population into the existing Lost Creek and Meadows populations would be expected to cause a decrease in percentage meeting standards.
As a consequence of the Warren transition to Meadows, the Gifted/Talented (G/T) program at Meadows was transferred to Sugar Grove. Compared to the general student population, a higher percentage of these students would be expected to meet standards. Removing this population from Meadows would be expected to cause a decrease in percentage meeting standards.
As a consequence of the Warren transition to Meadows, a small number of Meadows students were shifted to Lost Creek over a period of years due to a boundary change. (Existing students were grandfathered, causing the transition to spread over years.) This would not be likely to cause a change at either school for two reasons. First, the number of students was expected to be approximately 20 per year, too small to significantly change the characteristics of either school’s population. Second, the two schools had nearly identical populations based upon their similar 1997-99 percentages meeting state standards.

In order to determine whether the observed decrease in Meadows and Lost Creek ISTEP+ percentages meeting standards could be attributed to these factors, an analysis was performed using the following procedure.

At both Meadows and Lost Creek, the comparison populations for 1997 to 1999 were assumed to consist of a combination of the existing populations at those schools combined with the number of Warren students transferred to each school. Table 2 shows the numbers that were used in constructing the populations. Based upon an account in the August 23, 2000 Terre Haute Tribune-Star, it was estimated that 70 Warren children were transferred to Meadows and 80 to Lost Creek.³⁷ Dividing these students evenly among grades 1-5 resulted in 14 additional third grade students taking ISTEP+ at Meadows and 16 at Lost Creek. Actual percentages of students meeting state standards at Warren for each of the years 1997 to 1999 were used to generate the number meeting standards in Table 2.
At Meadows, the G/T students were removed from the populations for 1997 to 1999, as shown in Table 2. The current enrollment in ten split class G/T rooms at 20 grade levels in Vigo County elementary schools is an average of 9.5 students per grade level. In Table 2, a conservative estimate of 12 G/T students taking ISTEP+ for each of the years 1997 to 1999 was used. It was also assumed, again conservatively for the purposes of this study, that all these students met state standards.

By making these adjustments to the populations, Lost Creek and Meadows percentages for 2000-01 can be directly compared to percentages for 1997-99. Both the effect of the lower percentage of Warren students meeting standards and of the higher percentage of G/T students meeting standards are eliminated from the comparison, making the 1997-99 data a valid control group for 2000-01.

Table 2.

Adjustments to Meadows and Lost Creek ISTEP+ Data.

Each entry represents (number meeting standards)/(number taking exam)

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
Lost Creek	66/97	58/86	76/105	83/135	64/108
Add Warren students	6/16	4/16	3/16
Adjusted total	72/113	62/102	79/121	83/135	64/108
Adjusted percentage	64	61	65	61	59

Meadows	42/68	41/56	53/81	35/86	27/70
Add Warren students	6/14	4/14	3/14
Remove G/T students	12/12	12/12	12/12
Adjusted total	36/70	33/58	44/83	35/86	27/70
Adjusted percentage	51	57	53	41	39

Complete information from the Vigo County School Corporation regarding the exact pattern of student transfers was not available in time for the release date of this preliminary study. Assuming that such data are provided in the future, a revised version of the statistical analysis will be performed. We believe that the numbers in Table 2 are a relatively accurate depiction of the missing information, and that any revised data provided by the Vigo County School Corporation will not have a material effect on the analysis or inferences drawn from it.

As can be seen from Table 2, when the ISTEP+ results at Meadows and Lost Creek are adjusted for changes in the school population with the closing of Warren and the transfer of the G/T program from Meadows to Sugar Grove, there is still a decline at both schools. At Lost Creek, the percentage meeting standards dropped from an average of 63.2 percent for the three years prior to the Warren closing to an average of 60.5 percent for the two years since Warren has closed. At Meadows, the decline is much larger – from an average of 52.6 percent before Warren closed to an average of 39.7 percent since Warren closed.

A final analysis of the ISTEP+ data looked at the total performance at four schools – Warren, Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove. In this comparison, no adjustment is necessary, since the changes at the time of the Warren closing merely reallocated students among these schools. Table 3 shows the results of this comparison.

Table 3.

ISTEP+ Data for Students at Lost Creek, Meadows, Sugar Grove, and Warren

Each entry represents (number meeting standards)/(number taking exam)

	1997	1998	1999	2000	2001
Lost Creek	66/97	58/86	76/105	83/135	64/108
Meadows	42/68	41/56	53/81	35/86	27/70
Sugar Grove	28/53	41/60	43/64	47/70	37/64
Warren	9/24	7/28	6/32
Total for four schools	145/242	147/230	178/282	165/291	128/242
Percentage for four schools	59.9	63.9	63.1	56.7	52.9
Percentage for other Vigo County schools	54.8	54.6	55.4	51.6	59.4
Percentage for all Indiana schools	58.3	58.7	60.7	56.9	57.6

The data in Table 3 indicate an abrupt drop in the percentage of students meeting state standards between the September, 1999 ISTEP+ testing and September, 2000. This coincides with the Warren closing transition and the related transition of the G/T program from Meadows to Sugar Grove.

In the three years prior to the Warren closing, an average of 62.3 percent of students at these four schools met state standards. In the two years since Warren closed, an average of 55.0 percent of students met state standards. At the same time, the percentage of students meeting standards at all other Vigo County elementary schools increased from 54.9 percent to 55.5 percent.

The situation is even worse in 2001, the year of the most recent data. The schools affected by the Warren transfer declined nearly four additional percent, and now trail the average of other Vigo County elementary schools by 7.5 percent. If these schools had maintained their 1998 advantage they held over other Vigo County elementary schools, their students would currently be meeting standards at a 68.7 percent rate instead of the 52.9 percent rate that actually exists. This translates to an additional 38 students meeting standards at Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove.

Figure 1 shows how the ISTEP+ scores at the schools affected by the Warren transfer have declined relative to state averages while the average of all other Vigo County elementary schools has increased.

Figure 1.

Comparison of ISTEP+ percentages meeting standards to state average.

Schools affected by Warren transfer versus all other Vigo County elementaries.

Predicted Performance Trends

In addition to the commonly cited ISTEP+ data for percentage of students meeting standards, the Indiana Department of Education tabulates many other results that can be used to assess student outcomes. Among these are ISTEP Subtest Scores Relative to Predicted. These results for the current year, 2001, are contained in the School Profile information available online for each elementary school in the state.^40-59 A sample is shown below as Table 4.

Table 4.

ISTEP Subtest Scores Relative to Predicted 2001-02

Crawford Elementary School

Subject	Performance	Standard Deviation	Actual Score
Language Expression	Above predicted	+0.5	54.1
Language Mechanics	Near predicted	-0.1	57.8
Math Concepts and Applications	Above predicted	+1.3	67.9
Math Computation	Near predicted	-0.2	55.2
Vocabulary	Near predicted	-0.4	49.7
Reading Comprehension	Near predicted	+0.0	51.8

For each of the six subtests, the actual score represents the average score for students at the school based upon Normal Curve Equivalents (NCE). This type of score allows meaningful comparison between different test sections, and also allows averaging of scores to compare groups of students as was done to produce the table.³⁹ Please note that these scores are not percentages of questions answered correctly; instead, scores above 50 represent performance above national averages. Thus, in the example above, the average score of Crawford students was above national averages in five of the six subtests.

