Steering Committee Working Draft

8/18/2019 Steering Committee Working Draft

1/221

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 1

This report was done as part of an 8-week review at the request of theMayor’s office in collaboration with the district. Findings are preliminaryand indicate potential options for leadership consideration

INTRODUCTION

What this work IS NOTWhat this work IS

! These are not recommendations

– Further analysis is required toidentify specific opportunities andto implement

–

Public conversations abouttradeoffs required for manyoptions

–

Strategic process to weigh costsand benefits of options would be

needed to transform to

recommendations! Exact analysis to predict how much

money the district will save

! Exploration of potential options toimprove student achievement, lowerdistrict costs and drive operationalefficiency

!

Estimates of ranges of savings toidentify magnitude of savings fromvarious options

! Collaborative idea generation anddiscussion with district to bringinsights to light


2/221


The core focus of this review is on student outcomes inpursuing improved operational effectiveness and reduced costs, all whileengaging and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders

Multiple considerations are essential

Costeffective-

nessStudent

outcomes

Operationaleffective-

ness

Stakeholderengagement

Opportunities for BPS have been prioritizedwhile keeping all of these factors in mind

! Ultimately, improved student outcomes is thegoal of any effort to reduce cost and inefficiencyand reallocate those funds where they can domore for students

! Beyond students, considering the impact onteachers, parents, and other stakeholders is

critical to identifying the most beneficial andfeasible improvements

INTRODUCTION


3/221


Glossary of termsINTRODUCTION

Term Definition

English Language Learner (ELL) Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluencyin English appropriate with their grade level

Students with Disabilities (SWD) Students who have been formally evaluated by BPS and have been found tohave a disability that requires additional resources to meet the student need,beyond a traditional general education setting

Inclusion Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the generaleducation and special education populations and is research proven to be abetter approach to special education for the entire student population

Individualized Education Plan (IEP) When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP isdesigned by the school team to meet that student’s needs

Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy(OTPT)

OT is individualized support for students to help them acquire basic skills fordaily living (e.g., self-grooming, self-feeding, self-dressing); PT isindividualized support for developing motor skills (e.g., walking, jumping,lifting)

Food and Nutrition Services (FNS) FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students

Office of Instructional and InformationTechnology (OIIT)

OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technologicalservices and hardware to the employees and the students of the district

Pull-out vs. push-in Current special education practices in BPS require the “pulling out” ofstudents from general education settings to receive additional resources; a“push in” method leaves the student in the general education classroom,while ensuring that the resources meet her/him where they are


4/221


Contents

! Executive summary

! System overview

! Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

!

Phase II: Area deep dives

! Phase III: Capturing opportunities

! Appendix


5/221


Executive summaryEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

! BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics muchdifferent from the city of Boston and SWD and ELL populations that outpace

state and national averages! While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant

number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds thinacross the system and lessening the impact of resources on a per pupil basis

! To concentrate resources more effectively for students, BPS can right-size thedistrict to reflect current and projected BPS enrollment

! Over a quarter of the BPS budget goes towards Special Education, meaning thatsmall changes in student classification can translate to large BPS savingsand better learning environments for students. A move towards inclusion,currently underway, has a 12-year horizon that – if executed well – will improve

special education student outcomes and lead to substantial cost savings

!

As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addressesoverextension issues, the BPS central office will have an opportunity toaddress some of the misaligned parts of the organization, driving performanceand capturing operational efficiencies in other areas like transportation, foodservices and maintenance


6/221


Overview of BPS opportunitiesCapturable, but time-sensitive

Capturable

Activity

Right-sizethe BPS

Footprint

! Consolidate ~30-50 schools$1.7m savings per school

!

Sell 30-50 closed school buildingsestimated value $4.1m per school

$50-85M /yr

$120-205M one-time

Specialeducation

! Phase in of inclusion $63M /yr after full phase-in(currently FY26)

Transport!

Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,from current 0.16 mile

$6-19M /yr

Savings opportunity FY16

One-timeFY17 FY18

$1-3M /yr

! External paraprofessionals $9-11M /yr

! External related service providers $8-10M /yr

FoodServices

! Target meal participation to improverevenues

$5M /yr

! Centralize food preparation

$1-3M /yr

Main-tenance

!

Contract out for the 137 nightcustodian work

$1-3M /yr

!

Contract out all maintenance to singlecontractor

! Immediate opportunities to save ~$20-40m in FY16 if intense focus and execution placed on activities

! With bold decisions and focus, annual savings could total ~$200M /yr, and additional $120-200m one-time benefit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


7/221DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 7

2,375

2,191

3,480

1,031

1,105

1,7124,051

17,455

Adminis-trators

Generaleducationclass-rooms

534

School-levelsupport

BuildingsBilingualSPED(includingtransportation)

Trans-portation

976

BenefitsCentraloffice

Total1

! Central officesupport functionscapture a lot ofspend, withsubpar systems

for managingtowardsimproved operat-

ions outcomes

! An overextendedBPS footprintstretches limitedfunds over a

large number ofschools

!

Special educationdrives per pupilexpenditures butonly reaches20% of students

Source: BPS FY15 all funds

1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high

! $3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%is the “foundation” of each school

! These funds are spread across all 128

schools

2

Per pupil spending

$, per student

14% of per pupildollars are going tocentral officefunctions and support

20% of perpupil dollarsare directly for

SPED students

1

3

BPS’ per pupil spend is higher than peer averages, while just 36% of spendgets to all students in the classroom

DRAFT

BPS per pupil spendis 11% higher than thepeer average of$15,7552

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


8/221DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 8

BPS Potential Opportunities DRAFT

Key facts

Opportunity toreorganizecentral officeUp to ~$27M

ongoing reduction

! Superintendent has 18 direct reports, making system goal-setting, alignment and focus difficult! System goals are not tracked systematically, with a deep need for performance management systems to align central

metrics that matter (e.g., students eating lunch, buses on time) with student outcomes and manage staff and systemperformance better

!

If system moves towards right-sizing, up to $27M may be possible through ongoing reductions in support to smallerfootprint

Opportunity tospeed SPEDreforms~$17-21M in FY16

and ~$63M longer-

term annually

! Moving Boston in-line with state and national averages is better for students and translates to ~$5M saved for every% point decline

! Outsourcing paras and specialists can reap immediate savings of $15-$20M,but requires discussions withstakeholders

! The move to inclusion, already underway, can serve BPS students significantly better, but comes with substantialupfront investments whose financial benefits will not begin coming until 4 years out

! There is an opportunity to think about inclusion sequencing to get benefits faster and reduce net investments

Opportunities toimproveoperationsthrough policy~$10-33m/yr

! BPS bus riders average a 0.16 mile walk to their bus stop, 59% of students walk less than a 0.25 mile!

