Assessing Strategic
Resource Use in SDPBC
Board Workshop ● December 9, 2015
© Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2014
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Objectives
 Review findings from System 20/20 resource diagnostic
 Put findings in context of recent board discussions on
district theory of action
 Preview analysis to come from ERS
1
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Roadmap for our work with ERS
Phase I
Workstream
Data collection and
validation
System 2020 Review
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Today’s
discussion
Phase II
Strategic Resource Map
•
School funding and
equity
•
Strategic school
design
•
Human capital
strategy
Synthesis and
prioritization
2
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
The System 20/20 diagnostic offers a wide and rapid view of
resource use – then we go deep with the Resource Map
System 20/20 Diagnostic
Objectives
•
•
•
•
Rapidly identify potential resource
changes and “quick wins”
Assess enabling conditions for
strategic resource use
Lay groundwork for long-term change
Establish benchmarks for measuring
future performance and growth
ERS Strategic Resource Map
•
•
Assess current uses of people, time and
money to meet student needs
Lay groundwork for implementation of nearand long-term shifts in resources
Timeline
6-8 weeks
9-12 months
Nature of
analysis
Identify system-wide trends
Assesses district-wide policies and
practices in funding, school-level resource
use and human capital
Provide a broad and deep view of how
resources are organized
Includes peer benchmarks for 30+ distinct
functions, how resource practices vary by
school, and multiple aspects of human capital
strategy
Findings to be
reviewed today
Source: ERS
Analysis underway
First staff review: Dec 15
3
Teaching
Standards
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
School Design
Partners
Leadership
Funding
School Support
4
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Strong performance
Palm Beach ES/MS students generally outperform
Florida peers in both ELA and Math…
3% or more above comp
Reading Proficiency, 2013-14
Math Proficiency, 2013-14
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
Dade
50%
50%
Broward
40%
40%
30%
30%
Duval
20%
20%
Pinellas
10%
10%
0%
0%
3
4
5
6
7
8
Palm Beach
Hillsborough
Orange
Polk
State
3
4
5
6
7
8
Palm Beach vs.
State
-2%
--
+1%
+1%
-1%
+1%
-1%
+3%
+3%
+4%
+2%
+3%
Peer median
-1%
--
+2%
+2%
+1%
+3%
+1%
+2%
+4%
+5%
+4%
+7%
Source: http://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/ District Level Demographic Results for 2014 FCAT 2.0 Reading and Math Grades 3-8
5
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Strong performance
…and graduate high school at a slightly higher rate
High School Graduation Rates, 2013-14
78%
76%
74%
Source: http://edstats.fldoe.org High School Graduation Rates 2013-2014
77%
76%
75%
74%
74%
74%
69%
6
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Strong performance
What might be driving this performance?
System 20/20 Domain
Possible drivers of success
Standards &
Instruction
• Teachers have access to curriculum-aligned
formative assessments and reports
• District provides training on interpreting and using
data
Teaching
• Teachers have access to professional development
on pedagogy and content
School Design
• Struggling students can receive additional time in
certain subjects
• Rich staffing can enable small group size for
priority students and subjects
7
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
We leverage the ERS database and publicly
available data for comparison to SDPBC
Duval
Lake
Pinellas
Orange
Hillsborough Polk
Philadelphia
Broward
Dade
Denver
Prince George’s
Charlotte
Fulton
Austin
Aldine
National comparison districts
from the ERS database
Local comparison districts
Local and national comp district
Source: ERS
Duval
Lake
PALM BEACH
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Palm Beach’s national peer districts
PreK-12
Enrollment
(000s)
$ per
pupil (all
funds)*
#
Schools
% Free or
Reduced
Lunch
Palm Beach
166.4
$8,580
165
58%
11%
15%
Peer district median
88.3
$9,839
132
60%
8%
10%
Aldine
65.5
$7,494
74
83%
32%
8%
Charlotte
146.5
$8,063
160
54%
6%
9%
Lake
36.0
$8,501
58
60%
4%
14%
Austin
86.5
$9,699
128
63%
27%
10%
Fulton
88.3
$9,839
94
42%
5%
10%
Duval
120.8
$9,907
172
53%
3%
13%
Prince George’s
