View
1.925
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
ERS’ public presentation to the Denver Public Schools Board of Education. See an example of resource mapping results and how this kind of analysis can reveal a road map for how to most effectively and efficiently meet goals for improving instruction.
Citation preview
Rethinking Resources for Student Success
Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary ReportDenver Public Schools, January 17, 2012
Preliminary – Please do not cite or distribute
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 2
Through more than a decade of working with large urban school systems, we understand that…
It’s not just about how much, it’s also about how well.
There is no one “right” way to use resources, but there are common principles of strategic resource use that can be measured and observed.
If we want excellent schools for all children, we need to develop school systems that can effectively support high-performing schools.
Aligning resources with strategy and best practice requires understanding current usage and key misalignments.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 3
ERS partner districts include …
BALTIMORE (04,08,10)CINCINNATI(05, 07, 08)
ROCHESTER (05,06,08, 09,10)
CHICAGO (05)
LA (06, 07)
ST. PAUL (06) BOSTON (06,07,09)
ATLANTA (07,08, 09,10)STATE OF GEORGIA (11,12)
OAKLAND (07)
PHILADELPHIA (07,08,09)
NYC (08)
CHARLOTTE (08,09,10)
ALBUQUERQUE (00,01)
PROVIDENCE (03,04) NEWARK (11,12)SACRAMENTO(09)
DUVAL COUNTY (10)
PG COUNTY (10,11,12)
SYRACUSE (09)
DENVER (11)WASHINGTON DC (05,11,12)
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 4
ERS began work in DPS in March 2011 and engaged DPS leadership team in working session over the year
Data
Interviews
School
Visits
Focus Group
s
Resource Mapping Analysis
FY0910 Data Analysis: Expenditures, HR, Payroll, Course Schedule, Student Demographics, Student Performance, Special Education, ELL Data
Interviews with Central Office department leaders and other key staff members
Visits to 5 schools: Force ES, Place Bridge K8, Morey MS, West Denver Prep – Harvey Park MS, East HS
3 sets of Principal Focus Groups: Charter Schools, Innovation Schools, Traditional Schools
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 5
This project comes at an opportune moment for DPS
DPS must rapidly accelerate its rate of performance growth to exceed state averages and meet the upcoming challenge of Common Core.
Because DPS has such diverse student and school needs, DPS’ “managed performance empowerment” theory of action is the right approach to managing the district’s diverse portfolio of schools.
Denver has lower funding and lower central spending (both as a $ amount and as a % of operating expenditures) than other urban districts studied.
Given this context, new school-level investments can only come from reorganizing resources within schools rather than identifying add’l $s to be reallocated to schools (absent new revenue).
Ensuring that schools are organizing people, time, and money effectively to meet their specific student needs and instructional models will be essential to meeting the performance challenge.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 6
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Includes Charter Expenses; ERS benchmark database. Note: Dollars represent K-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using the National Center for Education Statistics 2005 School District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars adjusted to 2009-10 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator
Overall, Denver spent less per pupil in SY0910 than many of the other urban districts that ERS has examined
$19.6
$14.7 $14.2 $13.8 $13.3 $11.8
$10.7 $9.9 $9.8 $9.1 $8.6 $s represent all funds (federal, state, local, mill
levy, stimulus, grant, foundation, etc.)
Cross District Comparison of K-12 Operating $pp (Adjusted for Cost of Living Differences)
K1
2 O
pera
tin
g $
pp
(in
th
ou
san
ds)
Appendix
See appendix
for definition
of SY0910
Operating
Exp.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 7
Denver spent higher share of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on Instruction and a lower share on Operations & Maintenance compared to other districts
Charlo
tte
Duval
Denve
r
Prince
Geo
r...
Atlant
a
Bosto
n
Roche
ster
57% 58% 57%51% 55% 54% 50%
8% 5% 8%9%
5% 9%9%
20% 20% 16%23% 17%
20%20%
3% 3% 5% 4% 8%2%
4%
4% 6% 5% 5% 7% 7%7%
8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 10%
Leadership
Instructional Support & PD
Business Services
Operations & Maintenance
Pupil Services
Instruction
% o
f opera
ting b
udget/
expendit
ure
s
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.
Appendix
See appendix
for notes on
ERS coding
and drilldown
on O&M
spending
Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Use
Lower $ppDistrict
Higher $ppDistrict
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 8
Compared to other districts, Denver also spent a smaller % of Operating Expenditures and a lower $pp on central overhead
Charl
ott
e
Duval
Chic
ago
Denver
Pri
nce
Georg
e's
Philadelp
hia
St.
Paul
Atl
anta
Wash.