Moving the target walk to a 0.25 miles walk would reduce bus stops and could save $6-20M! Moving to district-wide maintenance contract would align incentives with contractor and could save ~$5M in annual

maintenance costs

! BPS is currently spending more per pupil on contracted meals, which student taste tests view as lower quality, andcan improve participation, changes in delivery and participation could capture ~$2-8M

Opportunity toconsolidate~30-50 schools~$51-85m/yr plus

~$120-200m

one-time

! BPS enrollment down 17% over last 20 years and 50% since 1970s! BPS currently has ~93K total physical seats with only ~54K seats filled

! The system is overextended with declining dollars stretched over, same number of buildings and declining studentcount

! Consolidating 30-50 schools could reduce annual spend by ~$51-85M

! Building sales could bring additional one-time ~$120-200M, while avoiding additional, unneeded CapEx! Right-sized system would concentrate more dollars in fewer schools, improving quality and breadth of student

resources

! Immediate opportunities for savings in FY16 total ~$20-40m if real focus is brought to opportunity areas

! With bold decisions and focus, savings over the next 2-3 years can total ~$200M / yr, with additional one-time benefits

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


9/221

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 9Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)

DRAFTValues survey reveals there is a desire for more accountabilityand less bureaucracy in the Central Office

1

Most experienced values

1.

Internal Politics (41)

2.

Bureaucracy (25)

3.

Accountability (15)

4.

Lack of shared purpose (14);Customer focus (14)

Most desired values

1.

Being collaborative (39)

2.

Accountability (33)

3.

Excellence (28)

4.

Equity (21)

Least experienced values1.

Efficiency (28)

2.

Equity (27)

3.

Accountability (25);Employee focus (25)

4.

Fear (12);Trust (12)

Least desired values1.

Inconsistent (40)

2.

Bureaucracy (37)

3.

Slow moving (31)

4. Silos (30);Internal Politics (30)

Therefore, BPS could consider

! Defining what accountability looks like for its Central Office

! Reducing the internal politics and bureaucracy currently experienced

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


10/221


! BPS can reduceits footprintbased on thelarge differencebetween its

enrollment and itscapacity

! Projectionssuggest noadditional spacewill be needed inthe future

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary andSecondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data

Schools vs. student population# of school programs, # BPS students

DRAFT

0

50

100

150

54,000

66,000

62,000

64,000

56,000

58,000

60,000

012 1311 201510090807060504 140201200099 039796951994 98

With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continueto cover the system’s “fixed costs” including the buildings but also theprincipals and school staff which are present at each location

Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but thenumber of schools has remained relatively constant

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


11/221


Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect~$1.7M before property sales

1 Assumed 2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1

Description Prior cost Cost afterclosing

Savings afterclosing

Consolidateclassroom staff

!

With fewer staff, BPS could commensuratelyreduce teaching staff

! The average teacher – student ratio goesfrom 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162

$3.8m $2.3-2.8m $1.0-1.5m

“Foundation”for school staff

! The “foundation” money is no longer neededby the school

$200k $0 $200k

Averagecustodialsupport

! Custodial support is no longer required atthe building but may increase by 30%1 atreceiving schools

$166k $50k $116k

Averagebuildingmaintenance

! Maintenance is no longer required but mayincrease by 30%1 at receiving schools

$191k $57k $134k

Averageutilities

! The closed buildings no longer needs tospend on utilities (including electric, gas,water, and telecom)

$260k $0 $260k

$1.7- 2.2mTotal

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

Source: Team analysis; BPS Office of Finance

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


12/221


While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bringthe promise of a better future for BPS

Source: BPS data

DRAFT

! ~$51-85M in run-rate savingsgarnered from closing 30 – 50schools

! Guaranteed set of electives orspecials at all schools (e.g.,Physical Education, Art)

! Expanded before- and after-schoolprogramming for students in all

schools

!

Greater portfolio of teacher supportsand resources (e.g., instructionalcoaches, first-year mentors,counselors)

!

~$120M in one-time cash fromproperty sales of 30 – 50 schools

! Funds to build 1 state-of-the-art

high school (~$30M) and 9 state-of-the-art lower schools (~$10M each)

While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choosehow it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs betweenconsistency across schools and school autonomy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


13/221


SPED is ~25% of the BPS spend and 73% of its costs are in 3areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements

Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses

Total spending $ 265m

$ 136m (51%)

$ 13m$ 49m $ 24m

Sub/septeacher

$ 64m

Sub/sepaides

$ 23m

Resourceteacher

$ 21m

Com-plianceprogramsupport

$ 12m

Other laborsupports (ad-ministrators,clerks, etc.)

$ 6m

$ 37m

Misc. equip-ment andsupports

$ 3m

Schoollevel

$ 129m (49%)

$ 2m $ 2m$ 9m

Central

Transportation Specialists(e.g., OTPT,autism)

Private place-ment tuition

Admin. &super-advisory

InsuranceMisc. expenses(e.g., equipment,inclusion, itiner-ant support)

Compliance

24% of BPS budget

As the biggestthree areas in thebiggest part of the

BPS budget, theseareas are 18% oftotal BPS budget

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


14/221


! There are 14 schools who

classified 100% of the studentsreferred and 35 who referred 0%

! Variable rates reflect differingschool cultures aroundclassification

! A centralized auditing processcan narrow the band ofvariability

!

The variable classification ratesimply that some students arereceiving services they do not

need, while others are missingstudents who do need extrasupports

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15

% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD, by school

0 155 10 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 9590 10085

Mildred Avenue K-8

Dudley StNeigh. Schl

Hernandez K-8

Middle School Academy

Shaw Pauline AElemHaley Elementary

Lyon K-8

Alighieri Montessori

Hale ElementaryUp Academy Holland

Kennedy Patrick Elem

Frederick PilotMiddle

Perry K-8

Curley K-8Russell Elementary

Manning Elementary

Madison Park High

New Mission High

Charlestown HighTaylorElementary

McKay K-8

Ohrenberger

Grew ElementaryHaynes EEC

Condon

Boston Latin

Orchard Gardens K-8

Murphy K-8Philbrick Elementary

Lyndon K-8

TechBoston Academy

Snowden InternationalRogers Middle

KilmerK-8 (4-8)

Edison K-8

Kennedy HC Fenwood 9-10

Clap Innovation SchoolEliotK-8

Jackson/Mann K-8

Ellis Elementary

Greenwood Sarah K-8

O’BryantMath & Sci.MatherElementary

Tynan Elementary

Kennedy HC Fenway 11-12

Brighton HighBradley Elementary

Boston Arts Academy

Fenway High

Quincy Elementary

DeverElementaryYoung Achievers K-8

McCormack Middle

Holmes Elementary

KilmerK-8 (K-3) Adams Elementary

Higginson/Lewis K-8

WestZone ELC

Ellison/Parks EES

Trotter SumnerElementary

Harvard/KentElementary

Lee K-8

King K-8

E Greenwood LeadershipWarren/PrescottK-8

Blackstone Elementary

Chittick Elementary

Otis Elementary

Henderson 5-8

EverettElementaryUPAcademy Dorchester

EastBoston High

Dearborn

Lyon High

GardnerPilot AcademyHurley K-8

Conley Elementary

MattahuntElementary

Kennedy John FElemenHennigan

Winship Elementary

Perkins Elementary

Winthrop Elementary

Bates ElementaryChanning Elementary

O’Donnell Elementary

Guild Elementary

Boston Day/Evening Acad

Margarita Muniz AcademyMission Hill K-8

Irving Middle

Mario Umana AcademyKenny Elementary

EastBoston EEC

Beethoven Elementary

BTU K-8 Pilot

Tobin K-8

Mendell ElementaryBaldwin E.L.PilotAcad

RooseveltK-8 (K1-1)