123.5
$10,487
202
60%
13%
9%
Denver
68.6
$11,764
132
70%
25%
10%
Philadelphia
137.0
$12,724
212
86%
8%
15%
District
% English
Language % Special
Learners Education
*Dollars represent PK-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2005 School District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars
adjusted to 2014-15 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator
Source: ERS CAPS database, NCES Elementary/Secondary Information System, ERS analysis
9
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Findings from the System 20/20 Diagnostic
1. SDPBC faces vast achievement gaps and increasing student
need – but operates at a need-adjusted funding level that is far
below national standards
2. School leaders, while generally bullish on SDPBC, crave and
require a less silo-ed, more cohesive approach to school
support
3. Teacher evaluation practices make it difficult for SDPBC to
leverage and invest in its most effective educators, by targeting
professional growth and career path opportunities
4. School leaders lack the flexibility and support to consistently
organize available school-level resources in a strategic manner
– leaving precious opportunity for impact on the table
10
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
SDPBC faces significant performance gaps, heightening the
need to use available resources as strategically as possible
’13-’14 Performance gap between…
FRL and non-FRL students
60%
ELL and non-ELL students
48%
50%
40%
30%
39%
35%
33%
28% 26%
30%
27%
43%
40% 40%
43%
38%
24%
20%
10%
0%
Source: http://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/ District Level Demographic Results for 2014 FCAT 2.0 Reading Grades 3-8
11
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
The clustering of schools by performance in the
district mostly aligns with geographic inequities
Jupiter
Riviera Beach / WPB
Palm Beach
Gardens
Belle Glade
Royal Palm Beach
Wellington
Lake Worth
Boca Raton
Source: ArcGIS mapping platform using 2014 census data; schoolgrades.fldoe.org School Grades 2013-2014
12
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
While student poverty is correlated with school
performance, some schools are beating the odds
ES Reading Proficiency ‘13-’14 by % FRL
100%
High ELL Concentration Schools
R² = 0.8704
Percent of students proficient in ELA
90%
Gifted Program
Palm Beach
South Olive
80%
70%
Meadow Park Crosspointe
Berkshire
60%
Wynnebrooke
Liberty Park
Belvedere
50%
40%
30%
~90% FRL
Proficiency from 30-60%
20%
10%
0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent of students receiving free or reduced lunch
80%
90%
Source: http://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/ School Level Demographic Results for 2014 FCAT 2.0 Reading Grades 3-5, http://edstats.fldoe.org Enrollment 2014-2015, ERS analysis
100%
13
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Current achievement gaps and population shifts imply
a potential decline in overall student proficiency
Actual and projected
SDPBC student composition
Other
6.9%
6.4%
5.7%
28.5%
28.9%
26.8%
Actual and projected
student proficiency** based
on current performance by
student demographics
70%
60%
Black
21.3%
51.9%
50%
30.6%
Hispanic
White
55.0%
43.5%
How local
comp
districts
scored in
’13-’14
40%
30%
43.3%
20%
34.1%
23.9%
10%
0%
2004-2005
2013-2014
2024-2025*
2013-2014
2024-2025
*Assumes same CAGR from 2013-2014 to 2024-2025 as from 2004-2005 to 2013-2014
**3rd grade reading proficiency
Source: http://edstats.fldoe.org Enrollment, www.fldoe.org Data Publications and Reports: Profiles of Florida Districts, Students, and Staff Data 2004-2005, ERS Analysis
14
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
SDPBC’s per-pupil funding is on the high end of Florida peers,
but middle of the pack after adjusting for student need
$ per pupil, by district
(controls for geography and inflation)
$14,000
Not adjusted for student need
Adjusted for student need
$12,000
$10,000
SDPBC = $8,580
$8,000
SDPBC = $6,518
Nat’l peer median
$8,180
Local peer median
$6,380
Dade
Broward
Pinellas
Lake
Orange
Polk
Duval
Hillsborough
Local peer median
$8,031
Denver
Philadelphia
PGC
Fulton
Austin
Aldine
Charlotte
$2,000
Nat’l peer median
$9,839
Dade
Pinellas
Hillsborough
Broward
Lake
Orange
Polk
Duval
$4,000
Philadelphia
Denver
PGC
Fulton
Austin
Charlotte
Aldine
$6,000
SDPBC vs.