The standard deviation in the table is a statistical measurement of how the actual score compares to a model used by the Indiana Department of Education to predict scores. In the model, each of the subtest scores is predicted from Average Cognitive Skill (measurement of student’s ability to learn) and Socio-Economic Status (percentage of students not participating in free lunch program).^63-82 Positive values of standard deviation indicate that the actual score is higher than predicted from the Average Cognitive Skill and Socio-Economic Status of the students. In the example above, the Language Expression score of 54.1 represented 0.5 standard deviations higher than predicted. Even though the Language Mechanics score was higher, 57.8, it was actually 0.1 standard deviations lower than predicted.

The Performance column in the table summarizes the standard deviation in the following way.

If the standard deviation is between -0.5 and +0.5, the performance is categorized as “Near predicted.”^63-82 Approximately 38 percent of schools in the state will fall into this category on a given subtest.^60-62
If the standard deviation is between +0.5 and +1.5, the performance is categorized as “Above predicted.” If the standard deviation is larger than +1.5, the performance is categorized as “Far above predicted.”^63-82 Approximately 31 percent of schools in the state will fall into one of these categories on a given subtest.^60-62
If the standard deviation is between -0.5 and -1.5, the performance is categorized as “Below predicted.” If the standard deviation is smaller than -1.5, the performance is categorized as “Far below predicted.”^63-82 Approximately 31 percent of schools in the state will fall into one of these categories on a given subtest.^60-62

Although the online School Profile information only contains ISTEP Subtest Scores Relative to Predicted for the current year, online data for ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted are available for each school in graphical and tabular form for years back to 1987. These data are graphs and tables of standard deviations for each subtest for each year.^63-82 Using these data, Table 5 was constructed.

Table 5.

Number of ISTEP Subtests Below Predicted or Far Below Predicted

at Vigo County Elementary Schools, 1987-2001

	Number of subtests below predicted, by year
School	01	00	99	98	97	96	95	94	93	92	91	90	89	88	87	Avg
Consolidated	1	0	0	2	0	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	3	0.6
Crawford	0	2	0	5	4	2	5	2	0	1	6	0	2	2	3	2.3
Davis Park	0	0	0	1	1	3	2	0	0	1	1	2	1	1	0	0.9
Deming	2	6	3	1	0	2	1	2	0	1	2	0	0	0	1	1.4
Devaney	0	0	0	1	0	3	1	0	3	2	3	3	3	2	2	1.5
Dixie Bee	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0.2
Farrington Grove	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.3
Fayette	1	3	0	1	0	3	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.7
Franklin	0	0	0	0	0	3	1	0	3	1	4	1	0	2	0	1.0
Fuqua	1	1	0	2	1	3	4	3	0	0	4	6	6	5	6	2.8
Hoosier Prairie	0	5	1	1	0	1	1	1	2	0	1	2	2	1	2	1.3
Lost Creek	4	2	2	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0.7
Meadows	4	3	1	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	3	1.0
Ouabache	1	2	1	1	1	1	2	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.8
Riley	0	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0.4
Rio Grande	0	0	0	0	1	2	0	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0.3
Sugar Grove	2	1	0	0	0	4	1	1	2	3	1	0	1	1	3	1.3
Terre Town	1	2	0	0	2	0	1	5	3	0	1	0	0	0	1	1.1
Warren				4	5	2	5	4	1	0	1	0	3	5	4	2.8
West Vigo	4	1	5	3	6	3	3	4	1	2	1	4	3	1	3	2.9

Average for year	1.2	1.6	0.8	1.2	1.2	1.8	1.4	1.4	0.8	0.6	1.3	0.9	1.1	1.3	1.7	1.2
Total for year	22	31	15	24	23	36	28	27	16	12	25	18	22	25	33	357

In Table 5, entries of zero represent the best possible performance by a school – no subtests below predicted, while entries of six represent the worst possible performance – all subtests below predicted. Since 31 percent of schools in the state will classify as below predicted or far below predicted, for six subtests we would expect 31 percent of six, or about 1.9 subtests, to fall into this range when a large number of schools are averaged.^60-62

The first comment that can be made about these results is that they provide strong evidence for the general excellence of Vigo County elementary schools. In none of the fifteen years shown, from 1987 to 2001, have the Vigo County elementary schools ever averaged more than 1.8 subtests below predicted. Compared to the state as a whole, Vigo County elementary schools have better student outcomes than would be expected based upon Average Cognitive Skill and Socio-Economic Status of the students.

Secondly, very few individual Vigo County elementary schools are performing poorly by this measurement. Only four of twenty schools average more than 1.9 subtests in the below predicted range over the fifteen years. Two of these four, Crawford and Fuqua, have been performing well for the past three years.

Currently, Franklin has gone five consecutive years without a single below predicted subtest score. Prior to this year, Farrington Grove had gone six years with zero below predicted subtest scores. Dixie Bee (1989 to 1998) and Lost Creek (1987 to 1996) went ten years without a single below predicted subtest score.

After excellent performance for many years, Lost Creek began to decline in this measurement beginning in 1997. The trend has continued through the Warren transition between the 1999 and 2000 data. In 2001, Lost Creek declined again, to four of six subtests below predicted. This tied for the worst performance by this measurement in Vigo County elementary schools.

The situation at Meadows was even more dramatic. From 1988 to 1999, Meadows never had more than one subtest below predicted in a given year. Dixie Bee and Riley were the only two other schools that could make the same claim. Since the Warren transition between the 1999 and 2000 data, Meadows declined to three subtests below predicted in 2000 and four in 2001, tying Lost Creek (and West Vigo) for the worst performance among Vigo County elementary schools in 2001.

Interestingly, Sugar Grove, the other school affected by the Warren transition when it received the Meadows G/T program, also has begun to decline. After three consecutive years of zero subtests below predicted from 1997 to 1999, Sugar Grove is the only other school besides Meadows to decline in both 2000 and 2001. With two subtests below predicted in 2001, Sugar Grove is tied with Deming for the next worst performance among Vigo County elementary schools after Meadows, Lost Creek, and West Vigo.

A simple test of statistical significance can be made with these data by answering the following questions.

How likely is it that the two schools most affected by the Warren transition – Meadows and Lost Creek – would be among the three worst perfoming relative to predicted in 2001?
How likely is it that all three schools affected by the Warren transition – Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove – would be among the five worst perfoming relative to predicted in 2001?

The answer to the first question is 1.8 percent. The answer to the second question is 1.0 percent. Both of these are statistically significant.^60-62

The schools affected by the Warren transition have begun to show a pattern of below predicted performance on ISTEP subscores relative to a model which accounts for the average cognitive skill and average socioeconomic status of their students. At Meadows and Sugar Grove, the pattern of decline began with the Warren transition; at Lost Creek, an existing pattern of decline continued and accelerated following the Warren transition.