D.C
.
Bosto
n
Roch
este
r
8%6%
7%6% 6%
8%6%
12%
15%
11%10%
% o
f expendit
ure
s/b
udget
Lower $ppDistrict
Higher $ppDistrict
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.
% of K12 operating expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEADAppendix
See appendix
for definitions of
ERS terms
and methodologie
s
$pp
$685 $547 $689 $594 $664 $941 $797$1,65
6$2,13
4$1,61
9$1,95
5
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 9
To determine how DPS can best use its limited resources to significantly improve teaching and transform outcomes for kids, this project focused on:
School Funding
Note on Human Capital: Teacher effectiveness - and human capital more broadly - are critical to effective resource strategy. Given DPS’s ongoing implementation of LEAP, ERS analysis didn’t focus as deeply on DPS’s
investments in this area in SY0910
School Design
School Resource Flexibility
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 10
ERS Principles of an Effective School Funding System:
Aligned to Strategy: Supports the district academic strategy.
Meets Student Needs: Allocates resources equitably across students, based on student need.
Equitable Across Schools: Allocates resources equitably across schools, based on student and school need.
Transparent: School funding rules, policies, and processes understood by all stakeholders.
Reflective: Integrates lessons learned.
School Funding
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 11
School Funding: Summary of Key Findings
• DPS’ school funding system is more transparent and equitable than other systems ERS has studied.
• School size is largest driver of variation in per pupil spending across schools.
• ELL allocations to schools are lower than other districts studied and less than actual spending in some schools.
School Funding
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 12
Transparency: High level of transparency relative to other districts studied
Charlo
tte
Duval
Chica
go
Denve
r
Prince
Geo
rge'
s
Phila
delp
hia
St. P
aul
Atlant
a
77% 77% 77% 76%69% 66%
71%
58%
% o
f exp
en
dit
ure
s/b
ud
get
Lower $pp
District
Higher $ppDistrict
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
% of K12 op. expenditures that is SCHOOL REPORTEDOther Transparency Indicators: School budgets include
most funding sources and are easy to compare.
Funding formulas are widely shared and understood.
Principals report understanding what they have and why.
School budget and expense information includes benefit costs.
School Funding
Appendix
See appendix for
notes on ERS
coding
Education Resource Strategies 13
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Equity: Variation in $pp across schools is less than what ERS has seen in other districts (adjusted for student need)
ES/K-8 MS
Median $7.4KHi-Lo Spread 1.8X
Median $7.9KHi-Lo Spread 1.6X
FY0910 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PWP
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
HS/SS
Median $8.1KHi-Lo Spread 1.4X
School Funding
Appendix
$pwp = per
weighted pupil
which adjusts for
differences in
student need across
schools. See
Appendix for
methodology.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 14
Equity: Overall equity in funding across schools on the high end of districts studied
Duval Denver Baltimore Prince George's
District A Newark
54%
75%81%
48%
59%
46%
% o
f sch
ools
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
Share of Schools Within 10% of School Level Median Per Weighted Pupil Spending
School Funding
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500$5,000
$7,000
$9,000
$11,000 HS SS
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000 ES K8
Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $pwp vs. Size
School Size
Sch
ool-
Att
rib
ute
d $
pw
p
Middle Schools
High/Secondary
Equity: In FY0910, small schools were the main driver of inequity in funding across schools - DPS spent an add’l $6.5M on schools <350
0 500 1000 1500$5,000
$7,000
$9,000
$11,000
$13,000
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
School Funding
DPS has addressed many of these issues since FY0910 (i.e., eliminating subsidy which accounted for 25% of
$6.5M), however small schools likely still receive significantly more $pp.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 16
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 $-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
R² = 0.454122509610849
ES
K8
$pw
p
School Enrollment
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
Equity: Higher spending levels in small schools were driven from outside of the SBB
School Enrollment
Small schools receive add’l resources through flat allocations, step-function allocations, and subsidies beyond the stated
formula.
Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. Non-SBB Expenditures
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 $4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
$6,500
$7,000
$7,500
$8,000
$8,500
R² = 0.0824582271126115
ES
K8
$pw
p
Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. SBB Expenditures
School Funding
Appendix
See appendix for
breakdown
of Non-SBB
$s
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 17
ELL: Re-evaluating the ELL resource strategy is important because ELLs are disproportionately low-performing
DPS G3-5 All Test Takers DPS G3-5 Low Performers*0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
32% 38%
29%
39%
14%
11%
Source: DPS SY09-10 Enrollment Data and 2010 CSAP data.