Henderson K-4

Community Academy

Boston Green Academy

Boston InternationalQuincy UpperSchool

GreaterEgleston High

AnotherCourse College

Burke High

Boston Latin AcademyBoston CommLead Acad

MozartElementary

DorchesterAcademy

Edwards Middle

CommAcad Sci HealthEnglish High

Henderson 9-12

Newcomers Academy

RooseveltK-8 (2-8)Boston AdultTech Acad

Excel High

Timilty Middle

WestRoxbury Academy

UPAcademy BostonUrban Science Academy

Mason Elementary

DRAFT

! Deeper data dives, at the level of IEP are needed to understand whether students

in these programs are being classified, when they may be over classified! Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification is

systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population

* Schools with less than 200 student enrollments

BPS schools are classifying students at widely variable ratesEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

Source: Office of Special Education data

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


15/221


Massachusetts district classification rates, 2015 State classification rates, 2011

% of students classified students with disabilities (SWD)

SWD vs. Free and Reduced Meal (FARM) rates by Mass.District, 2015

% of students SWD, % of students FARM

There are districts with similar challenges andlower SPED %

! Districts with equal or greater FARM, but lower SWD:

– Revere

– Everett

– Brockton

– Lynn

– Chelsea

– Springfield

BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

13.1

16.2

17.8

0 5 10 15 20

United States

New England average

Massachusetts

MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts” in MA, many ofwhich are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered

11.0

14.8

16.5

17.3

19.5

32.3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Botton 25%

50-75%

Massachusetts

25-50%

Boston

Top 25%

DRAFT

0

20

40

60

80

100

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28

Boston

% SWD

% FARM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


16/221


BPS is increasing special education inclusion, a strongresearch-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities

DRAFT

1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 20142 Office of Special Education City Council presentation, June 2014

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BPS will move to full inclusion as adistrict by 2019

! BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWDinto inclusion classrooms, leaving justthose with disabilities that makeinclusion inappropriate in substantiallyseparate classrooms, movement of

roughly 2,500 students

! The BPS plan is to create more inclusionclassrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, togrow inclusion from the bottom, whilemoving K-5 classrooms into inclusion azone at a time, at the rate of one zone ayear, over five years

Inclusion is good for both specialeducation and general education students

! A 2014 state of Massachusetts reportfound that across the state, “students withdisabilities who had full inclusionplacements appeared to outperformsimilar students who were not included to

the same extent in general educationclassrooms with their non-disabled peers.”1

! A 2013 BPS study found that generaleducation students in inclusion classroomsperformed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and1.6x better on Math MCAS2

! BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusionclassrooms in 2013

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


17/221


SPED plan for roll-out currently spreads $326M in additional costsover 10 years, with eventual, annual savings reaching $63M, annually

25

50

7585

95

133135139141

107

73

3827

Additional classrooms will add inclusion capacity

# inclusion classrooms added annually

DRAFT

26-2725-2624-2523-2422-2321-2220-2119-2018-1917-1816-1715-16

66

123103

11991 83

70

SY14-15

75 63 59

124 129123

Special education annual budget for classroom teaching will grow by ~$6Mannually at peak of 10 of roll out, with eventual budget shrinking by $65M / yr

$M, SPED classroom budget

Inclusion costs

Sub / separate costs

! The Special Education

department’s plan for inclusionis phased in fully over 13years, calling for gradualadoption, with two networks (A-G) beginning the process everyyear for the first five years

! By the final year of the roll-outadditional costs for inclusionwill grow to ~$43M annually

! As critical mass of inclusionclassrooms grow, a tipping pointwill occur allowing eliminationof sub/separate classroomsat an increasing rate, beginningin SY16-17

! The annual SPED budget

should drop below historicalspends beginning in SY17-18

! The total $326M cost of movingto inclusion will be fully paidfor by the final year (SY26-27)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3

Source: Interviews with Office of Special Education

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


18/221


Potential action items

Decisions / actions

Opportunity toreorganize central

officeUp to ~$27M ongoing

reduction

! Decisions around central office alignment with new schools footprint will need tohappen with school closings to immediately align support as befits new district

Opportunity to speedSPED reforms

~$17-21M in FY16 and~$63M longer-term

annually

! Given the calendar and union restrictions, a decision on outsourcingparaprofessionals and specialists should be made immediately, with potentialblowback weighed

! Reassess pace and transition plans for SPED inclusion strategy to shorten time tobenefits and reduce financial investment to get there

! Decisions to drive down SPED rates more in line with the state and nation willrequire decision and cultural shifts

Opportunities toimprove operationsthrough policy~$10-33m/yr

! Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthenwalks to bus stops and not guarantee busing on the current scale

! Outsourcing custodial and maintenance services can capture savings immediately,but may require a reduction in unionized employees

! Moving toward in-housing all food services needs to be researched and alignedwith capital planning process

Opportunity to cons-olidate 30-50 schools~$51-85m/yr plus ~$120-200m one-time

! Given calendar constraints, strategic decision to address district overextensionand consolidate 30-50 schools in next ~2 years needs to happen immediately forplanning to begin

DRAFT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Source: Team analysis


19/221


Contents

! Executive summary

! System overview

–

System performance

– Human Capital

– Organization


! Phase II: Area deep dives

!

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

! Appendix

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


20/221


Overview of BPS

Demographics

! 54K students, down 6% in 10 years! Highly diverse system

– 20% of students Sped

–

30% students ELL, and growing – 78% qualify for free or reduced

meals, only 8 Mass. districts higher

! Teacher population far more diverse than nationalpool, but lags student and city populations

! Only a handful of Mass. districts (Revere, Everett,

Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea, Springfield) have higherpoverty rates, but lower % SpEd classification! Enrollment projected to continue to decline

modestly, but if the charter cap is lifted, wouldaccelerate rapidly

Student

Outcomes

! Solid performance vs. other US urbanDistricts

! Throughout the 1990s and early

2000s, Boston was closing gap withMA performance, now just keepingpace with MA growth

! BPS performance, while continuing to track with thestate, consistently lags state performance bysignificant margins across all populations

Finances

! $1.1B total budget,! $18K per student vs. $16K in peer

districts and $14K in Mass. districts –

45% spent on central functions –

~25% SpEd

–

~10% Transportation

! Of the $18K, only $4,051 gets directly to the typicalstudent, with the rest going to system supports

! The number has grown by 25% since 2005 becauseof steady budgets and decreasing student counts,with no additional increase in student services due

to an overstretched system

Key Issues

! Current footprint puts significantburden on the system that doesn’timprove learning

! Lack of central office strategy,alignment, and efficient design

! Inconsistent SpEd classification

! Current footprint could be 30-50 buildings smaller,liberating ~$35M annually and $120M in one timesales for more things that really help kids

! Central office hunger for better culture andoperations keyed in on more accountability

! Small improvements in SpEd classification anddelivery model would be better for kids and finances

Overview Key Insights

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


21/221


Teacher salaries,benefits and otherteaching servicescomprised 56% of theFY13 annual budget

BPS budget break down

%, FY2013

The BPS budget allocates 30% of spending to teacher salaries,another 26% to benefits and teaching services

Pupil Services

Operations andMaintenance

6%

11%

Guidance, Counselingand Testing 1%

Instructional Materials,Equipment and Technology

3%

Professional Development

5%

Payments To Out-Of-District Schools

11%

Other Teaching Services

9%

Insurance, RetirementPrograms and Other

17%

Classroom andSpecialist Teachers

30%

Instructional Leadership

6% Administration

3%

Source: Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


22/221


The FY15 budget has a number of large spending items DRAFT

Personnel

Operations

Schools

SPED

AmountSpending item % of FY15 budget

$160M 14%

$57M 5%

$51M 5%

! Private placement tuition $41M 4%$45M 4%

! Food service $36M 3%

!