OPTIMUM SCHOOL SIZE FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS

It has long been a point of contention in educational research whether a school can be too small or too large to be effective. In the early 20^th century, Ellwood Cubberley, a professor and urban school superintendent, was a leading voice in the school consolidation movement. Having seen what he believed to be positive administrative and institutional effects from the large schools created in urban areas, Cubberley promoted rural consolidation as well.⁸³ These views became accepted into the mainstream of American education for decades, reinforced by other landmark works such as James Conant’s, “The American High School Today,” published in 1959.⁸⁴ Conant argued that small high schools were inadequate from a curricular standpoint. Ironically, his view of a large high school -- one with at least 300 to 400 students – wwould be considered a small school today.

The effect of school consolidation can be summarized well by these data. Between 1940 and 1990, the total number of elementary and secondary public schools in the United States declined 69 percent while the U.S. population was increasing by 70 percent. As a consequence, the average school enrollment rose by just over a factor of five, from 127 to 653.⁸⁵

In the last fifteen years, a number of researchers have begun to do quantitative studies on the educational outcomes of students in schools of different sizes. Since Warren Elementary is the topic of this report, the focus here will be research on elementary schools.

One of the foremost researchers on issues of school size is Kathleen Cotton, a Research Associate with Northwest Regional Education Laboratories’ School Improvement Program. During 1987-96 she coordinated the development of the School Improvement Research Series, a collection of syntheses of educational research literature on topics of current interest and feature articles showcasing exemplary school programs from around the U.S.

In one of the articles in this series, “School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,”⁸⁶ published in 1996, she reviewed 103 documents which identify a relationship between school size and some aspect(s) of schooling. Of these, 24 of the documents were classified as primary source studies and evaluations or secondary source reviews concerned with elementary schools.

About half of the student achievement research cited in the article finds no difference between the achievement levels of students in large and small schools. The other half finds student achievement in small schools to be superior to that in large schools. None of the research finds large schools superior to small schools in their achievement effects, based upon studies of school grades, test scores, honor roll achievement, subject-area achievement, and assessment of higher-order thinking skills. These results are found even when other factors besides size are held constant, including student attributes, staff characteristics, and setting of the school.

Furthermore, research shows that the effects of small schools on the achievement of ethnic minority students and students of low socioeconomic status are the most positive of all.

This theme recurs throughout studies of other factors in Cotton’s article.

Student attitudes toward school in general and toward particular school subjects are more favorable at small schools than at large ones, and “the attitudes of low-SES and minority students are especially sensitive to school size and benefit greatly from attending small schools.”
“Small schools have lower incidences of negative social behavior, however measured, than do large schools. The social behavior of ethnic minority and low-SES students is even more positively impacted by small schools than that of other students.”
Although large schools offer more varied activities, the average student at a small school has more involvement in the available activities. This is “most applicable to minority and low-SES students.”⁸⁷
Students in smaller schools have higher attendance rates than those in large schools, students who change from large schools to small schools generally exhibit improvements in attendance, and “the minority or low-SES student is the most profoundly affected.”

Cotton lists several factors cited in the studies which lead to the positive effects of small schools.

Everyone’s participation is needed for clubs, teams, and activities. Individual students are less likely to be redundant, overlooked, or isolated.⁸⁷
People in small schools come to know and care about one another to a much greater degree than is possible in large schools.^88,89 “This applies to relationships among students, among staff members, between staff and students, and between the school and its surrounding community.”
Parents are more likely to be involved in small schools. Quoting a study by Walberg, “This can occur partly because the school is smaller but also because it is likely to be physically and psychologically close to students’ homes.”⁸⁵
“The learning needs of students, not the organizational needs of the school, drive school operations.”⁸⁸
Teachers in small schools are more likely to try innovative teaching strategies and assessment techniques.⁹⁰

The exact size which defines a small school is not precisely defined by all researchers. Cotton uses an upper limit of 400 students for an elementary school, which is near the high end of the limits cited by other researchers.

A study of 150 small schools in Chicago done by Bank Street College of Education defined small schools as those housing 350 or fewer students.⁹¹
The Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform also sets an upper limit of 350 students for a small elementary school.⁹²
Margaret Plecki analyzed data from approximately 4,500 California elementary schools. She found that in urban schools serving high percentages of students in poverty, student performance was highest in schools with under 200 students.⁹³
Craig Howley, one of the leading quantitative researchers on this issue, believes that elementary schools with as few as 100 students should remain open if they serve at-risk populations.⁹⁴

It is noteworthy that the National Association of Elementary School Principals has the following Platform Position: ”NAESP recognizes the research that indicates small schools are more likely to foster a sense of nurturing, belonging, and school community. NAESP endorses elementary school populations of not more than 400.”⁹⁵

Many of the research articles do not set a specific limit on school size to define a small school, but rather use statistical regression techniques to study the effect of school size on student achievement outcomes. These studies, which have included complete analyses of data from every public school in four entire states, consistently show that any decrease in school size is associated with improved performance of at-risk students.^96-104

At the time of its closing, Warren Elementary had 197 students. The enrollment during the period 1994-1999 had fluctuated in the range 197 to 228 students.⁵⁹ This would have met the definition of a small elementary school as defined by the previously cited researchers. Warren served an at-risk population with 74 percent of its students receiving free lunches in 1999-2000, its last year of operation.⁵⁹

Slightly less than half of the former Warren students currently attend Meadows Elementary, which has 422 students, 50 percent of whom receive free lunch.⁵² The remainder currently attend Lost Creek Elementary, which has 715 students, 26 percent of whom receive free lunch.⁵¹ Neither of these schools would meet the definition of small school as defined by any of the researchers cited.

The research would suggest that transferring students from Warren would result in a decrease in student achievement. Based upon ISTEP+ data, it seems difficult to believe this could happen because Warren students already performed very poorly. During its last five years of operation, the closest Warren came to meeting the state average for percentage of students meeting standards was in 1997, when 38 percent of Warren students met standards compared to 58 percent of students statewide. In the last year Warren was open, only 19 percent of its students met state standards on ISTEP+, compared to 61 percent statewide.⁵⁹ The school ranked 1,105 out of 1,117 elementary schools in Indiana.¹⁰⁵

It is not possible to say whether the performance of Warren students has changed since they were transferred to Lost Creek and Meadows, since data tracking only the former Warren students are not available. It is possible to assess the change in educational outcomes for the current total student populations at Lost Creek and Meadows as individual schools, and also for the total population currently attending Lost Creek, Meadows, and Sugar Grove. As shown in a previous section of this report, student performance on ISTEP+ has declined significantly by several measures.