*Low performers are students who scored U or PP on 2010 CSAP. ELL students comprise 30% of the population in 3 rd -5th grade; 95% of ELL students have CSAP scores for 2010. Note: 3rd-5th Grade Reading Disproportionality Ratios: ELL Poverty is 1.55 and English Only Poverty is 1.12
“ELL Poverty” Disproportionality
Ratio: 1.37x
SY0910: Disproportionality of 3rd-5th Grade Math Low Performance by Student Type
Non-Poverty Students
ELL: Exited or Opt Out
ELL
English Only
Poverty Students
ELL: Exited or Opt Out
ELL
English Only
School Funding
“English Only Poverty”
Disproportionality Ratio: 1.19x
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 18
ELL: Since SY0910, DPS has pushed additional resources to schools with higher concentrations of ELL students by increasing the SBB FRL weighting (in addition to Title I funding going to schools)
School Funding
Despite these efforts, the greater disproportionality of ELLs as low performers raises the question of whether DPS is sufficiently
differentiating resources based on need.
SY0910 SY1011 SY1112$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$256 $268
$461
$290 $303
$496
ESHS
FRL Status Free Only Free Only Free and Red.
Subject to Offset*? Yes Yes No
Kinder counted as 1.0?
No No Yes
SBB Allocation per Student by Free and Reduced Lunch Status
*This means that these funds were subject to the offsets from the “hurdle” during those years.
Note: In addition to the FRL SBB Allocations above, schools also received Title I money which was $433 or $525pp in SY1112 (depending on poverty level of school.)
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 19
District ELL weight(ERS-Defined)
ELL $pp ($K) % ELL
Denver 1.1 $0.7 23%*
Chicago 1.1 $0.7 14%
St. Paul 1.1 $0.8 42%Prince George’s 1.2 $1.7 11%
Philly 1.3 $2.6 8%
Duval 1.4 $2.9 3%
Boston 1.3 $3.2 21%
D.C. 1.3 $3.6 8%
Charlotte 1.5 $3.7 6%
Rochester 1.5 $7.6 10%
The district-allocated ELL funding is less than observed in other districts studied
School Funding
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
Notes:
• Allocations to schools driven by consent decree staffing requirements
• Allocations dependent on # of students and languages spoken
• ELA-E teachers are funded through schools’ base SBB allocation; as such, costs are excluded from ELL weight
* Excludes “Opt-Out” students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 20
DPS’ ELL spending focuses more on paraprofessionals than St. Paul (recognized for ELL “best practice”)School Funding
DPS St. Paul0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Other*
Leadership
Inst'l Support & Prof Dev
Teachers
Paras/Aides
*Other includes Instructional Support/Program Management, Pupil Services, Operations & Business Services. See appendix for details within these areas.
** Excludes “Opt-Out” & Pre-K students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL
Breakdown of SY0910 ELL Designated Spending
Weight of 1.1 ($0.7k) K-12: 23% ELL**
Weight of 1.1 ($0.8k) K-12: 42% ELL
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 21
Across ES, some schools have created smaller classes for ELLs using their “SBB base” funding, resulting in larger classes for non-ELLs
Source: ERS Analysis DPS SY09-10 Coursefile
School Funding
<17 18-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28+
34%
21% 22%17%
14% 16%
49%
39% 40%
30% 29%32%
% NEP % ELL
% E
LL in C
lass
# of Classes
335 343 254 345 312 210
SY0910: % Elementary NEP & ELL Students by Class Size
Class Size Buckets
How to Interpret:
• In elementary classes with 28+ students, 16% of students were NEP.
• In contrast, in elementary classes with <17 students, 34% of students were NEP.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 22
Summary: DPS’ school funding system is more transparent and equitable than other systems ERS has studied, however there are still opportunities to refine the system
Summary of Key Findings DPS Action Steps
• DPS’ school funding system is more transparent and equitable than other systems ERS has studied.
• School size is largest driver of variation in per pupil spending across schools.
• ELL allocations to schools are lower than other districts studied and less than actual spending in some schools.
• Explore further reduction of size-driven variation in per pupil funding.
• For SY1213, add ELL weight to SBB based on rethought service model.
• Explore adding other weights for additional school and students need characteristics to further differentiate allocations based on need.
School Funding
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 23
ERS experience: While not all high-performing schools look the same, their school designs tend to share common elements
Teaching Effectiveness
Our analysis of resource use looks at how DPS schools are investing in:
Teaching Effectiveness
Teaching teams and staffing plans
Collaborative planning time
Expert support
Academic Time
Aligning schedule with instructional design and student needs
Providing longer blocks of time on core subjects
Vary individual student time /program when necessary
Individual Attention
Tracking individual student progress and continuously adjusting instruction
Targeted individual support through small group sizes and reduced teaching loads in high needs areas
Addressing students’ social and emotional needs
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 24
School Design: Summary of Key FindingsSchool Design
Some schools demonstrate best practice resource use, though overall, resource use is uneven
Teaching Effectiveness: • Schools will need to redesign in order to capture the full ROI of
the district’s LEAP implementation.