Special Education transportation

! Special Education inclusion $34M 3%

!

Facilities management $26M 2%

! School administration

! Bilingual education $24M 2%

!

Regular education teacher

! Employee benefits (all BPS) $138M 12%

! Transportation

! Custodial services $22M 2%

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


23/221


Over 50% of spending comes from instructional variable costs

Total spending

Fixedcosts

Variable costs

Noninstructional

Instructional

$ 1,178m

$ 947m$ 232m (20%)

$ 339m (29%) $ 608m (51%)

Guidance,counsel-ing, etc.

Insurance,Retirementand other

Pupilservices

Ops andmain-tenance

$ 47m

Admin

$ 30m $ 17m$ 196m $ 125m

Paymentsto out-of-districtschools1

$ 134m

Classroomandspecialistteachers.

$ 352m

Otherteachingservices

$ 105m

Instruc-tionalleader-ship

$ 65m

Profess-ionalDevelop-ment

$ 53m

Instruc-tionalmaterials

$ 33m

Source: BPS 2013 budget, Massachusetts Department of Elementaryand Secondary Education

1 Includes private and charter schools

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


24/221


FY15 Leasepurchase

$11.2M

Source of funds

$2.1MFederal funds(ARRA)

Amount

Grants $134M

General funds $975M

Total: $1,122M

ARRA and grant funding generally has little flexibility, and cannotbe used for purposes other than what they were initially identified

BPS budget break down

%, FY2015

BPS provides 55% of general fund spending directly to schools

Central budgets

45%

Schoolbudgets

55%

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

DRAFT


SYSTEM OVERVIEW


25/221


Nearly all spending is driven by personnel at schools and central office

Central budgets

45%

School budgets

55%

Secuity

3

Misc.HQequipment

10

Main-tenance

15

Utilities

23

Custo-dians

22

Tuition

26

Reserve

24

SPEDtransport.

48

Choicetransport.

InsuranceCtrl. off.admin &support

85

Healthins. &pension

119

53

435

2

Com-puters &equipment

5

Total

BPS budget break down%, FY2015

BPS budget break down, by central and school spending$M, FY2015

Total

539

1

Othersupportper-sonnel

Misc.other

5

Clerical

7

Aides

7

Coor-dinators

8

Coun-selor

8

Nurses

10

Pro-gramsupport

15

SPEDitinerant

20

SPEDre-source

20

SPEDaide

27

Admin-istrators

29

Spe-cialistteacher

29

Misc.teach-ing per-sonnel(coaches,librarians,substitute

39

Bilin-gualteacher

56

SPEDteacher

74

Regu-lared.Teachers

184

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


26/221


It costs BPS $4.6M to run the average BPS school, excluding supportcosts from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services

36 teachers

418 students

1 principal,1 secretary,and others

Custodialsupport

Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams

1 Does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school

130 total schools

4,617

Utilities

Total costThousands

260

Building maintenance 191

Custodial support 166

"Foundation" to cover school staff 200

Classroom staff costs 3,800

DRAFT

DRAFTSYSTEM OVERVIEW


27/221


BPS has an above average per pupil expenditure, partly driven by region

20100 228 122 144 6 16 18

8.9 Arizona 9.2Tennessee 9.4Nevada 9.7

Alabama 9.8Georgia 10.2Colorado 10.4Florida 10.4Indiana 10.5Texas 10.7South Dakota 10.7Kentucky 10.7California 10.7New Mexico 10.8Oregon 10.9South Carolina 10.9Missouri 11.0

Arkansas 11.2Virginia 11.4Washington 11.5Montana 11.7Iowa 11.8Kansas 12.0Louisiana 12.2Michigan 12.3

West Virginia 12.4North Dakota 12.4Nebraska 12.5National avg. 12.7Minnesota 12.9Wisconsin 13.0Hawaii 13.0Illinois 13.2Ohio 13.4Maine 13.9Delaware 14.3New Hampshire 14.9

Idaho

15.3Massachusetts 15.4Maryland 15.5Vermont 15.6Rhode Island 16.1Connecticut 17.7

New Jersey 18.0

Pennsylvania

18.4Wyoming 18.5New York 21.0

7.6Utah 7.9Oklahoma 8.5Mississippi 8.7North Carolina

Alaska

Average per pupil expenditure

$, thousands per student in the state,2010-2011

$, per student by Mass. district,2012-20132

Boston: $17,589

MA Avg.: $14,544

New Englandstates

Massachusetts/Boston

Groupaverage

1 NCES 2010-2011 2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds 3 Peer districts and methodology in the appendix

! Massachusetts and NewEngland more broadly havesignificantly higher per pupilexpenditures due tohistorically high investmentin education

! BPS’ higher per pupil averagein the state of Massachusettsis driven mostly by costs ofliving in Boston

! The per pupil average of peerset of national districts is$15,7553

! When cost of livingadjustments are made tonational peer set, Boston’s

per pupil spending declinesto $12,472, below the peeraverage of $13,109

0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


28/221


2,375

2,191

976

3,480

1,031

1,105

1,7124,051

17,455

Adminis-trators

Generaleducationclass-rooms

534

School-levelsupport

BuildingsBilingualSPED(includingtransportation)

Trans-portation

BenefitsCentraloffice

Total1

!

Central officesupport functionscapture a lot ofspend, and needsupdated systems

for managingtowardsimproved operat-

ions outcomes

! An overextendedBPS footprintstretches limitedfunds over a

large number ofschools

! Special education

drives per pupilexpenditures butonly reaches20% of students

Source: BPS FY15 all funds

1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high

! $3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%is the “foundation” of each school

! These funds are spread across all 128schools

Per pupil spending

$, per student

14% of per pupildollars are going tocentral office functionsand support

20% of perpupil dollarsare directly forSPED students

Of BPS’ per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom DRAFT

BPS per pupil spendis 11% higher than the

peer average of$15,7552

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


29/221

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 29Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses

Total spending $ 265m

$ 136m (51%)

$ 13m$ 49m $ 24m

Sub/septeacher

$ 64m

Sub/sepaides

$ 23m

Resourceteacher

$ 21m

Com-plianceprogramsupport

$ 12m

Other laborsupports (ad-ministrators,clerks, etc.)

$ 6m

$ 37m

Misc. equip-ment andsupports

$ 3m

Schoollevel

$ 129m (49%)

$ 2m $ 2m$ 9m

Central

Transportation Specialists(e.g., OTPT,autism)

Private place-ment tuition

Admin. &super-advisory

InsuranceMisc. expenses(e.g., equipment,inclusion, itiner-ant support)

Compliance

24% of BPS budget

As the biggestthree areas in thebiggest part of the

BPS budget, theseareas are 18% oftotal BPS budget

DRAFTSPED is ~25% of BPS annual spending and 73% of SPED costs are inthree areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


30/221


BPS budgets and student population since 2005

$ BPS budget, millions; # of students

The BPS budget has not accounted for student declines!