The sad conclusion, in our opinions, is that VCSC closed one of the worst performing elementary schools in the state of Indiana -- and by doing so, decreased student achievement outcomes lower than they would have been had Warren remained open. Although it is not clear what other alternatives could have been considered – in addition to keeping Warren open – one that comes to mind would have been the transfer of some of the Warren students to Franklin Elementary. This school is closer to Warren than either Meadows or Lost Creek, close enough that many students that had walked to Warren could have walked to Franklin. Furthermore, Franklin is a much smaller school than either Meadows or Lost Creek. In the last five years, enrollment at Franklin has varied from 196 to 235 students.⁴¹ At Franklin, Warren students would have benefited from a small school, and one which was performing adequately in ISTEP+ testing despite having the highest percentage of free lunches in Vigo County.^41,64

In fact, it is possible that one of the factors causing an increase of 17 students, or eight percent, in Franklin’s enrollment since the Warren closing was families that moved to avoid having their children sent to Lost Creek. When the school board voted to close Warren in December, it was estimated that Meadows would receive 60 to 65 students and Lost Creek would receive 135 to 140.²¹ The actual numbers were approximately 70 to Meadows and 80 to Lost Creek.³⁷ Former Warren parent and PTO President Charlene Robinson has suggested that many families moved to avoid sending their children to Lost Creek. She also mentioned that at the time of the Warren closing, some parents suggested that Warren and Franklin students be consolidated into a new facility at the Franklin location.²⁰

Although their ideas apparently fell on deaf ears in 1999, it is noteworthy that in December, 2001, the school administration used the need for a new facility at Franklin to attempt to justify the closing of Crawford Elementary. An article in the December 7, 2001 Terre Haute Tribune-Star describes a meeting between Vigo County School Superintendent Dan Tanoos and Crawford Elementary parents, where Tanoos alluded to facility issues. The article concludes, “At some point, a replacement school will have to be built for Franklin Elementary, which opened in 1921. Tanoos suggested a new school could serve Franklin students and former Warren students.”¹⁰⁶ Whether the former Warren parents feel it is appropriate to have their children redistricted yet again to fit the building plans of VCSC does not seem to have entered into consideration.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

It is essential for any organization to utilize a standard process for putting in motion the best of their ideas. When an effective internal model is created, consistency and quality are ensured, and future projects that have a similar scope may be developed with a minimal amount of rework.

With respect to the closing of Warren Elementary and similar proposals, it is not clear that the Vigo County School Corporation has a standard process in place. It appears that many projects involving school expansions and closing are approached on an ad hoc basis.

Proposal Process

Each proposal submitted for approval should be in a consistent format. This makes it possible to compare aspects of different proposals and also provides a consistent framework for developing new proposals.

All available forms of data must be exhausted. School corporation decisions should not rely solely upon internal forms of data, but should incorporate external sources of objective information to the extent that they can supplement or enhance decision making. Furthermore, internal data should include study of historical precedent which may provide insight on future decisions.

It is not clear that any written proposal was provided at the time that the Warren closing was considered by the Vigo County School Board. Parents involved in the process do not recall the existence of a written proposal. On the other hand, when VCSC proposed to close Crawford Elementary during 2001, they did provide a “Crawford School Study”¹⁰⁷ to justify the closing. It appeared that the provision of this study was contingent upon the perceived outcry of affected parents and other members of the community, especially after these groups began to receive media attention. This appears not to have been present in the Warren situation.

Several problems with the respect to use of data are apparent in the Warren closing and similar VCSC decisions. For example,

Data on operating costs, such as the cost of busing students who previously walked to school, do not appear to be quantified carefully or at all.
Enrollment projections are based solely upon internal school corporation information. It is not clear that the projection models, if they can be described as such, have ever been historically verified. In the case of the proposal to close Crawford School, a representative of a parents’ group provided 2000 census data indicating the neighborhood school age population was stable, not declining as VCSC claimed. In fact, the census data showed the neighborhood school age population to be increasing dramatically in the area served by the school to which most of the Crawford students would be transferred.^108-112 When a school board member questioned why these data should not be considered, the school superintendent insisted on using only the internal projections.
Data on the success of student transitions and on the educational outcomes of students after transfer to new schools are not gathered.

Proposal Elements

Scope

The scope of a project is a reflection of the objectives that directly correspond to the need(s) the project addresses. It is necessary to have a clearly defined picture of the desired results in relationship to the schedule, deliverables, and associated costs in order to determine and explain what is being accomplished.

It is also important to establish boundaries for the project so that the goals can be achieved in the most efficient way possible, without getting off-track and essentially doing side projects in the process. Boundaries can be very helpful for putting the scope into perspective for the project's approving body so they can see a more vivid illustration of the project without having to sift through unnecessary information.

The scope is intended to summarize and communicate an idea. Although more specific details may be interesting it is not appropriate to put them here. This section explains the project in a manner that everyone can read. The project management team may consist of people of varying educational backgrounds and expertise. It is essential that everyone be able to determine, from reading the scope, what the project is about without overwhelming them with information that may not apply to their level of participation.

With respect to the Warren closing and other similar actions by the VCSC, it is not clear that a scope was formally defined. Deliverables seem to be added or removed in an ad hoc manner as the proposal develops. As late as the day of the school board vote on the proposal to close Crawford School in 2002, the board was still vacillating on whether the issue was independent of other facilities projects or should be considered along with them.^113,114 It appeared that the school administration manipulated the meeting agenda to attempt to counteract the public outcry of the Crawford supporters with other members of the public who supported facilities projects at other schools.

Deliverables

Deliverables are the specific and tangible goals that are required for project success. It is important to have some deliverables that are solid and tangible in addition to ones that are more abstract.

The deliverables expand on the scope of the project detailing each individual objective and the steps that are necessary for achieving them.

As a project progresses past acceptance, it is important to constantly evaluate the feasibility and need of the project deliverables. If and when a deliverable changes it is more cost effective to adapt and communicate the nature of the change than to rework sections of the project.

Deliverables in the case of the Warren closing and similar actions do not seem to be explicitly formulated. Some are well defined even if not done formally – describing the transfer patterns and number of students affected, for example – while others are implicit at best – providing a smooth transition process, improving educational opportunities for affected students.

Acceptance Criteria

The acceptance criteria are established by describing the intended outcomes in relationship to the scope.

If the deliverables aren't questioned after they are implemented there is no way to ensure quality results. The acceptance criteria should contain a list of questions that challenge the feasibility of the deliverables as well as question the appropriateness of the scope.

With the Warren closing and similar actions, there appear to have been no acceptance criteria defined. In fact, there is not even a clear understanding of specific outcomes beyond the generalities of the deliverables. One might expect, for example,

that specific outcomes related to the transition process could be defined and measured
that the effect of the closing and transfer process on educational outcomes could be defined and measured
that outcomes related to economic considerations could be defined and measured

None of this appears to have been done with respect to the Warren closing. When opponents of the proposed Crawford closing questioned some of these points in the aftermath of Warren, no information was ever provided to them.

Stakeholders

A stakeholder can be defined as anyone that has a vested interest in the project, at any stage. In addition to obvious stakeholders such as students and teachers, these might include people from the community and from local businesses.

It is important to list the individuals or groups that could be impacted by the acceptance and implementation of the project and how they relate to the project in order to determine how they should participate.