Individual Attention:• ES: Despite having flexibility and different student needs, many
schools use the same para-driven approach to intervention.• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in noncore subjects
which limits their ability to provide individual attention in core.
Maximizing Time: • Most district schools (with exception of DSSN schools) have fewer
school hours compared to Denver charters.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 25
Teaching Effectiveness: ERS’ framework for school based instructional support stresses the inter-related nature of critical teaching effectiveness investments
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 26
LEAP Teacher Effectiveness
Individual Tchr. Developmental
Needs
LEAP Domain Expectations
CELA Growth Student Needs Data
Individual Tchr. Development
Strengths
DATASchool
Principal
Teaching Effectiveness: Previously, schools leaders had limited data to help decide teaching team assignments, for example. Moving forward, LEAP and other data can help school leaders make better decisionsSchool Design
DPS should create tools and support to enable principals to leverage LEAP and other data.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 27
Total Teacher Hours
1,152 1,134 1,328 1,285 1,345 1,395 1,260 1,393 1,463 1,472 1,440
Boston Rochester Phila-delphia
Mil-waukee
Baltimore Pitts-burgh
Seattle Duval DC Denver Prince George's
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Annual Teachers
Hrs
– S
tudent
Hrs
DPS Teacher Time8 hours*184 days
DPS Student Time6 hours 45 min
171days
Teaching Effectiveness: Denver teachers are in schools for 317 more hours (~40 working days) than students; this difference is significantly higher than in other urban districts ERS has studied
104 more hours due to longer
year
214 more hours due to longer
day72 81
124 126145
163180
243
273
317 324
104
214
Source: DPS Contract and TR3 Database and the Rochester School District
* This metric shows the difference in annual teacher hours based on contract (days*hours) and annual student hours (days * hours). Duty free periods/lunches are included in the student hours per day for all districts.
Difference Between the Annual Teacher Hours and Annual Student Hours
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 28
<15 15-20 21-25 >25
14
39
18 16
Nu
mb
er
of
Sch
ools
Teaching Effectiveness: Schools with high teacher-to-administrator ratios will struggle to fully benefit from LEAP without reallocating to invest in APs or significant restructuring of roles
ES: Schools by Teacher-to-Administrator Ratios
Source: ERS analysis, DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; - excludes charter schools
School Design
These Schools are mainly mid-sized schools (350-
625 students) who do not have an Assistant
Principal.
Teacher-to-Administrator Ratio Buckets
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 29
1. LEAP and other data improve principals’ ability to create strategic teacher teams and leverage teacher strengths and weaknesses.
2. Due to the extended teacher day, CPT will likely happen after school and hence concurrently for teams so coaches can’t be at every meeting.
3. Current low investment in coaches/facilitators (and limited funding overall) limits potential to add more coaches.
4. LEAP requires add’l evaluator time so opportunities for principals and APs to support teams directly is increasingly limited.
DPS should explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles and compensation
as part of ProComp.*
*ProComp currently doesn’t offer additional compensation for taking on multiple responsibilities as teachers, which is an important component of a broader teacher career development pathway.
Teaching Effectiveness: Given current structure and constraints on new investments, developing teacher leaders may be best way to ensure expert support to teams during Collaborative Planning Time (CPT)School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 30
Individual Attention – Elementary: The dominant ES school design use paras during “flooding periods” as the primary individual attention strategy
• Started program in K; now in K-2
3-4 paras “flood” into the homeroom class for 30 minutes each day to help conduct small group intensive literacy intervention
“Flooding” in all grades
Paras, interventionists, facilitators, SPED teachers “flood” a grade level for 45 minutes each day to provide small group interventions
School X School Y
ERS criteria for effective Flexible Grouping School X School Y
Regular formative assessments, common to subject/grade
PD and support is provided on creating and using groups well
Time in schedule for all participants to review data, group students, and agree on strategy
High-quality staff is available to create groups
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 31
Charlotte Denver Duval Prince George's
Syracuse $-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Com
pensati
on in $
1,0
00’s
Avg. para Comp. = 1/3 of Avg. Tchr. Comp. in DPS
Individual Attention – Elementary: Compared to other districts studied, Denver paras have the lowest average compensation and lowest relative compensation compared to teachers
0.5 0.30.4
0.5
0.5
Range of Para Compensation Across Districts
Source: DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; ERS analysis.