peer median
SDPBC
SDPBC
$0
National $pp
Local $pp
National $pwp
Local $pwp
-13%
+7%
-20%
+2%
Florida district data based on district-reported Total Estimated Revenue
Source: ERS CAPS database, http://www.palmbeachschools.org/budget/Documents/FY16ExecutiveSummary-websitecopy.pdf, ERS analysis
15
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Findings from the System 20/20 Diagnostic
1. SDPBC faces vast achievement gaps and increasing student
need – but operates at a need-adjusted funding level that is far
below national standards
2. School leaders, while generally bullish on SDPBC, crave and
require a less silo-ed, more cohesive approach to school
support
3. Teacher evaluation practices make it difficult for SDPBC to
leverage and invest in its most effective educators, by targeting
professional growth and career path opportunities
4. School leaders lack the flexibility and support to consistently
organize available school-level resources in a strategic manner
– leaving precious opportunity for impact on the table
16
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Principals in Palm Beach are more likely to recommend
their jobs than peers around the country
How likely are you to recommend to a qualified peer
to work as a school leader in your district?
(1 = extremely unlikely, 10 = extremely likely)
10%
34%
58%
58%
27%
27%
27%
54%
14%
33%
12%
25%
15%
Net
Promoter
Score*
23%
Palm Beach
District D
+43
+35
District C
+19
*Net Promoter Score = Percent Promoters minus Percent Detractors
Source: Principal Survey 2015, ERS analysis
Passives (7-8)
42%
20%
35%
Promoters (9-10)
59%
63%
District A
District B
Detractors (1-6)
40%
24%
District F
+10
District E
-13
-32
-53
17
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
However, many principals – including Promoters – voiced
concern over the nature of school flexibility and district support
Need for additional support and guidance at school site
There is a definite lack of communication
and support from central and area offices.
Lack of autonomy at the school site
level. Many layers of services without
input from principal
Lack of support and meaningful
feedback to improve in role
Comments
from
Detractors
Comments
from
Promoters
Although we have many good policies
and procedures in our district, the lack
of flexibility and decision making
power makes it difficult to serve as the
true instructional leader with the ability
to lead, guide and support the
The district has a good support system but can
have a cookie cutter mentality for DA schools
Overall, I believe that the support is good, however, the communication could improve.
Source: Principal Surveys
18
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Though baseline supports exist, principals observe a
lack of cohesion and accountability
Percent of principal responses
100%
90%
80%
5
30
13
5
6
24
7
26
70%
63
60%
25
52
50%
40%
63
0%
Agree
60
61
36
20%
5
2
27
24
27
4
4
4
8
My school's
My assignment
Effective school District provides the District provides
learning/performance provides me with
leaders are given professional growth cohesive support in
goals are widely greatest opportunity opportunities to grow support I need to be
curriculum,
known and
for growth and
with challenging
effective
assessment,
understood
impact
assignments
evaluation and
professional growth
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
12
Consistently
ineffective school
leaders are held
accountable
% (Strongly)
Agree
91
68
59
68
32
28
Avg rating*
3.2
3.3
2.7
2.7
2.3
2.2
*On a scale where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 4 = Strongly Agree
Source: Principal Surveys, ERS analysis
Not Sure
Strongly Agree
30%
10%
3
19
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Breaking down silos will be key for achieving the
System 2020 shifts
From this:
“All of our departments are motivated for
change and want to see student success,
but each piece is working in a silo and
there’s not enough communication.”
“We duplicate work; different departments
will want the same thing in different ways.”
“The biggest challenge is getting everyone
on the same page with a common plan and
moving forward on that plan.”
Source: ERS interviews with SDPBC personnel
To this:
 Clear vision and priorities that are
effectively communicated to all
 School support providers (e.g.
area support, curriculum, etc.)