1,000

600

800

59,000

58,000

55,000

57,000

56,000

0

1,200

400

200

0

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 4

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 2

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 0

2 0 0 9

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 5

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, includesgrant funds and other sources

! In 2005, BPS had a perpupil spending rate of$15,915, by 2015, thatsame rate had grown to$20,568

! Because the BPS

footprint did not adjustwith population, the perpupil spend is forced upto cover fixed operatingcosts

! If BPS had maintainedits per pupil spending

rate in 2015, the budgetshould have fallen to$864M, 23% less thanFY15’s budget

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


31/221


BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009

# of BPS FTE’s, # of students

!nor has FTE count

Source: BPS Human Capital data and Enrollment data

Schools

Central office

! If BPS were to decrease staff

with future enrollment trendsand historical central officeFTE counts, BPS wouldshrink by ~7-10%

! In 2009-10, BPS had a ratioof 5.5 students per FTE, by2014-15, that ratio had fallen

to 5.0! If BPS had maintained its

2009-10 student to FTEratio, in 2014-15, BPS wouldhave 9,875 FTE’s, 902 fewerthan six years ago, at asavings of ~$60-70M

!

By operating its currentnumber of schools, BPScannot currently bringschool staff downcommensurately

DRAFT

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,00011,000

52,000

53,000

54,000

55,000

56,000

57,000

(7-10%)

F u t u r e

y e a r

2 0 1 4 - 1 5

2 0 1 3 - 1 4

2 0 1 2 - 1 3

2 0 1 1 - 1 2

2 0 1 0 - 1 1

2 0 0 9 - 1 0

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


32/221


FTE break down

% of BPS employees

The share of school-based employees has remained mostly constant

Source: BPS employee data, Office of Human Capital

SY

2009-2010

SY

2010-2011

SY

2011-2012

SY

2012-2013

SY

2013-2014

SY

2014-2015

The ratio of school-level to central office BPSemployees constant over the past 6 years, with aslight uptick in central to school ratios in recent years

82 82 81 81 80 76

18 18 19 19 20 24

Schools

Central

The changein share isrepresentative of smallerschool staffnumberswith slightlyincreasedcentral officeshares

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


33/221


BPS is a diverse system, whose demographics differ fromBoston overall

Poverty indicators% of population in poverty

42

78

City of Boston5 BPS students4

! White BPS teachersrepresent 30% more of the

teaching force than of thecity of Boston and nearly 5times that of the student

body

! BPS Hispanic studentsrepresent double the

student body share to theHispanic share of the City ofBoston and four times the

share of the teaching force

! The Black share of theBPS student body is >50%

greater than the teachingforce and of the city as awhole

! BPS teaching force issignificantly more diverse

than teachers nationally! BPS students are in

greater need than the

population of the City ofBoston

1 BPS at a Glance, SY 2013-2014; 2 BPS employee data, Jan 1, 2015; 3 US Census Bureau, 20104 BPS data, 2013, last time data collected on this measure 5 Estimate from CLR research, 2010 6 EdWeek, Profiles of teachers in the US, 2011

Racial break down% of total population, out of 100%

62 84

4735

2124

4018

13

10

BPS students1

3 9

City of Boston3

2 9

Teachers nationally6

4

7 6

BPS teachers2

1 6

Other/multiracialWhite (non-Hispanic) AsianBlackHispanic

Students at 185%of federal povertyline or below

Households at or below185% of federal povertylevel for a family of four

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


34/221


BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free andreduced meals than the state and nation

4020 60 700 805010 30

41.2Nebraska 42.6Ohio 42.6Rhode Island 42.9

45.2Michigan

Illinois

46.4State average 46.6

Maine 43.0Idaho 45.0Missouri 45.0

Arizona

Wisconsin 39.3Pennsylvania 39.4Colorado 39.9Washington 40.1Maryland 40.1

Minnesota

Wyoming

Alaska

Utah

New Jersey

38.2

32.831.7

37.1

34.5

37.1

Vermont36.736.5

Virginia

South Dakota

North Dakota

34.2

36.8

25.2

Connecticut

New Hampshire

Iowa

Massachusetts

38.438.9

Montana

46.7Indiana 46.8

Hawaii 46.8Kansas 47.7Delaware 48.0New York 48.3Texas 50.3North Carolina 50.3Nevada 50.3Oregon 50.6West Virginia 51.5California 54.1South Carolina 54.7Tennessee 55.0

Alabama 55.1Florida 56.0Kentucky 56.6Georgia 57.4

Arkansas 60.5Oklahoma 60.5

Louisiana 66.2New Mexico 67.6Mississippi 70.6District of Columbia 73.0

Free and reduced meal rate

% of students in state receiving free or reduced meals 1 % of students in district receiving free or reduced meals2

Boston: 78%

2012 MA Avg.: 25.7%

New Englandstates


Groupaverage

1 US Dept. of Education, 20112 Kidscount data, 2012

! BPS outpacesthe nation andMassachusettsdistricts in thepercentage ofstudentsqualifying forfree and

reduced meals

! BPS is more inline with urbandistricts, where38% of thesedistricts havegreater than75% of studentsqualifying forfree andreduced meals

40 8060 907030 50100 20

Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, bylocate and percentage of students in s chool eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL): Fall 2010

37

8

21

21 14

9

9 362

15

8City

15

16

28

6 26

22

29

38

Total

Suburban

15

2027

36 30 10

Town

Rural

More than 75 percent26-50 percent

51-75 percent11-25 percent

10 percent or less

Locate

Percentage of students in school eligible for FRPL

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


35/221


BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

0 5 10 15 20

14.6Minnesota 14.7Oklahoma 14.7Ohio 14.8South Dakota 14.8Illinois 15.0Nebraska 15.0Kentucky 15.6New Hampshire 15.6Delaware 15.6Vermont 15.7Indiana 16.5West Virginia 16.6Pennsylvania 16.7New Jersey 16.8Wyoming 17.2Maine 17.3

New York 17.4Massachusetts 17.8Rhode Island 18.7

California 10.6Nevada 10.7

Arizona 11.1 Alabama 11.2Hawaii 11.3Utah 11.3

North Carolina 11.9Montana 12.2Washington 12.3Connecticut 12.3Tennessee 12.4Maryland 12.5Louisiana 12.6Mississippi 13.0United States 13.1Virginia 13.4

Arkansas 13.6New Mexico 13.8Iowa 13.9

Alaska 14.0Michigan 14.0Florida 14.1South Carolina 14.1Kansas 14.1Oregon 14.2North Dakota 14.3Missouri 14.3D.C. 14.6Wisconsin

Identification Rate of Students withDisabilities, by State 2009-10

Texas 9.1Idaho 9.9Colorado 10.3Georgia 10.5

! Massachusetts has historicallyhigher SPED numbers due to beinga leader in SPED beginning in the1970s – their being higher thannational averages is not areflection of any state policies,but of state culture

!

Assuming direct labor aligns withthe number of students, BPS couldsave roughly $5M for every onepercentage drop in classification

– Aligning with state averagecould translate to $10-15M insavings

– Aligning with New Englandaverage of 16.2% couldcapture $15-18M

State classification rates

% of students in state classified SPED1

16.5

19.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 5 40 45 50

Identification Rate of Students withDisabilities, by MA district 2013

% of students in district classified SPED2

Boston

2013 MA Avg.

New Englandstates


Groupaverage

1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011 2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts”in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered

DRAFT

SYSTEM OVERVIEW


36/221


SWD and FARM classification are correlated across MA districts

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free and reduced meal

% of district FARM students

% SWD % students classified with disabilities

Boston

1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013

! A 2014 Massachusetts studyfound that low-incomestudents in the state were

identified as eligible forspecial education services

at substantially higherrates than non-low-incomestudents

! Districts with equal or greaterFARM, but lower SWD:

– Revere, Everett,

Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea,Springfield

! Districts with equal or greaterFARM, but higher SWD:

–

Lawrence, Fall River,Holyoke

% of students in district, 2013-2014

Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status1

DRAFT


37/221

C


38/221


Contents

! Executive summary

! System overview

–

System performance

– Human Capital

–

Organization



!