School Design
If use of paras continues as a core strategy, DPS should explore more rigorous evaluation of paras to ensure high-quality.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 32Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data.
Individual Attention - Secondary: In HS, higher per student cost of class in non-core subjects than in core is driven by lower class sizes and higher teacher compensation
Subject Avg Cost of GenEd
Class
# of Classes
Avg. GenEd Class Size
Avg. Tchr
Comp
Avg. Yrs of Exp.
% on Pro-
Comp
ELA $426/pp599
23
$71,658 9 62%
Math $445547
23
$74,734 8 84%
Science $393437
25
$69,807 8 70%
Social Studies $383444
25
$73,132 10 59%
Foreign Language $372198
26
$75,142 12 60%
Art/Music $538142
23
$74,555 10 60%
Computer Literacy $48927
20
$76,149 15 48%
PE/Health $27171
30
$78,288 14 44%
Vocational/Career $51947
22
$84,542 15 69%
Denver SS G9-12: Average Cost of Class by Subject
Given this differential, DPS should explore expanding flexibility to schools around non-traditional ways of offerings noncore classes.
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 33
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
K8
MS
6-12
HS
Nonco
re -
Core
School YNoncore Class Size = 16Core Class Size = 25
Individual Attention - Secondary:Smaller HS and upper grades (6-8) of K-8s have largest differentials in core v. non-core class size
Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data. Note: ERS defines core subjects as ELA, Math, Social Studies, Science & Foreign Language.
Denver SS: Difference in Avg. Noncore and Core Class vs. School Size
At these schools, noncore > Core Class Sizes
School Size
At these schools, noncore < Core Class Sizes
School XNoncore Class Size = 31Core Class Size = 22
School Design
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 34
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800Innovation Traditional Charter
Stu
dent
Hours
Per
Year
Mode- 1204, equivalent to 172 days that are 7 hours
DPS Secondary Schools
DPS: Secondary Student Hours per Year by School
Source: DPS 0910 Course Schedule
Maximize Time: Most charters have opted for more student hours, while district schools almost all had the same school hours per year in SY0910
School Design
DPS should consider future investment to extend school day/year.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 35
Summary: Some schools demonstrate best practice resource use, though overall, resource use is uneven particularly in the following areas:School Design
Summary of Key Findings DPS Action Steps
Teaching Effectiveness: • Schools will need to redesign in order
to capture the full ROI of the district’s LEAP implementation.
Individual Attention:• ES: Despite having flexibility and different
student needs, many schools are using the same para-driven approach to intervention.
• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in noncore subjects which limits their ability to provide individual attention in core.
Maximizing Time: • Most district schools (with exception of
DSSN schools) have fewer school hours compared to Denver charters.
• Actively promote the effective use of resources in all schools:o Continue to build school leader
capacity o Build capacity within school support
depts. (OSRI and Area Supt’s offices)o Create research-based school design
templates for principals to adapto Revise Framework for Effective School
Leadership to hold principals accountable for the effective use of resources
o Create tools/support to enable principals to leverage LEAP and other data
• Explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles and compensation as part of ProComp.
• Consider future investment to extend school day/year.
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 36
The purpose of providing resource flexibility to schools is to enable them to develop the strategic school designs that will best meet their school and student needs
Guiding Principles to be “tight”
Protection of Student Health & SafetyGiving schools control over this service could negatively impact the health & safety outcomes of students; holding schools accountable to those outcomes is costly or risky.
Compliance with Law/Legal LiabilityThe district has accountability for the service/activity (i.e., to state, federal) and transferring the accountability to the school-level would not actually give schools more flexibility and/or would create additional legal risk.
Targeting of Funds to Highest Need studentsGiving schools control over this service could negatively impact the District’s ability to target the use of funds to serve students with greater needs.
Consistency of District Strategy/ ExperienceThis service is critical to district strategy, important to ensure the consistency of student experience across district, or important for system but not for individual schools.
Quality ControlEnsuring the quality of this service requires specialized expertise or content knowledge that principals are unlikely to have, or is more effectively managed centrally .
Economies of ScalePer student or per school cost of providing the service/activity across all schools is much less than providing it at a single (or small number of) school(s).
Insurance/Risk-PoolingThe need for this service/activity is unpredictable and/or varies greatly across schools, and the costs are significant – i.e., major facilities repairs, low-incidence SPED, etc.
Three Dimensions of Financial Flexibility:
How Much: Flexibility “over how much to spend on a service”
How: Flexibility “over how to provide the service”
Who: Flexibility “over who/what is used to provide the service”
School Flexibility
1
2
3
Appendix
See appendix for
add’l explanation
of the dimensions
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 37
School Flexibility: Summary of Key Findings
• Overall, lack of capacity around strategic school design has been greater limiting factor to the effective use of resources than lack of flexibility.