strategizing together in terms of
how their support will play out at
the school level
 Open communication between
departments to improve efforts
aligned with district-wide priorities
20
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Palm Beach has a high proportion of early career principals,
which heightens the need for effective school support
Distribution of Principals by Years of Experience
2%
4%
30%
11 %
9%
13 %
12 %
27 %
8%
14 %
19 %
27 %
34 %
30 %
35%
29 %
10%
28 %
17-24
3-7
1-2
0
28 %
16%
11 %
9%
10%
5%
3%
9%
SDPBC
Austin
Fulton
PG
DPS
28%
19%
15%
31%
25%
Source: SDPBC Human Resources FY15 File, ERS Database
>25
8-16
24 %
17 %
Pct <3
years exp
5%
6%
21
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Findings from the System 20/20 Diagnostic
1. SDPBC faces vast achievement gaps and increasing student
need – but operates at a need-adjusted funding level that is far
below national standards
2. School leaders, while generally bullish on SDPBC, crave and
require a less silo-ed, more cohesive approach to school
support
3. Teacher evaluation practices make it difficult for SDPBC to
leverage and invest in its most effective educators, by targeting
professional growth and career path opportunities
4. School leaders lack the flexibility and support to consistently
organize available school-level resources in a strategic manner
– leaving precious opportunity for impact on the table
22
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
In contrast with other large urban districts, SDPBC’s teacher
evaluation system is not meaningfully differentiating performance
Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness Ratings
16%
9%
1%
13%
22%
16%
14%
44%
Highly Effective
74%
83%
79%
70%
76%
97%
82%
Effective
Needs Improvement
Ineffective
55%
SDPBC
6%
3%
7%
7%
7%
6%
Dist A
Dist B
Dist C
Dist D
Dist E
Note: Districts A-G data based on ERS experience in these districts. All use four-box rating systems.
Source: SDPBC HR FY14, ERS Comparison Districts
3%
Dist F
2%
Dist G
23
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Without accurate evaluation data, SDPBC cannot
effectively:
 Track the quality of teacher candidate
sources and supports hiring accordingly
 Encourage the most effective teachers to
work in the highest need schools
 Consistently retain high-performing
teachers
 Exit low-performing/ineffective teachers
 Give effective teachers differential
compensation for additional responsibilities
or more challenging assignments
 Inform professional growth plans for
teachers
Source: Principal Survey 2015
Nearly 90% of SDPBC
principals disagree with the
statement: “I am able to exit
consistently lowperforming/ineffective
teachers in my school”
24
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Palm Beach has strategically directed its coaching
resources to Transformation Schools
Low coach
investment
Teacher to Coach Ratio
120
106
High coach
investment
# of teachers per instructional coach
100
80
86
How could SDPBC invest in
additional coaching resources to
better support teachers outside
of Transformation Schools?
86
76
60
42
40
20
35
31
28
27
22
21
21
0
Source: ERS System 2020 Database.
25
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Findings from the System 20/20 Diagnostic
1. SDPBC faces vast achievement gaps and increasing student
need – but operates at a need-adjusted funding level that is far
below national standards
2. School leaders, while generally bullish on SDPBC, crave and
require a less silo-ed, more cohesive approach to school
support
3. Teacher evaluation practices make it difficult for SDPBC to
leverage and invest in its most effective educators, by targeting
professional growth and career path opportunities
4. School leaders lack the flexibility and support to consistently
organize available school-level resources in a strategic manner
– leaving precious opportunity for impact on the table
26
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
While most principals understand their budgets, many
say they lack flexibility in how they use it
21% of principals say they do not understand their budgets
44% of principals understand their
budgets but feel they do not have
flexibility over resources
Source: Principal Survey 2015
35% of principals understand
their budgets and feel they
have flexibility over resources
27
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
And in fact, SDPBC schools lack meaningful flexibility
in crucial areas
Do schools have flexibility in…
Less
strategic
More
strategic
How they spend their budget, including class size and
staffing ratios and can trade staff positions, positions
for dollars and dollars for positions.
Focus professional development time and budget in
high priority areas
Hire teachers whose skills and expertise match school
and student needs
Make schedule changes without contract renegotiation
or full faculty vote.
Flexibility
hampered
by lack of
high-quality
applicants
Vary special education service and instructional models
as long as they meet IEP requirements.