The importance of stakeholder involvement extends beyond the reasonableness of including affected parties in the decision-making process. Since the adoption of Indiana Public Law 221 in 1999, there are legal implications if a school plan is not properly constructed. According to IC 20-10.2-3, Strategic and Continuous School Improvement and Achievement Plan, effective July 1, 2001, “The initial plan and annual review must be made with input from a committee of persons interested in the school, including administrators, teachers, parents, and community and business leaders appointed by the principal.”^115,116

As described previously, the Warren closing followed a pattern in which no stakeholder involvement was allowed in the formulation of the proposal. The only action potentially affected parties could take was to speak against the proposal during the citizen comment portion of the school board meeting.

The closing of Warren Elementary predated the effective date of this provision of P.L. 221. However, when the closing of Crawford Elementary was proposed and eventually approved by the Vigo County School Board on January 14, 2002, it appears that no effort was made to abide by IC 20-10.2-3.

In addition to the lack of a plan consistent with IC 20-10.2-3, required by the letter of the law, VCSC made little attempt to involve teachers, parents, and community and business leaders in any aspect of the Crawford School closing proposal. The cover letter of the “Crawford School Study” states, “The following pages are a compilation of information gathered by central office administrative staff [italics ours] over the course of the last few months.” The document contains no references to information provided by the Crawford School principal, teachers, parents, nor by community and business leaders.

Representatives of two community organizations, Historical Landmarks Foundation of Indiana and Farrington’s Grove Historical District, were asked by VCSC personnel to justify their advocacy on behalf of Crawford parents attempting to challenge the closing proposal. This left the impression that VCSC viewed these community organizations as outsiders which should not have been participating in the process rather than the stakeholders which they were both in fact and under the provisions of P.L. 221.¹¹⁷

Some board members of Farrington’s Grove Historical District also found objectionable content in the “Crawford School Study,” in a statement which appeared to indicate the district was experiencing a conversion of family housing to apartments.

Obstacles

There are two basic types of obstacles. There are deliverable specific and project specific obstacles.

Deliverable specific obstacles directly relate to each objective outlined in the deliverables section of the project proposal. This might indicate issues with allocating resources to facilitate the completion of a certain deliverable.

Project specific obstacles reflect problems that arise as a result of the project as a whole.

If the obstacles can be anticipated in the planning phase of a project, it can spare a great deal of time and energy. It is suggestible to communicate any foreseeable problem, large or small, in the project proposal so that the allocation of resources can be adjusted accordingly.

The Warren closing encountered few explicit obstacles. This resulted principally from the fact that the proposal was not presented formally so that it was difficult to question specific deliverables. At the school board meeting where the Warren closing was approved, affected parents at Warren and other schools questioned deliverables such as busing resources for after-school programs and the transfer of some students and programs from Meadows Elementary to Lost Creek Elementary and Sugar Grove Elementary.²³ A project specific obstacle was the loss of Title I support for the Warren students transferred to Lost Creek which was not eligible for Title I.²⁴

The fact that these obstacles were overcome with little effort was not so much a reflection that the underlying issues and problems were solvable, but rather that the stakeholders questioning them were not well organized and had little community support.

The situation with the Crawford School closing, approved by the school board on January 14, 2002, was quite different. Stakeholder groups including parents and other community groups organized early in the process and presented a united opposition. They were assisted by school board members sympathetic to their cause. Apparently unlike Warren, the school administration prepared a document, the “Crawford School Study,” to justify their recommendation to the school board.

Copies of the study¹⁰⁷ -- dated November, 2001 on the cover, with a cover letter dated December 7, 2001 – were finally released to the public on December 13, 2001. Stakeholders immediately seized on the information to present a number of deliverable specific obstacles.

Transfer patterns for Crawford students were defined with counts for four schools receiving the affected students. The original stakeholders used this information to expand the stakeholder base to parents at two of the receiving schools, some of whom began to question the proposal.
According to stakeholders, economic arguments for closing the school were based upon unrealistic cost estimates. These criticisms received added credibility when an article in the December 27, 2001 Terre Haute Tribune-Star stated that the VCSC chief financial officer estimated the cost of necessary renovations at approximately one quarter of the $5.26 million cited by an architect’s report in the study.¹¹⁸
Prior to the release of the study, one stakeholder stated that he anticipated it would contain data on the educational outcomes of the Warren students who had been transferred two years previously. When neither the study nor any other information provided by the school administration contained such data, several stakeholders began to question the deliverable of improved performance of Crawford students after the proposed transfer to other schools. Some parents affected by the Warren transition to Meadows and Lost Creek also began to lend their support to the Crawford stakeholders.

A major project specific obstacle cited particularly by community groups, but also supported by parents, was that the Crawford closing would remove the school as a neighborhood anchor, and make the surrounding neighborhood, a National Register Historical District, less desirable for families with young children. These stakeholders used materials provided by the National Trust for Historic Preservation to focus their opposition on these points.^26,27

The fact that stakeholders continued to attend VCSC board meetings after the board voted to close the school indicates that obstacles were not properly anticipated. In fact, after an initial large decline in interest after the vote, the number of citizens commenting at board meetings on issues related to this closing has begun to increase.^119,120,126

As a direct result of the failure of VCSC to provide data on the effects of the Warren closing and transition process, Crawford stakeholders have produced this report.

Resources

When describing what resources are required for a project it is important to be specific. When a project is accepted and the work begins, there is an expectation of the project stakeholders and managers of the team to get the project done with the amount of resources that were outlined in the project proposal. If and when there are inaccuracies it can reflect negatively on the team and its leaders and cause delays in the implementation.

At the very least the allocation of the following resources should be addressed.

· Time

· Money

· Labor

· Tools, Structures, and related infrastructure

When estimating the total cost of a project it is easy to misrepresent the actual cost. A dollar amount should be assigned to all resources. Also, it is crucial that all costs be put into context.

In the case of both the Warren and Crawford closing, close attention was paid to the cost of capital investment to renovate and repair the schools. Little attention was paid to the operating cost changes associated with the closings. The opening page of the Crawford School Study states, “The annual savings from closing Crawford School is of minimal financial impact to the school corporation’s budget.” In various newspaper accounts, the operating cost savings was given in the range of $175,000 to $200,000.^121,122

In fact, it is not clear that there was any cost savings in the case of Warren, nor that there will be any if the Crawford closing proceeds. The usual policy of VCSC in such closings is stated clearly in the Crawford School Study, “The Vigo County School Corporation has in place a proven process, which addresses the issue of assuring all staff members of a school, which is closed, of continuing employment. The process worked during the closing of Warren Elementary School, and no staff member lost employment due to the closing of the school. … The absolute employment fact is that no Crawford Elementary staff member will lose employment with the Vigo County School Corporation.” It seems likely that there was no labor cost savings associated with the Warren closing.