! Appendix

S t fSYSTEM PERFORMANCE


39/221


System performance summary

! BPS, beginning in the late1990s, began a transformation that brought it

national recognition as a high-performing, urban system. A 2010 report1 on the world’s most improved systems identified Boston as one of the20 systems in the world – and one of just 3 in the US – to makesignificant, systemic, and sustained improvements in student

achievement during the period from 1995-2009

! Since 2009, BPS’ momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with

Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early2000s, is annually persistent

! While BPS’ ELL population performs almost exactly as well as theBPS student average and performs nearly as well as Massachusetts’ ELLpopulation, BPS’ SPED population lags all BPS students dramatically and continues to lag Massachusetts’ SPED population significantly

! The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and theirwhite peers has not narrowed much in recent years

1 McKinsey and Company, "How the world's most improved school systems keepgetting better," 2010

R di h f t f b L Cit i dSYSTEM PERFORMANCE


40/221


Reading scores show frequent performance above Large City indexbut below National average

Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Grade 4 Reading Average scale scores: 2003-2013

Grade 8 Reading Average scale scores: 2003-2013

221220

215

212211

200

202

204

206

208

210

212

214

216

218

220

222

2013

2143

11

217

09

2101

2201

07

2081

2101

2201

05

2061

2071

2171

2003

2041

2061

2161

Large cityBostonNation

Note: The NAEP Reading scale ranges from 0 to 5001 Significantly different (P


41/221


Math scores show frequent performance above Large City indexand only slightly below National average

Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Grade 4 mathematics Average scale scores: 2003-2013

Grade 8 mathematics Average scale scores: 2003-2013

241240

237

236235

233

210

215

220

225

230

235

240

245

2013

2373

1109

2311

2391

07

2301

2331

2391

05

2281

2291

2371

2003

2241

2201

2341

Large cityBostonNation

284

282

276

274

255

260

265

270

275

280

285

2013

2832

11

2831

09

2711

2791

2821

07

2691

2761

2801

05

2651

2701

2781

2003

2621

2621

2761

Note: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 5001 Significantly different (P


42/221


BPS tracks with, but consistently lags state districts inMCAS performance

70

60

50

40

0

Mass

BPS

20141312111009080706050403022001

3rd grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced

70

60

50

40

0

Mass

BPS

2014131211100908072006

3rd grade Math1

% of students proficient or advanced

100

80

60

40

0

Mass

BPS

20141312111009080706050403022001

10th grade ELA% of students proficient or advanced

80

70

40

60

50

30

0

Mass

BPS

2014131211100908050403022001 0706

10th grade Math% of students proficient or advanced

Source: MA DESE

! While BPStracks with thestate, Bostonconsistentlyunderperforms

state averages! BPS students

are narrowing

the gap by10th grade, butare startingsignificantlybehind their

peers in the

early grades

1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006

BPS student performance

DRAFT

BPS SPED t d t l t t di t i t i MCAS fSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


43/221



3rd grade Math% of students proficient or advanced



BPS SPED students lag state districts in MCAS performanceby even larger margins

25

20

15

10

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

35

30

25

20

15

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

70

60

5040

30

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

45

40

25

3530

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

BPS SPEDstudents aretracking withstateperformance,

but with asignificant gapin perfor-mancefrom theirMassachusettspeers

BPS SPED student performance

DRAFT

Source: MA DESE

BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass stateSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


44/221


BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass stateaverages in MCAS performance


3rd grade Math% of students proficient or advanced



35

30

25

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

60

50

40

30

20

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

60

50

40

30

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

55

50

35

45

40

30

0

Mass

BPS

201413121110092008

!

BPS ELLstudents rivalthe perfor-mance of MA

ELL students! BPS ELL

students’scores are

consistently ator near overallBPS perfor-mance

BPS ELL student performance

DRAFT

Source: MA DESE

BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas with 10thSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


45/221


BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th grade ELA being an exception

70

60

50

40

30

020141312111009080706050403022001


80

70

60

50

40

30

02014131211100908072006

3rd grade Math1

% of students proficient or advanced

100

80

60

40

20

0

20141312111009080706050403022001


100

80

60

40

20

0

20141312111009080706050403022001


Source: MA DESE

! White BPSstudentsperform at orbetter than thestate average

!

Students ofcolorconsistently

achieve at arate nearlyhalf that ofwhite studentsin the early

grades

1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006

BPS non-white student performance

Hispanic BPS studentsMass. avg.

Black BPS studentsWhite BPS students

DRAFT

BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts and itsSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


46/221


BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and itspopulation performs less well

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

282624222018161412100

MCAS 10th grade ELA % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced

% SWD

Boston

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

282624222018161412100

MCAS 10th grade Math % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced

% SWD

Boston

! There is a correlationin the state betweenshare of students

classified and overallSWD performance

! Boston has a higher

share, but its SWDpopulation is

performing worsethan would beexpected

Plot of MA district by SWD share and SWD 10th grade performance

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % of students classified SWD

Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

DRAFT

While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state BPS’ ELLSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


47/221


While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS ELLpopulation performs better than correlations would predict

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

% ELL

MCAS 10th grade ELA % of ELL proficient or advanced

Boston

Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Boston

% ELL $ spent per SWD pupil

MCAS 10th grade Math % of ELL proficient or advanced

! BPS has one of thelargest shares of ELL

students in the stateof Massachusetts

! BPS ELL studentsoutperform the

expectedperformance levels

Plot of MA district by ELL performance and $ spent

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % district ELL

DRAFT

BPS lags but tracks with state districts in graduation ratesSYSTEM PERFORMANCE

DRAFT


48/221


! While on the upswing,BPS’ 4-yeargraduation rate issignificantly below theMassachusettsaverage

! BPS does track

generally withMassachusetts’graduation rateimprovement, but is

not closing the gap

Graduation rates

% of students graduating1

BPS lags, but tracks with state districts in graduation rates

80

70

60

0

85

75

90

65

Mass

BPS

2014131211100908072006

1 MA DESE 4-year graduation rate

DRAFT

Source: MA DESE

Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools with some

SYSTEM PERFORMANCEDRAFT


49/221


Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools, with somespecific concerns

“This school is a good place for my child tolearn” % of parents responding

70

28

21

Stronglyagree

Disagree AgreeStronglydisagree

“My child's teacher challenges him/her to dotheir best and works hard to meet the needsof my child”% of parents responding

4247

84

Stronglyagree

AgreeDisagreeStronglydisagree

The school is doing a good job at preventingbullying and harassment based on race,gender, sexual preference and disabilities”% of parents responding

70

28

21

Stronglyagree

AgreeDisagreeStronglydisagree

2.3

3.2

3.2

3.3

3.3

3.5

0 1 2 3 4

Parent Participationat School

TeacherPerformance

PrincipalPerformance

School Safety &

Welcoming Environment

Overall Perceptionof School

Parent Engagementat Home

Source: Annual BPS school climate survey, 2013-2014; 20% ofparents on average responded t osurvey at each school

Parents perception of ! Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)

“Working parents can’t start at 9:30am andso our school is losing enrollment becauseof the late bell time” – Elementary schoolparent

Perspectives from parents focus groups

“No one walks to school. Why are wewasting resources on too many schoolbuses? – Elementary school parent

“When I first looked at BPS [years ago],there were only 3 schools I would consider.Now, I see many more options I’mcomfortable sending my child to.” – Highschool parent

“BPS has given me an incredibly diversecommunity for my child” – High School

parent

“There are a lot of programmaticinconsistencies, like having so manydifferent school models – K-1, 2-8, etc.” –Middle School parent

DRAFT

Contents


50/221


Contents

! Executive summary

! System overview

–

System performance

– Human Capital

–

Organization



!