Vary teacher teams, assignments and schedules with
data support to provide time for collaboration and
match resources to student needs
Source: ERS System 20/20 Database
28
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Even with rich staffing, SDPBC does not appear to be
using teacher loads to provide individualized attention
System 20/20 Best Practice
System 20/20 Strategic Practice
Average teacher load
(unique # of students per teacher)
140
120
100
80
85
6th grade ELA
6th grade Math
80
108
112
9th grade ELA
9th grade Math
60
40
20
0
Source: ERS System 2020 Database
29
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Teacher collaborative planning is commonly for less
time than optimal and often lacks expert support
…are scheduled for how long
Percent of principals saying
that teaching teams in their
schools…
…are led by an expert facilitator (pct of teams)
Less than
50%
About 75%
All Teams
All
responses
<60 minutes
21%
17%
11%
49%
60-90 minutes
9%
8%
12%
29%
>90 minutes
5%
5%
6%
16%
All responses
35%
30%
29%
Table excludes 6% of principal responses who selected Other.
Source: Principal Survey 2015
80% do not
have enough
weekly CPT
to affect
teaching and
learning
Ideal CPT = at least
90 min per week
Just 11%
operate in best
practice range
30
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Resources could potentially be shifted to bring
SDPBC hours closer to those of nat’l comp districts
Total Hours in School (ES)
Total Hours in School (SS)
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,080
1,125
1,116
1,116
1,170
1,206
1,287
1,350
1,260
1,260
1,215
1,250
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
Source: www.nctq.org District Policy Reports
31
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Roadmap for our work with ERS
Phase I
Workstream
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Data collection and
validation
System 2020 Review
Phase II
Strategic Resource Map
•
School funding and
equity
•
Strategic school
design
•
Human capital
strategy
Example
analyses
follow
Synthesis and
prioritization
32
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example comparison of per-pupil
spending vs. peer districts
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
Cross District Comparison of Average PreK-12 Operating
Geographically Adjusted $pp (fully allocated)*
District D spends nearly $3,000 less per
pupil than the median of peer districts
with similar size and student need
$15,624
$15,875
District E
District F
$20,824
$17,031
$12,724
$11,036
$7,886
District A
$8,488
District B
District C
District D
District G
District H
* Dollars represent PreK-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 2013-14 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator
Source: ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database
33
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
ERS codes all spending into consistent “uses” and
“functions” for comparison to peer districts
Leadership
Instruction
Use
Function
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teacher Compensation
Aides Compensation
Substitute Compensation
Librarian & Media Specialist
Instructional Materials & Supplies
Other Non-Compensation
Other Compensation
Extended Time & Tutoring
Pupil Services & Enrichment
• Enrichment
• Social Emotional
• Physical Health Services & Therapies
• Career Academic Counseling
• Parent & Community Relations
Instruction Support & Professional Development
•
•
•
•
Professional Development
Curriculum Development
Recruitment(of Instructional Staff)
Special Population Program Management & Support
Untracked
Source: ERS
•
•
•
•
•
•
Governance
School Supervision
School Administration
Research & Accountability
Communications
Student Assignment
Operations & Maintenance
•
•
•
•
•
Facilities & Maintenance
Security & Safety
Food Services
Student Transportation
Utilities
Business Services
• Human Resources
• Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution
• Data Processing & Information Services
• Facilities Planning
• Development & Fundraising
• Legal
• Insurance
• Discretionary funds not earmarked for any specific purpose
34
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example analysis of spending by Use
vs. peer districts
Breakdown of PreK-12 operating spending, by use
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
This district spends less than peers on business
services, leadership and instructional support
100%
90%
3%
2%
5%
7%
% of PK-12 Operating Expense
80%
70%
23%
4%
6%
4%
6%
3%
6%
4%
6%
8%
8%
7%
8%
8%
6%
6%
20%
60%
21%
20%
8%
22%
5%
7%
4%
7%
9%
8%
9%
16%
7%
4%
10%
9%
3%
6%
8%
12%
Instructional
Support & PD
20%
Leadership
11%
18%
18%
50%
Pupil Services
& Enrichment
40%
30%
Business
Services
61%
52%
55%
58%
20%
52%
50%
55%
49%
52%
District F
District G
Operations &
Maintenance
Instruction
10%
0%
FY 14
Comp Dist
Median
Source: ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database
District A
Low $pp
District B
District C
District D
District E
High $pp
35
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
What do we mean by “budget transparency?”