• Schools have the most flexibility in deciding “who” should provide the service.
• Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more about who can provide the service and less about how to provide it.
School Flexibility
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 38
40%
60%71%
60%
40%29%
Loose Tight
Most of these $s have some type of external con-straint:
Title I Special Ed: Mild Moderate & Center ProgramMill Levy: Kinder, Textbooks, ArtsOther Grants
Under SBB, schools have the most flexibility in deciding who/what to spend on
Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations
School-Attributed Spending: By Flexibility Category
How Much How Who/What
School Flexibility
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 39
Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more about who can provide the service and less about how to provide it
2010-11 Menu Estimated Total 1011 $s Available to Innov. Schls
How much How Who
Custodians $1.6M Loose Loose Loose
PSNs $539k Loose Loose Loose
Occupational & Physical Therapist $258k Tight Tight Loose
Textbook Acquisition (Fund 16) $189k Tight Loose Loose
High School Athletics $163k Tight Loose Loose
Title IID $103k Tight Loose Loose
College Readiness $93k Tight Tight Loose
Post-Secondary Education Options
$88k Tight Loose Loose
Credit Recovery $67k Tight Loose Loose
Human Resources $51k Loose Loose Loose
District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 10)
$39k Loose Loose Loose
Library, Film, LION, Book Baskets $35k Tight Tight Loose
District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 16)
$30k Tight Tight Loose
9th Grade Academies $25k Tight Loose Loose
AVID: Participation $18k Tight Loose Loose
Teacher Leadership Development $12k Loose Loose Loose
Career & Tech Program $12k Tight Loose Loose
Textbook Acquisition (Fund 10) $9k Loose Loose Loose
Principal PD $7k Loose Loose Loose
Total $3.3m
School Flexibility
Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 40
School Flexibility: Summary
Summary of Key Findings DPS Action Steps
• Overall, lack of capacity around strategic school design has been greater limiting factor to the effective use of resources than lack of flexibility.
• Schools have the most flexibility in deciding “who” should provide the service.
• Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more about who can provide the service and less about how to provide it.
• Support and incentivize the development of school designs to meet specific needs.
• Moving forward, specific strategic school design needs should drive greater flexibility (especially over “how” to provide services).
School Flexibility
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 41
DPS has already put in place much of the groundwork it needs to successfully implement its “managed performance empowerment” theory of action:
How, overall, will DPS be able to use its limited resources to significantly improve teaching and transform outcomes for kids?
School Design
• DPS’ school funding system is highly transparent and equitable though there are opportunities to refine: further adjust the SBB formula to match student needs (particularly in ELL) and further reduce size-driven variation.
However, the ultimate success of a “managed performance empowerment” system lies in the hands of its principals – whether they can leverage funding and flexibility to best meet the needs of their students:
• Thus, it is critical for DPS to actively promote the effective use of resources in all schools by building school leader capacity, building capacity for those who support school leaders (OSRI, Instructional Sups), and creating the tools, systems, and structures that will best support them both.
• Ultimately, the demands of strategic school designs should drive flexibility expansion; DPS can foster greater flexibility by incentivizing designs that focus on specific needs
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 42
Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures
ERS Use & Function Coding
Drilldown into SY0910 Operations & Maintenance Expenditures
ERS Sharing Level Coding
Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars
ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need
Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112
Additional Explanation of Flexibility Dimensions
Appendix Slides
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 43Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures, ERS analysis
Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures
SY0910 Expenditures $1.024 billion
Exclude Non-SY0910-Operating Costs $255 million Capital $74,674,239Debt Service $69,424,083Property Rental/Lease $46,661,450Transfers $54,623,015 Other Exclusions $9,277,508
Exclude Non-PreK12 Costs $31 million Adult Ed/EGOS $19,231,896Private Schools $1,203,940SPED outplacement $4,072,243Pre K External Contract $3,139,095Tuition Based after school and summer school $ 3,290,877
SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures $738 millionCharter $69,351,527
Appendix
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 44Source: ERS knowledge management
ERS Use & Function Coding: To ensure comparability across districts in our analysis, ERS uses its own methodologies, definitions and coding structures – including “use” and “function”
Pupil Services & Enrichment
Instruction
Operations & Maintenance
Instruction Support & Prof. Dev.