! Appendix

BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution and have beenHUMAN CAPITAL

DRAFT


51/221


Year of birth

# of teachers by year of birth

Evaluation rating

# of teachers

! 94% of teachers arelicensed to teach intheir subject are,

compared to 98% ofteachers state-wide

! 96% of teacherswith evaluations onfile are ratedproficient or higher

BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution, and have beenrated proficient

151

1,420

1,275

933

680

75

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

626

2,719

13124

968

Noevaluation

Unsatis-factory

NIP Proficient Exemplary

21% of the teachingforce does not have

an evaluation on file

DRAFT

The average

BPS teacheris 42 yearsold

Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data

BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachersHUMAN CAPITAL

DRAFT


52/221


BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachers,and none in the system have received a rating lower than proficient

18

51

36

21

7

1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s

18

41

00

75

Unsatis-factory

Noevaluation

NIP Proficient Exceeds

Evaluation rating

The averageBPS principalis 46 years old

56% of principals do nothave evaluations on file

Age of principals

# of principals born in decade

# of teachers

DRAFT

! Principals ratedlower than proficientwill almost alwaysbe moved out of thesystem

Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data

Contents


53/221


Contents

! Executive summary

! System overview

–

System performance

– Human Capital

–

Organization



!


! Appendix


54/221

The total number of FTE’s, across schools and central office has notORGANIZATION

DRAFT


55/221


BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009

# of BPS FTE’s, # of students

The total number of FTE s, across schools and central office has notdeclined in line with student population

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,0006,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

52,000

53,000

54,000

55,000

56,000

57,000 (7-10%)

F u t u r e

y e a r

2 0 1 4 - 1 5

2 0 1 3 - 1 4

2 0 1 2 - 1 3

2 0 1 1 - 1 2

2 0 1 0 - 1 1

2 0 0 9 - 1 0

SchoolsCentral office

! If BPS were to align staffwith future enrollment trendsand historical central office

FTE counts, BPS couldshrink by ~7-10%

! In 2009-10, BPS had a ratioof 5.5 students per FTE, by2014-15, that ratio hadfallen to 5.0

!

If BPS had maintained its2009-10 student to FTEratio, in 2014-15, BPS wouldhave 9,875 FTE’s, 902 fewerthan six years ago

DRAFT

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

Contents


56/221


Contents

! Executive summary

!

System overview


– Cross-BPS themes

–

Framework for RFP 25

–

RFP areas for possible deep dive

– Other RFP areas


!


! Appendix

The operational review was conducted over a period of APPROACH AND WORKPLAN

DRAFT


57/221


The operational review was conducted over a period of~3 months, shifting from a broad scan to deep dives Progress review

Phase 0:Data collection andinterviews

Phase 1:High-level diagnostic

Phase 2:Deep-dive on priority areas

Phase 3:Opportunitydevelopment

Dec 8-19 Jan 5 -23 Feb 16-27Jan 26 - Feb 13Duration

Activities ! Conduct high-levelquantitative andqualitative analysis acrossthe 25 areas, includingbenchmarking

! Review previous reports,studies, reviews, etc.

!

Analyze the BPS budget! Collect input on priority

operational areas frominternal and externalstakeholders throughinterviews, focus groups,and other forums

! Collect existing dataand reports basedon data request

! Identify internal andexternalstakeholders forinterviews and focus

groups! Begin scheduling

and conductinginterviews and focusgroups

! Start initial analysisand benchmarking

! For the prioritized areas,review diagnostic findingsand identify gaps vs. bestpractice

! Conduct additional deep-dive analyses to assessefficiency and

effectivenessopportunities! Prioritize areas with

greatest opportunity toexplore further

! Prioritizeimprovementopportunities basedon impact towardBPS’ mission andstrategic goals

! Identify short term

and long termactions forimplementation

! For priority oppor-tunities, providerationale, estimatesof costs and costsavings, and prac-tical implementation

guidance

Deliver-ables

! Overview of BPS’ fiscaland operational healthacross each of the 25areas

! Identification of priorityareas for deep-dives

! Interim workshops asrequested by the City

! Detailed diagnostic ofpriority areas

! Workshop to alignon next steps forBPS in capturingopportunities

! Synthesis of initialkey themes andlearning

Agenda


58/221


! Executive summary

!

System overview



–


–


– Other RFP areas


!


! Appendix

Agenda

BPS has a strong talent base, but does not have a long-term strategyCROSS-BPS THEMES

DRAFT


59/221


Stable, with opportunity

Overall!

Positive inertia and a deep local talent pool sustains a comparatively good urbansystem

! Largely coasting for a number of years, modernizing and evolving has not beendeliberately and thoughtfully considered

! Too large a physical footprint for the number of students currently being served

Strengths

! High caliber people in schools as teachers and principals and in central office roles

!

Dynamic (but siloed) visions in pockets of central office

! Strong approaches to community engagement and technology support

! Some key conditions for success put in place across the system (e.g., mutualconsent, weighted student funding)

Challenges

! Absence of overarching vision causes a focus on initiatives vs. system goals, drift inhow different areas move forward and causes an inability to execute/follow-through

!

Recurring budget shortages as available funds are spread thin across buildings andprograms, many of which are underutilized and under-enrolled

! Data not used broadly for decision making

! Org. structure reflects personalities, not functional needs or core goals

! Lack of coordination and collaboration, as focus rests with where people want it

g , g gyto align process and execution Challenge Area of strengthStable, with opportunity

Overall

BPS faces challenges that cut across the organizationCROSS-BPS THEMES

DRAFT


60/221


g g! Challenge ! Stable, with opportunity ! Area of strength

! Data and technology not actively orconsistently used to support decisionmaking

! Budget development process hasopportunities for efficiencies andcollaboration, is unaligned with strategy,while not evaluating spending for

effectiveness at school level

! Organizational structure is not always

aligned with functional needs of students,with inefficiencies that stymie cross-organizational collaboration

! BPS is overextended physically andbudgetarily, supporting buildings and

schools that lead to subscale services insome pockets

Emerging themes

Performance management(v. performance objectives andmeasurement tools)

Academic student support(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. studentassignment, q. parent engagement, r.ELL)

Non-academic student supports(l. transportation, m. food service, p.extracurriculars, u. security)

Administrative services (f.accounting systems, y. externalfunds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing,o. IT, n. building maintenance, x.school construction and renovation)

Leadership and governance(w. School Committee)

Talent management(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.instructional staff, s. licensing, t.CORI / SORI)

Overall assessment

!