The amount of operating cost savings outside of labor costs is not large. In November, 1997, an article in the Terre Haute Tribune-Star discussing school budget cuts cited Vigo County School Superintendent Betty Poindexter, “But since 90 percent of the general fund budget is for personnel, it’s impossible to make significant cuts without impacting personnel.”¹²³

Using the 90 percent number as a rough estimate, the remaining general fund budget items would total approximately one-ninth of personnel costs. According to data provided to the Indiana Department of Education by VCSC, teacher salary costs at Warren Elementary in its last year were approximately $558,000 (15.4 full time equivalent teachers multiplied by an average salary of $36,263).⁵⁹ One-ninth of this number is approximately $62,000. The corresponding numbers for Crawford Elementary in 2001-2002 are $477,000 in teacher salaries⁴⁴ and approximately $53,000 in other costs. This number is approximately one-quarter of the savings cited by the school corporation in the newspaper accounts.

Building maintenance and utilities costs probably represent much of this savings, yet the school corporation has failed to provide these data in their proposals. In the case of Warren, it was anticipated that the school would be quickly sold, but in fact it remained on the market nearly two years and was sold for a fraction of its original asking price.¹²⁰ During this time, utilities continued to be paid on the vacant building.

A potential operating cost increase in the case of a school closing is transportation costs related to busing students to new facilities. Again, the school corporation has failed to provide these data in the specific case of Warren. A reasonable estimate can be made using the annual transportation operation cost per student given on the Transportation page of the VCSC website, $288.19.¹²⁴ Multiplying by 150, the approximate number of former Warren students requiring busing to Lost Creek and Meadows, none of whom were bused to Warren, gives an annual busing cost of approximately $43,000.

The actual number may be higher because former Warren students are bused longer distances, on average, than most other VCSC students who ride buses. Meadows, at 1.2 miles, is the third closest school to Warren, but over half of the former Warren students are bused to Lost Creek when ten of the other eighteen remaining elementary schools in Vigo County are closer. See Table 6 for data on the distances from Warren to other Vigo County elementary schools.¹²⁵

Table 6.

Distance from Warren Elementary to Other Elementary Schools in Vigo County

	School	Distance in miles
1.	Deming	0.8
2.	Franklin	1.0
3.	Meadows	1.2
4.	Davis Park	1.6
5.	Devaney	2.2
6.	Ouabache	2.5
7.	Sugar Grove	2.8
8.	Terre Town	2.9
9.	Crawford	3.0
10.	Farrington Grove	3.8
11.	Fuqua	4.1
12.	Lost Creek	4.3

Acceptance

The acceptance phase of a project proposal is more abstract. It requires a great deal of thought and consideration.

It is important to establish a process for acceptance, which usually includes

· Evaluating the need and feasibility, as described in the scope

· Reviewing deliverables in a comprehensive fashion

· Involving the stakeholders and including their feedback

· Evaluating obstacles

· Allocating resources that are consistent with the goals of the organization

· Developing acceptance criteria that are comprehensive and appropriate

Acceptance is contingent on whether the scope makes sense, the deliverables are obtainable, the stakeholders approve and are willing to participate, the obstacles are not insurmountable, and the resource needs are reasonable.

It is essential that the acceptance process use a clear and well defined set of criteria.

Neither the Warren closing nor the Crawford closing followed a defined set of criteria using steps such as those listed above. In both cases, a plan was promulgated by the school administration, with no involvement by stakeholders, and presented to the school board with little opportunity for review or revision.

Implementation

The implementation process is accomplished by carefully coordinating the efforts of the project team and the stakeholders.

Stakeholder participation is essential for smooth implementation. It is important to remember that these individuals will feel the impact of the project more than anyone else. Communication with project stakeholders throughout the implementation process should be as complete as possible.

It is crucial that the project management team check and recheck the deliverables to ensure quality. Deliverables evolve over the lifecycle of a project. They need to remain adaptable to whatever circumstances surround the project.

In the Warren closing, much of the implementation effort centered around the transition process for students. During the discussion at the December 14, 1999 Vigo County School Board meeting at which the board voted to close Warren, parents, principals, board members, and administrators all alluded to the importance of the transition process.²³ A team of parents and staff began meeting the next day to begin planning the transition.²⁴ By the following Friday, three days later, 200 Warren students were attending a Christmas program at Lost Creek.²⁵ A variety of other activities throughout the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year allowed Warren students and families the opportunity to visit their new schools.

The school administration has considered the transition process at Warren to be favorable. For example, when VCSC Superintendent Dan Tanoos met with Crawford parents on December 6, 2001 to tell them he would be recommending the closing of their school, the Terre Haute Tribune-Star reported, “Tanoos said the transition would model what was used at Warren Elementary, which closed in June 2000. Children had opportunities to visit the new school and interact with children there. Parents had the same opportunities. The transition went smoothly at Warren, he said.”¹⁰⁶

Looking back at the transition process, parents at Warren and Meadows who were involved have raised two points of criticism.

In some cases, parents were not made aware of transition activities in a timely fashion.
The school corporation built up expectations of problems that never materialized, while avoiding discussion of specific logistical issues raised by parents.

It is clear that the school corporation did place considerable importance on the student transition, and that a great deal of effort was expended in activities in support of the transition.

Interestingly, when some citizens and parents continued to fight the Crawford School closing after the school board vote of January 14, 2002, the school administration criticized them for impeding the transition process and suggested their actions would hurt the involved children.

Post Project Review

Project success is measured by carefully scrutinizing project deliverables.

The review process is very revealing. It exposes strengths and weaknesses of the entire process and helps to generate suggestions for improvement of the project model.

The lessons that are learned in the post project review process are vital for the ongoing success of future projects.

Did the scope accurately reflect the goals of the project?
Were the acceptance criteria comprehensive?
Have the deliverables been met?
Were the stakeholders involved in a meaningful way?
What difficulties were encountered when overcoming obstacles?
Were resource needs correctly represented during the process?
Did the acceptance phase follow an established process?
Did the implementation process involve all stakeholders in a meaningful way?
What processes need to be refined?
Were the outcomes in line with the anticipated results mentioned in the scope?

In the case of the Warren Elementary closing, there appears to have been little or no post project review. Many of the points listed here have been discussed previously. Focusing on the last point reveals some major deficiencies.

The transition process has been cited as a model of smoothness, but no outcomes related to the transition process were defined or measured.

One of the justifications for closing Warren was the inadequacy of facilities. It was assumed that student performance would improve when they were placed in better facilities at Meadows and Lost Creek. When Warren closed, VCSC executive director of elementary education Ramona Wedding said, “[W]e are going to make sure we monitor how these [former Warren] students are doing.”³³

However, no information regarding educational outcomes of these students was ever provided by the school corporation. In fact, the administration has resisted the suggestion that the ex-Warren students be studied on the basis that after the successful transition, there was no need to consider them separately from the existing school populations at the receiving schools. Their view is that there are no longer any Warren students, only Meadows and Lost Creek students.

As the statistical information in the Student Assessment Data section of this report shows, there apparently have been some negative educational outcomes at the schools affected by the Warren closing and transition. The fact that the school corporation would propose closing Crawford Elementary, making many of the same claims that were made in the case of Warren, is evidence that VCSC needs to institute a meaningful post project review and many of the other project management steps described here.