ERS Sharing Level
On
central
office
budgets
Leadership &
Management
District Governance, Management of the support services
provided to Schools
Example: Superintendent, Department Heads
Shared
Services
All FTEs, services, and materials that provide support to
schools at scale or on an as-needed or irregular basis
Example: Transportation, Maintenance
School on
Central
All FTEs, services, and materials not reported in the financial
system at schools, but that play out in schools on a regular
and predictable basis. Example: Psychologists, Utilities
School
Reported
All FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to
schools in the district expenditures
True
district
“overhead”
“Transparent” budgeting reports maximum dollars at the school level
36
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example: Cross District Comparison of
Spending by Sharing Level
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Sharing Level
7%
17%
8%
10%
4%
5%
Resources
spent in
schools
6%
14%
9%
9%
15%
6%
15%
2%
4%
14%
6%
7%
10%
10%
10%
10%
9%
15%
Leadership &
Management
Shared Services
School on Central
Budgets
71%
Aldine
Low $pp
77%
Lake
71%
Knox
69%
Austin
77%
Fulton
76%
Hall
71%
Denver
65%
School Reported
DC
High $pp
* 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
2012-13 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator
Source: ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database
37
Funding
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
The proportion of the budget going to Leadership
& Management depends in part on district size
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
<10K Students
Source: ERS CAPS Database
10-50K Students
50-100K
Philadelphia FY14
Charlotte 13-14
PG 12-13
Philadelphia FY10
Duval
Palm Beach
Knox
Fulton
Aldine
Austin
Denver
Baltimore
Hall
New Haven 13-14
Bridgeport
Buffalo
Lake
Newark
DC
Cleveland
Oakland
?
Marietta
Vidalia
Hamden
Windham
Treutlen
0%
100K+
38
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example: Inequity across a school district
Sky Blue Academy
Green Street H.S.
$12,960
$13,080
9-12
550
22
84%
Grades
Students
Teachers
Pct Poverty (FRL)
9-12
565
23
82%
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example: Inequity across a school district
Sky Blue Academy
Green Street H.S.
$12,960
$13,080
13%
10% / 3%
7%
100%
Pct Special Ed
Resource / Self-Contained
Pct 9th graders in
bottom quartile ELA
Pct who chose school
24%
11% / 13%
22%
35%
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Equal
Funding
Equitable
Funding
Schools get
comparable resources
based on size and/or
other fixed allocation
drivers
Schools get resources
that are comparable
based on student
needs and what it will
take to address them
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
A district typically spends different amounts
to educate different types of students
Fully Allocated $pp by Student Type
Fully Allocated $pp ($000s)
$30
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
$26.8
$27.6
$25
$20
$15
$13.7
$13.9
Gifted
PreK
ELL
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.3
2.4
13,767
598
1,580
2,739
224
1,528
244
$11.5
$12.2
$12.6
GenEd Setting
Poverty
Ratio
1.0
# of
Pupils*
19,344
$13.6
$10
$5
$0
SPED-Related SPED-Res/Incl SPED-Self-Cont
* Students that are Poverty, ELL, and SPED-Related Services, and SPED Resource/Inclusion are also served in a GenEd Setting; Pre-K students are only included in the Pre-K count and are excluded from all other
categories.
Source: ERS analysis
42
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
District X’s spending on different types of students is
similar to peer districts, with one notable exception EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
District X spends less than peers on HS students
being educated in self-contained settings
General Ed base
($000 pp)
Poverty
ELL
District X
$11.1
1.1
1.2
Peer District Median
$8.4
1.1
1.3
2.5
3.1
Lake
$6.6
1.1
1.1
2.1
3.3
Denver
$7.6
1.2
1.1
2.3
4.3
Hall
$8.4
1.1
1.3
2.5
2.9
Baltimore
$11.1
1.1
1.5
3.0
3.1
DC
$11.2
1.1
1.5
2.4
3.2
Cleveland
$10.9
1.1
1.1
2.5
3.5
Newark
$15.6
1.0
1.3
2.3
2.5
District
Source: NHPS SY1314 Expenditures; ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database
SPED –
SPED – SelfRes/Inclusion Contained
3.0
1.9
2.3
(K-8) (HS)
43
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
In most districts, spending varies significantly across
schools, even after accounting for student need
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PER WEIGHTED PUPIL (PWP)
$20,000
$18,000
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
Median $10.4K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X
Median $12.1K
Hi-Lo Spread 2.2X
$0
K-8
HS
Analytic Question: Are dollars invested equitably across schools?