Business Services
Leadership
• Teacher Compensation • Aides Compensation • Substitute Compensation • Librarian & Media Specialist • Instructional Materials & Supplies • Other Non-Compensation• Other Compensation• Extended Time & Tutoring
• Enrichment • Social Emotional • Physical Health Services & Therapies • Career Academic Counseling • Parent & Community Relations
• Professional Development• Curriculum Development• Recruitment(of Instructional Staff)• Special Population Program Management
& Support
• Facilities & Maintenance • Security & Safety • Food Services • Student Transportation • Utilities
• Governance • School Supervision • School Administration • Research & Accountability • Communications • Student Assignment
• Human Resources • Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution • Data Processing & Information Services • Facilities Planning • Development & Fundraising • Legal • Insurance
Use
Function
Appendix
Education Resource Strategies 45
Within O&M, Transportation and Facilities & Maintenance drive most of difference; Facilities & Maintenance is particularly low given Denver’s larger square foot per pupil
Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
4.8%7.2%
5.5%9.1%
6.1%4.7%
2.5%
5.9%5.2% 4.2%
3.5%
3.8%2.3% 3.0%
2.3%
2.7%1.1% 0.8%
0.6%
0.8%
Security & Safety
Utilities
Food Services
Student Transportation
Facilities & Maintenance
19.9%
14.5%
22.3%
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: % of PreK12 Operating
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database
19.5%
SqFt/pupil 132 130 166 143 Methodology
ERS-defined
“operating
expenses”
exclude capital
expenses/ bond
authorizations
Appendix
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 46
ERS Sharing Level Coding: ERS also recodes expenses to identify how much the district spends at the following four “levels”:
District Governance, Management of the support services provide to SchoolsExample: Superintendent, Board, Strategy, Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation
Leadership & Management
“Central Overhead”
DPS: % of Expenses
6%
All FTEs, services, and materials not reported on the school budget, but support schools on a regular and predictable basisExample: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNsAll FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to schools in the district expendituresExample: SBB Allocations, Non-SBB Resources
School on Central
School Reported
All FTEs, services, and materials that provide support to schools but generally on as-needed or irregular basisExample: Transportation, Maintenance
Support Services
“School-Attributed”
This is what ERS uses to compare spending across schools
9%
9%
76%
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,
SY0910 vs. SY11
12
In SY1112, the “School-Reported” % will be even higher because many of the resources that were “School on Central” in SY0910 like PSNs will now be accounted for at schools
Appendix
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 47
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,
School Reported: 89%
All FTEs, services, and materials reported to schools in the expenditures file.
SBB:65%
SBB Base funding: $3,931 for all schools K-12 (K=.5) in SY1112
Other SBB Allocations: For example – Mild Moderate, Title I, FRL Supplemental Funds, Mill Levy: Tech, Facilitators, Textbooks, Kinder, Elementary Arts, etc.
Non-SBB: 24%
For example: Custodial Services, Food Services, Security Services, Special Education Center Programs, General Education Programs like Boost, AVID, Credit Recovery, College Readiness, etc.
School on Central: 11%
All FTEs, services, and materials that are reported on central budgets in the expenditures file, but supports schools on a regular and predictable basis.
For example: Athletics, Central Food Prep Kitchens, Related Services (OT, PT, Speech, etc.), Other SPED Services, Central Textbook Adoption, Teaching Effectiveness Coaches, Operations & Maintenance, etc.
Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars
Appendix
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 48
School S School D
% SPED
5% 9%
% ELA 1% 15%
% Pov 9% 75%
$6,764/pp $6,766/pp
These two schools have the same per pupil amount but School D serves a much needier student
population …
… so ERS takes the student type weights that we calculated to
adjust each school’s enrollment to create an “adjusted” per-pupil
amount
School S School D
Enrollment
504 428
Weighed Enrollmen
t*441 422
$7,957/pwp
$7,067/pwp
1 2
ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need: Comparing two Denver schools shows why we need to try to "adjust" a school’s per-pupil spending according to student needs
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
*For example: We know that the district overall spending on SPED-Mild Moderate students is 2.4 weight-> so any SPED Mild Moderate students at School D and School S are weighted 2.4 in the school’s weighted enrollment. Across the district, the weighted enrollment is then grossed down proportionally to get to the district’s actual enrollment.