CONCLUSIONS

The closing of Warren Elementary School in June, 2000 and subsequent student transitions have apparently led to a significant decline in student educational outcomes at the three elementary schools affected by the transitions -- Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove. Before the Warren closing, the four schools combined had an average percentage of students meeting state standards on ISTEP+ testing that exceeded state averages and the average of all other Vigo County elementary schools. Since the Warren closing, the three remaining schools, drawing from the same population boundaries as before, have an average percentage of students meeting standards that is below state averages and below the average of all other Vigo County elementary schools. Other analyses of ISTEP+ data in various forms result in the same conclusions.

The consensus of recent educational research is that small schools are particularly crucial in the education of at-risk children. Although it has been hypothesized that students might benefit from increased opportunities in larger facilities, no studies specifically designed to test this hypothesis show an improvement in student outcomes. Many studies show the opposite – that small schools inhibit the power of poverty and other risk factors and lead to improved outcomes for at-risk children. This may provide an explanation for the decline in outcomes seen when Warren Elementary was closed and students were transferred among Meadows, Lost Creek, and Sugar Grove.

The project management procedures used by the Vigo County School Corporation in the Warren closing and transition and also those used two years later in the closing of Crawford Elementary School do not appear to follow best practices. In addition to the inconsistency of the process, it is especially weak with respect to involving stakeholders in meaningful aspects of decision making, as is currently required by the provisions of Indiana Public Law 221. Another major shortcoming of the process is the lack of post project review in the form of assessment of measurable outcomes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors of this study recommend that the Vigo County School Corporation institute additional studies to pinpoint the nature of this decline in student outcomes associated with the transfer of Warren students to Lost Creek and Meadows and the other student transitions made concurrently.

The authors of this study make the following two recommendations regarding the practices of the Vigo County School Corporation.

1. The school corporation should institute a set of project management practices to standardize the process used for major decisions such as school expansions, closings, and consolidations. The process should, at the very least, involve meaningful stakeholder participation to insure its legality pursuant to Indiana Public Law 221, and include significant post project review of its outcomes.

2. The school corporation should refrain from transferring students from schools serving at-risk populations when the transfer would result in students moving from a school with population less than 300 to a school with population larger than 300. An effective definition of a school serving an at-risk population is one which is Title I eligible. Any such transitions that are currently being implemented should be immediately halted.

REFERENCES

V. Introduction

1. “School names extend history,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 1 July 1996.

2. Wabash Valley Profiles, “Robert Hunter,” sponsored by Terre Haute First National Bank, Terre Haute Tribune-Star, date unknown,

www.indstate.edu/community/vchs/wvp/hunterrobert.pdf

3. “History of Linton-Stockton High School,” Linton-Stockton School Corporation, http://www.lssc.k12.in.us/Projects/history/high_school.htm

4. “James Morris deserves memorial in his honor,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 23 January 2000.

5. “Principal ends heralded tenure,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 21 May 1995.

6. “Physical study of existing Warren Elementary School,” Everett I. Brown Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, 1976, Vigo County Public Library Special Collections.

7. “Warren parents fear it’s next,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 21 January 1993.

8. “Board: Pay cuts will cut deficit,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 26 January 1993.

9. “County’s wallet not big enough,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 27 October 1993.

10. “Schools report disturbs parents, officials alike,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 1 March 1994.

11. “No surprises at hearing,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 21 April 1994.

12. “’North end’ vocal at second hearing,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 27 April 1994.

13. “Patrons voice final concerns,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 6 May 1994.

14. “School Board OKs school plans,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 26 July 1994.

15. “Board OKs new districts,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 12 March 1996.

16. “$1.4 million bond deal OK’d,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 25 February 1997.

17. “Feasibility study needed for schools,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 4 August 1998.

18. “’Warren is looking at its last year,’ Vigo superintendent says,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 10 August 1999.

VI. Closing of Warren

19. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 July 1999.

20. “Tanoos to recommend closing of elementary,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 21 September 1999.

21. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 9 December 1999.

22. “Warren Elementary closing tops agenda,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 13 December 1999.

23. “Lost Creek and Meadows principals vow to work closely with students,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 14 December 1999.

24. “Transition team begins meetings to brainstorm, offer its suggestion,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 15 December 1999.

25. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 18 December 1999.

26. Rubman, K., “A Community Guide to Saving Older Schools,” Preservation Books, National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C., 2000.

27. Beaumont, C.E., and Pianca, E.G., “Historic Neighborhood Schools in the Age of Sprawl: Why Johnny Can’t Walk to School,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C., 2000.

28. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 24 April 1994.

29. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 May 2000.

30. “Remembering Warren,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 22 May 2000.

31. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 June 2000.

32. “Kids, parents, staff say goodbye to Warren,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 June 2000.

33. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 3 June 2000.

34. “Early intervention is key, educators say, to helping students become independent,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 11 October 2000.

35. “Official Enrollment, September 14, 2001,” Vigo County School Corporation.

36. “Warren’s closing means different schedule for some just starting school,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 6 July 2000.

37. “Dedicated staff, familiar faces help youths cope with making transition,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 23 August 2000..

VII. Student Assessment Data

38. “ISTEP+, A Parent and Student Guide,” http://doe.state.in.us/publications/pdf_istep/isteppg03.pdf

39. “A Guide for the News Media and Others In Understanding ISTEP+ Results,” http://doe.state.in.us/istep/mediaguide99.html

40. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Adelaide De Vaney Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8510&rad=rad8

41. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Benjamin Franklin Elem School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8533&rad=rad8

42. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Blanche E Fuqua Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8537&rad=rad8

43. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Consolidated Elementary Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8497&rad=rad8

44. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Crawford Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8493&rad=rad8

45. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Davis Park Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8505&rad=rad8

46. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Deming Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8509&rad=rad8

47. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Dixie Bee Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8511&rad=rad8

48. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Farrington Grove Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8517&rad=rad8

49. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Fayette Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8521&rad=rad8

50. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Hoosier Prairie Elem School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8543&rad=rad8

51. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Lost Creek Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8549&rad=rad8

52. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Meadows Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8561&rad=rad8

53. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Ouabache Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8575&rad=rad8

54. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Riley Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8593&rad=rad8

55. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Rio Grande Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8525&rad=rad8

56. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Sugar Grove Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8605&rad=rad8

57. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Terre Town Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8607&rad=rad8

58. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, West Vigo Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8609&rad=rad8

59. Indiana Department of Education, “School Statistics, Warren Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8617&rad=rad8

60. Box, G.E.P., Hunter, W.G., and Hunter, J.S., “Statistics for Experimenters,” John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1978.

61. Mendenhall, W., and Scheaffer, R.L., “Mathematical Statistics with Applications,” Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts, 1973.

62. Hogg, R.V., and Tanis, E.A., “Probability and Statistical Inference,” MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1977.

63. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Adelaide De Vaney Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8510&rad=rad4

64. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Benjamin Franklin Elem School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8533&rad=rad4

65. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Blanche E Fuqua Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8537&rad=rad4

66. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Consolidated Elementary Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8497&rad=rad4

67. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Crawford Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8493&rad=rad4

68. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Davis Park Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8505&rad=rad4

69. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Deming Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8509&rad=rad4

70. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Dixie Bee Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8511&rad=rad4

71. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Farrington Grove Elem Sch,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8517&rad=rad4

72. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Fayette Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8521&rad=rad4

73. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Hoosier Prairie Elem School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8543&rad=rad4

74. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Lost Creek Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8549&rad=rad4

75. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Meadows Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8561&rad=rad4

76. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Ouabache Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8575&rad=rad4

77. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Riley Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8593&rad=rad4

78. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Rio Grande Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8525&rad=rad4

79. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Sugar Grove Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8605&rad=rad4

80. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Terre Town Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8607&rad=rad4

81. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, West Vigo Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8609&rad=rad4

82. Indiana Department of Education, “ISTEP Results Relative to Predicted, Warren Elementary School,” http://dew4.doe.state.in.us/htbin/schlu.sh?hidden=8617&rad=rad4

VIII. Optimum School Size for At-Risk Students

83. Cubberley, E., “Rural Life and Education: A study of the rural-school problem as a phase of the rural-life problem,” Houghton-Mifflin, New York, 1922.

84. Conant, J., “The American High School Today: A First Report to Interested Citizens,” McGraw-Hill, New York, 1959.

85. Walberg, H.J., “On Local Control: Is Bigger Better?”, in Source Book on School and District Size, Cost, and Quality, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Oak Brook, Illinois, 1992.

86. Cotton, K., “School Size, School Climate, and Student Performance,” Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Portland, Oregon, 1996, http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/10/c020.html

87. Schoggen, P., and Schoggen, M. “Student Voluntary Participation and School Size,” Journal of Educational Research, 81(5), 1988.

88. Berlin, B.M., and Cienkus, R.C., “Size: The Ultimate Educational Issue?”, Education and Urban Society, 21(2), 1989.

89. Sergiovanni, T., “Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory,” Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 1994.

90. Raze, N., “Instructional Implications for Small Schools: A Review of the Literature,” San Mateo County Office of Education, Redwood City, California, 1985.

91. Wasley, P.A., Fine, M., Gladden, M., Holland, N.E., King, S.P., Mosak, E., Powell, L.C., “Small Schools: Great Strides, A Study of New Small Schools in Chicago,” The Bank Street College of Education, New York, 2000.

92. Fine, M., and Somerville, J., eds., “Small Schools, Big Imaginations: A Creative Look at Urban Public Schools,” Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform, Chicago, 1998.

93. Plecki, M., “The relationship between elementary school size and student achievement,” presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, 1991.

94. Howley, C., “Dumbing Down by Sizing Up,” The School Administrator, 54(9), 1997, http://www.aasa.org/publications/sa/1997_10/howley.htm

95. “Small or Large? The debate over school size,” Communicator, National Association of Elementary School Principals, 2001(Nov.), http://www.naesp.org/comm/c1101.htm

96. Friedkin, N., & Necochea, J., “School system size and performance: A contingency perspective,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(3), 1988.

97. Huang, G., & Howley, C., “Mitigating disadvantage: Effects of small-scale schooling on student achievement in Alaska,” Journal of Research in Rural Education, 9(3), 1993.

98. Bickel, R., and Howley, C., “The Matthew Principle: A West Virginia Replication?,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 3(18), 1995, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v3n18.html

99. Howley, C., “Compounding disadvantage: The effects of school and district size on student achievement in West Virginia,” Journal of Research in Rural Education, 12(1), 1996.

100. Irmsher, K., “School Size (ERIC Digest),”. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, Eugene, Oregon, 1997, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 414 615.

101. Raywid, M.A., “Small Schools: A Reform That Works,” Educational Leadership, 55(4), 1997, http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9712/raywid.html

102. Howley, C. B., & Bickel, R., “The Matthew project: National report,” Rural Challenge Policy Program, Randolph, VT, 1999.

103. Bickel, R., and Howley, C., “The Influence of Scale on School Performance: A Multi-Level Extension of the Matthew Principle,” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(22), 2000, http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n22

104. Howley, C., Strange, M., and Bickel, R., “Research About School Size and School Performance in Impoverished Communities,” ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools, Eugene, Oregon, 2000, http://www.ael.org/eric/digests/edorc0010.htm

105. Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 9 February 2000.

106. “Tanoos: Crawford will close,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 7 December 2001.

IX. Project Management Practices

107. Vigo County School Corporation, “Crawford School Study,” Terre Haute, Indiana, November, 2001.

108. U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Table P14, Sex By Age For The Population Under 20 Years,” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?ts=28994732860

109. U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Table P14, Sex By Age For The Population Under 20 Years,” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?ts=28993936880

110. U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Table P14, Sex By Age For The Population Under 20 Years,” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?ts=28994341570

111. U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Table P14, Sex By Age For The Population Under 20 Years,” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?ts=28992894890

112. U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data, Detailed Table P14, Sex By Age For The Population Under 20 Years,” http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?ts=28993062250

113. “Crawford question,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 11 January 2002.

114. “Board: Crawford will close,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 15 January 2002.

115. Indiana Department of Education, Public Law 221 Infocenter, “Standards, Assessment, School Improvement, and Accountability (P.L.146-1999, P.L.193-1999, and P.L.221-1999),” http://www.doe.state.in.us/pl221/statute.html

116. Indiana Department of Education, Public Law 221 Infocenter, “Approved Rule for School Improvement Plan,” http://www.doe.state.in.us/pl221/improveplansboeapproved.html

117. “Groups value school’s history,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 28 November 2001.

118. “Critics: renovation price inflated,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 28 December 2001.

119. “School board members discuss trimester schedule,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 29 January 2002.

120. “Crawford School proponents suggest new academic study,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 12 February 2002.

121. “Meeting doesn’t calm parents,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 9 November 2001

122. “Attorney joins Crawford conflict,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 12 January 2002.

123. “Teachers, parents lash out at proposal to slice 60 jobs,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 25 November 1997.

124. Vigo County School Corporation, “General Services – Transportation,” http://galileo.vigoco.k12.in.us/~gendpt/trans.htm

125. Maps on Us: Show Route, http://MapsOnUs.switchboard.com

126. “Crawford supporters remain vocal at meeting,” Terre Haute Tribune-Star, 26 February 2002.

REVISION LIST

February 25, 2002	Preliminary Version	As originally released
February 27, 2002	Preliminary Version 2.0	Added “Warren Friends” on inside back cover, added Revision List on page 48, revised acknowledgements and table of contents Added reference 126 on page 47, cited on page 31 Corrected total number of elementary schools in Vigo County at the time of Warren closing from “eighteen” to “twenty” on pages 1 and 20 Corrected typographical, wording, and grammatical errors in cover letter and on pages 2, 6, 8, 9, 11
February 27, 2002	Preliminary Version 2.01	Corrected number of schools excluding Warren and Meadows from “sixteen” to “eighteen” on page 32 Corrected typographical, wording, and grammatical errors on pages 7, 8, 9