Source: ERS analysis (2013)
44
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Equity indicator: the proportion of schools where
need-adjusted spending is near district median
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
Share of Schools Within 10% of School Level Median Per Weighted Pupil Spending
85%
82%
70%
82%
66%
65%
Median = 70% of schools
75%
within 10% of schoollevel median $pwp
59%
% of schools
49%
Aldine
Charlotte
Lake
Knox
Austin
Fulton
Hall
Denver
Lower $pp
Higher $pp
District
District
Source: Aldine ISD SY1213 Expenditures; ERS analysis; ERS benchmark database
DC
45
Equity
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Smaller schools tend to be more expensive and a
driver of inequity in some districts
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
$ per weighted pupil, by school size
$12,000
Cost drivers for small schools
K8
•
All
$11,000
School-Attributed $pwp
ES
Log. (All)
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
•
$6,000
$5,000
0
200
400
School Size
Source: ERS Analysis
600
800
1000
Allocations that are:
•
Flat, e.g. 1 secretary per school
•
Step-functions, e.g. an extra AP
for schools > 500 students
•
Rounded up, e.g. with 25:1
student-teacher ratio, a 40student school needs 1.6
teachers, rounded to 2
Subsidies to cover the higher fixed
costs of a small school
School-level resource use
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example school-level resource use analysis:
Investing more time for struggling students
% of Time in 9th Grade Math, by Prior
Year Student Proficiency
Did not meet standards
Proficient
Advanced
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
% of All Teachers that are
Novice (0-3 years exp), by
Teacher Type
29%
24%
19%
17%
Fulton
Source: ERS
25%
24%
24%
20%
15%
Hall
19%
16%
15%
Treutlen
21%21%
16%
16%
14%
14%
Vidalia
Marietta
Math
Support
Teachers
All Math
Teachers
All Core
Teachers
School-level resource use
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Example school-level resource use analysis:
Over-spending on lower priority courses
Average Gen Ed Cost of Class ($pp)
9th Grade ELA
$481
12th Grade Art/Music
$731
$704
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
$784
$753
$639
$546
$483
$475
$396
Fulton
Hall
Treutlen
Marietta
Vidalia
EXCEPTION!
Source: ERS analysis of SLRU Setting Context Comparisons
Human capital
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Schools with lowest need have the highest
proportion of top-quartile teachers
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
Distribution of Teacher Effectiveness in Different Types of Schools
100%
% of Total
80%
Schools with the lowest need have the highest
proportion of highly rated teachers
41%
20%
16%
18%
21%
30%
24%
60%
40%
27%
Traditional high schools have the lowest
proportion of highly rated teachers
26%
26%
18%
16%
24%
33%
28%
23%
24%
Q1 (Least
Effective)
15%
19%
Q3
Q2
30%
25%
Q4 (Most
effective)
26%
26%
24%
34%
24%
24%
25%
27%
21%
27%
28%
32%
Highest need
students
K-8 Magnet
K-8
Traditional
HS Magnet
HS
Traditional
0%
Lowest need
students
Schools by student need
Sources: ERS analysis
Schools by level and
magnet status
49
Human capital
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
This district has a particular challenge
retaining top quartile novice performers
EXAMPLE DATA:
NOT PALM BEACH
Attrition Rates, by Evaluation Rating and Years of Experience
Highest rated teachers
Annual Attrition Rate
30%
25%
Lowest rated teachers
26.0%
24.7%
20%
14.0%
15%
10%
15.9%
7.4%
14.4%
10.1%
3.3%
5%
5.0%
1.9%
0%
0-2
3-7
Strategic Retention Ratio
0.6
2.1
% of Top Q Teachers
8%
% of Top Q Leavers
25%
Strategic retention = keeping your best
while shedding your worst. Higher is better.
Sources: ERS analysis
8-15
Years of Experience
15-24
25+
3.0
2.7
1.8
30%
35%
14%
14%
29%
15%
3%
27%
50
DRAFT – DO NOT CITE OR DISSEMINATE
Roadmap for our work with ERS
Phase I
Workstream
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
June
Data collection and
validation
System 2020 Review
Phase II
Strategic Resource Map
•
School funding and
equity
•
Strategic school
design
•
Human capital
strategy
Next board workshop:
March 2
Synthesis and
prioritization
51