Appendix
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 49
Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112
Appendix
ALLOCATION FY09-10* FY10-11* FY11-12 NOTES
Base Per Pupil*
$3,335 for all schools K-12 (K=.5)Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle
Middle Schools $58 *6-12 Schools $3 *
High Schools $157 *
$3,335 for all schools K-12 (K=.5)Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle
Middle Schools $58 *6-12 Schools $3 *
High Schools $157 *
$3,931 for all schools K-12 (K=.5)
Instructional Dollars $193 K-12 (K=.5) $193 K-12 (K=.5) Included in Base
Guest Teachers NONE $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00) $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00)Guest Teachers (Substitutes) were budgeted
centrally until FY10-11 when dollars were devolved to schools
Supplemental Base for Center Programs NONE NONE
$ Per Center Program per K-12 (K=.5)
Until FY11-12 this allocation was included as part of PSN staffing allocation (below)
ES - $12 K8 - $12 MS - $13
6-12 - $13 HS/Alt - $11
PSN (Student Service Days) Staffing Allocation*
NONE
As of FY11-12 - No specific PSN staffing allocation - $110-114 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 included in Base (above)
$50-55 (FL grades K-12, K=.5) $52-$57 (FL grades 1-12) $52-$57 included in FRL Supp Funds Allocation $11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5)
FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure appropriate staffing
$11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5)FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure
appropriate staffing
$11-13 included in Supp Base for Center Programs
Mild Moderate Staffing Allocation*
$351 for FRL Students $334 for FRL Students
NONE
As of FY11-12 - No specific MM staffing allocation
$234 for non-FRL Students
FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure appropriate staffing
$223 for non-FRL Students
FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure appropriate staffing
FRL is a standalone allocation (below)
Non-FRL students funded as part of SBB Base - (All K-12, K=.5)
Free Lunch / Free and Reduced Lunch Supp Funds*
$256 Elementary FL ($122 subject to offset) $268 for Elementary FL ($128 subject to offset) $461 for Elementary As of FY11-12 allocated to free AND REDUCED lunch students and K @ 1.00$290 Secondary FL ($220 subject to offset) $303 for Secondary FL ($230 subject to offset) $496 for Secondary
Gifted & Talented Per Pupil* $95 $95 $120 Per identified GT (gr. 1-8) in addition to .25 FTE
allocationTargeted Interventions $100,000 targeted allocation $100,000 targeted allocation $100,000-$250,000
SPF "Orange" and "Red" schools
Performance Allocation NONE NONE
$65/student - SPF Blue
NEW for FY11-12 $95/student for growth to Orange $100/student for growth to Yellow $105/student for growth to Green $115/student for growth to Blue
Extra Allocations (IB, Montessori, Arts) $2.2 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $2.3 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE Funding added to class size relief pool, additional
school funding addressed through that process
Small School Factor $1,649,768 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $854,000 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE Funding added to class size relief pool, additional school funding addressed through that process
* Subject to offset due to hurdle. This offset was eliminated with FY11-12 formula changes.
Education Resource Strategies 50
What do we mean by flexibility over “How Much”
Flexibility over “How Much”TIGHT
Principal PD
District determines a minimum amount that each school must spend on Principal PD.
Schools can choose if they want to spend any $ on Principal PD, and if so, how much. They can
choose to spend no $ if they want.
Speech Pathology Services
Districts review IEPs/student need at school and tell schools how much Speech Pathology to offer.
Schools review IEPs/student needs themselves to decide
how much Speech Pathology to offer. They can provide
none but only if their students don’t need it.
The school decides if they want to provide a service,
and if so, how much to spend.
The district decides that the service must be provided and the minimum amount to be spent.
LOOSE
Appendix
Source: ERS knowledge management
Education Resource Strategies 51
What do we mean by flexibility over “How ”?
Flexibility over “How”TIGHT
PrincipalPD
District determines that the amount spent on Principal PD will go towards funding network meetings and attending workshop X.
Schools can choose how to usethe amount spent on Principal PD – i.e., they want to take workshop
Y and get executive coaching.
Speech Pathology Services
District determines that the amount spent on Speech Pathology will go towards funding a full time 1.0 FTE at the school.
Schools can choose how to usethe amount spent on Speech
Pathology, i.e., hire 2 partial FTEs OR purchase services by hour.
The school decides the structure through which the
service will be provided.
The district decides the structure through which the service will be provided.
LOOSE
Appendix
Source: ERS knowledge management
Education Resource Strategies 52
What do we mean by flexibility over “Who/what”?
Flexibility over “Who/what”TIGHT
PrincipalPD
District determines that principals can only attend workshops off an approved list or get executive coaching from provider X.
Schools can choose which workshops to attend, which coach/mentor to hire, etc.
Speech Pathology Services
District assigns the Speech Pathologist OR determines the provider that schools can purchase hourly services from.
School hires the Speech Pathologist OR can decide
which provider to purchase hourly services from.
The school decides who to hire or from which provider
they will procure the resource.
The district decides the person or provider or significantly restricts the set of people or providers from which they can choose.
LOOSE
Appendix
Source: ERS knowledge management