No robust performance management system

! Lack of follow-through and execution

! Strong foundation, in need of more robustfocus on reaching all students where theyare

! Opportunities for cost capturing likely exist inmany areas

! Many facilities in need of repair

! OIT effective at meeting customer needs

! Back office functions get done

! Serves community well, may be tensionswith supt. over strategy

! Dissatisfaction with professional develop-ment and advancement opportunities

! Innovation in school staffing areas (e.g.mutual consent)

Contents


61/221


! Executive summary

!

System overview



–


–


– Other RFP areas


!


! Appendix

Analysis of RFP areas and cross-cutting themes identified 12 forRFP 25

DRAFT


62/221


y gpotential deep dive consideration

Quick wins

! From data and interviews, the Steering Committee considered the size of the opportunity interms of benefits to students, cost savings, and efficiency

!

From this approach, 11 areas emerged in two groups as potential Phase 2 targets

! These are areas with

opportunities that maybe readily captured :

1.

Food Services

2.

Personnel

3.

Finance andaccounting(budgeting process)

4. Org. structure

Long-term goals

! These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time

and a good deal of effort, but are worth it:

5.

District overextension

6.

ELL

7.

Data culture

8.

Technology

9.

Transportation10.

Special Education

11. Maintenance (of buildings)

12.

Performance and quality objectives and measurementtools

Cross-cutting theme, not an identified RFP area

Framework for approaching RFP areas and cross-RFP 25

FOR STEERCO DISCUSSION


63/221


5.

District overextension

6.

ELL7.

Data culture8.

Technology9. Transportation

10.

Special education

11.

Maintenance12.

Performancemanagement tools

! Construction andrenovation

!

Negotiation!

Student assignment

! External fundstransparency

!

Instructional staffing!

General staffing andrecruiting

1.

Food Services

2.

Personnel

3.

Org. structure4.

Finance & accounting(budget process)

! Purchasing ! Extracurriculars!

Security! Licensure!

Parent Engagement! School Committee

! CORI / SORI

! Curriculum!

Timekeeping! Role delineation

High

pp gcutting themes

ApproachComparison of RFP areasOpportunity ($, efficiency) v. ease ($, time, quality)

Low High

! Opportunity: This is the size ofthe opportunity that exists forimprovement; it could be time

saved, money saved,improvement in outputs, etc.

! Ease: This is how much effort onBPS’ part it will take to capture theopportunity; it could be in dollars

required, time required to execute,etc.

Outputs

! Quick wins: Large opportunitiesfor savings and/or performanceimprovement that are easilyimplementable and should beconsidered for immediate action

! Long-term goals: Largeopportunities for savings and/or

performance improvement thatrequire a good deal of effort/timeto implement

! Not a priority now: Opportunitiesthat are too small and/or toodifficult to be worth the effort andattention required capture them

Oppor-tunity

Ease

Quick wins and Long-term goalscomprise over 60% of BPS budget

There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue toRFP 25

PRELIMINARY


64/221


pursue without further deep dive (1/2) Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye

Current situation Key factors to considerArea Rationale to not include

School Comm-ittee FY14 budget:$0.3M

! Small budget, narrow scope ofactivities

! $300K budget, any savings will betiny, no processes to improve

! Will there be an expanded role?

Licensure

FY14 budget: N/A

! Inconsistent staffing and attention,but no deep problems exist

!

Licensing more compliance-driven

! While frustrating, no great gainsrelative to other options

! Are we planning a licensingpush of any kind that would

need this function bolstered?

CORI / SORI

FY14 budget: N/A

! Secure process keeps people frombeing hired before clearing

! Have there been any lapses?! Is this a high-risk area?

! 5,000 CORI / SORI formsprocessed annually by fax, even

though technology exists

e

Security

FY14 budget:$3.9M

! Focus on communities

!

Recent uptick in incidents, after 5-year long decline

! BPS perceived to be largely safe

by school-based staff

! Is the recent uptick in events

significant enough to require adeep dive?

InstructionalstaffingFY14 budget: N/A

! Weighted student formula allotsschool staffing by policy

! Transparent system, with somefunding backstops necessary

! Determined by formula and policy,not by operations or budget usagedecisions

! Does the WSF need analysis orfresh thinking?

! The Engagement department isconsidered one BPS’ strongest

! High-functioning department

! Small budget ($2.6M) with smallsaving potential

! Are there concerns aboutengagement that is not led bythe Engagement department?

Parent engage-ment FY14budget: $2.6M

There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue toRFP 25

PRELIMINARY


65/221


pursue without further deep dive (2/2) Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye

Current situation Key factors to considerRationale to not include

General staffingand recruitingFY14 budget: N/A

! Some new thinking aroundconversion rates of applicantsdoing more with less

! Are we concerned aboutpipelines and the need forfurther analysis andidentification?

! Small department withopportunities that are largely costcenters

External funds

transparencyFY14 budget: N/A

! New rigor of analysis brought to

funds and where they come from! Compliance requests handled

department by department

! Grantmaking bodies (including the

feds) mostly require accounting,building internal accountability

! Have there been historical

audits that turned up issues?

Extra curriculars

FY14 budget: N/A

! How concerned are we thatBEDF is not maximizing

potential?

! Are principals concerned by alack of extracurricular options?

! There are opportunities toenhance services, but would

require a good deal of work tocapture smaller opportunities

! Changes begun to evaluatepartners and manage better

!

Limited transparency intoeffectiveness of programs

e

$

CurriculumFY14 budget: $7M

! Recent leadership has begunreassessment of curriculum, whichis outdated

! How much of the rest of thesystem does curriculum drive?Should they be considered aspart of another deep dive?

! Opportunities for savings andbetter outcomes will come fromdeep review of pedagogy andcurriculum

$

e

TimekeepingFY14 budget: N/A

! Paper systems utilized with

manual entry! Supervisor process for checks on

this process

! Are there ways we can leverage

the city here to move BPS moreautomated process?

! Some opportunities in

technological enhancements, butnot critical upgrade

e

Role delineationFY14 budget: N/A

! Roles and duties between centraloffice and schools unclear undernetwork model

! Some overlap in roles (e.g., PD)

! Better communication and thoughton roles can improve clarityquickly, without needing to go verydeep

! Is there a need to understand,more deeply what is driving thelack of clarity?

Area

There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other,RFP 25

PRELIMINARY


66/221


parallel process at this time Financial opportunity$Efficiency opportunitye

Current situation Key factors to considerArea Rationale to not include

Construction

FY14 budget:$26M

! $3-$4B in current needs

!

Capital planning process running

! With the capital planning processunderway, efforts would be

duplicative

! Costs here driven by academicdecisions around future footprint

! How will the future footprint bealigned to enable more

efficiently filled buildings andclassrooms even as enrollmentfluctuates?

NegotiationsFY14 budget: N/A

!

Negotiations planning (forteachers) slated to begin in the fallfor next contract (2017)

! New thinking around contracts atBPS (e.g., open-hiring)

!

Timeline for major changes in thisarea is set a ways off

! Currently managing contract andinnovating effectively

!

Are there analyses that weshould be considering that arevaluable now or valuableenough to do now in preparationfor negotiations? (e.g., cost of

contractually required class/support ratios, model for pay forperformance approach)

Student assign-ment FY14b

Documents

Steering Committee Working Draft