Transformation or Decline: How can states promote restructuring in tough times?

787 views
730 views

Published on

This presentation was given by Karen Hawley Miles to The Council of Chief State School Officers.

Published in: Education, Career
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
787
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
53
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Title Page Example
  • Source: ERS Library SlidesJDAUG08Location: \\\\Minerva\\ers_data\\Internal ERS\\Slide Library Documents\\1-ERS Slides
  • Source file: BPS budget; tab=Weights FA
  • Transformation or Decline: How can states promote restructuring in tough times?

    1. 1. Transformation or Decline<br />How can states promote restructuring in tough times?<br />CCSSO Institute, July 18th, 2011<br />
    2. 2. We are a non-profit firm dedicated to helping school systems spend and organize time, talent and technology to create great schools at scale<br />We partner with system leaders to analyze spending, human resource, organization and student data to better align with high performance strategies<br />We leverage insight from this work to provide lessons and tools for school leaders and those who support them <br />Our work is grounded in over a decade of experience working with school districts across the country <br />2<br />Education Resource Strategies<br />
    3. 3. Restructuring Priorities 25 Minutes<br />School Budget Hold ‘em Game 40 Minutes<br />“Aha”s & Implications for Action 30 Minutes<br />Mitchell Chester, MA<br />Robert Hammond, CO<br />Lillian Lowery, DE<br />From Game to Reality 20 Minutes<br />Discussion with Tom Luna, ID<br />3<br />Agenda: An Interactive Exploration <br />
    4. 4. 4<br />We know what it takes to create high performing schools<br />Strategic School Design<br /><ul><li> Effective Teaching Teams
    5. 5. Targeted Individual Attention
    6. 6. Maximized, Flexible Academic Time</li></ul>Aligned Standards, Curriculum, & Assessments<br />
    7. 7. 5<br />FUNDINGinequitable, unintelligible, rigid<br />But the school systems we have …<br />TEACHING COMPENSATION <br />& JOB STRUCTURE discourage effectiveness<br />SCHOOL DESIGNantiquated schedules and staffing<br />A Few<br />High Fliers<br />INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORTnot strategic<br />LEADERSHIPunsupported, underinvested<br />CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICESinefficient, unresponsive<br />PARTNERS & TECHNOLOGYunderleveraged<br />
    8. 8. 6<br />FUNDINGequitable, transparent, and flexible <br />Are not the school systems we need<br />TEACHER COMPENSATION & JOB STRUCTURElinked to contribution<br />SCHOOL DESIGNschedules and staffing match needs<br />INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORTstrategically aligned<br />High-Performing<br />Schools at Scale<br />LEADERSHIPsupported and rewarded<br />CENTRAL OFFICE SERVICESaccountable, efficient<br />PARTNERS & TECHNOLOGYleveraged<br />
    9. 9. Restructure one-size fits all teacher compensation and job structureby linking increases to greater results and contribution including breadth of expertise, responsibilities and leadership<br />Rethink standardized class size model to target individual attention by strategically raising class sizes and rethinking one-size-fits-all class size models for providing individual attention<br />Shift special education spending toward early intervention and targeted individual attention in general education settings where possible<br />Optimize existing time to meet student and teacher needs and extend where needed <br />7<br />Four of the highest priorities for restructuring that states influence include:<br />
    10. 10. 8<br />High-performing schools are about team, not just individual performance<br />Deliberate assignments to teaching team<br />Each school’s specificcurricular,faculty, andstudent needs<br />School-based expert support<br />Collaborative planning time<br />Formative assessments<br />
    11. 11. 9<br />Maximum Teacher Salary Components<br />ERS Analysis of partner and Aspen district salary structures<br />Typical District<br />Maximum Teacher Salary =$90,000<br />
    12. 12. Most districts devote less than 2% of all teacher compensation spending to reward increased teacher contribution or performance<br />$500 million<br />$350 million<br />Senior Teacher Force<br />More balanced Teacher Force<br />10<br />
    13. 13. Stop or reduce increases for steps and credits to redirect compensation spending toward increased responsibilities and contribution<br />Actively manage low performers out of the system using existing evaluation tools<br />Revise compensation structures to link pay to increases in responsibility and contribution as well as individual results<br />Revise work rules to insure flexibility in teacher assignment to match team and school needs<br />11<br />What can be done to optimize compensation spending?<br />Start Now<br />Build Toward<br />
    14. 14. 12<br />Most districts have opportunities to strategically raise class size in upper grades<br />Source: Elementary Grades Homeroom file Oct 2009; Includes elementary schools and K-8 schools (grades K0-5); excludes classes that are special ed 60%+, ELL 60%+; includes Advanced Work classes; excludes schools with Two-Way bilingual program; excludes classes with “mixed” grade (mainly due to teacher data NA)<br />
    15. 15. 13<br />…and to target class sizes to priority subjects and students<br />In these districts class sizes for core subjects are higher than non-core<br />*Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Art, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign Language<br />Source: District A and B 9th and 12th grade course data (internal – Resource Mapping presentation)<br />
    16. 16. Districts have more teaching staff, but use them for specialist positions outside of the core classroom and planning during the day<br />General Education Class Size versus Student-Teacher Ratio<br />14<br />
    17. 17. 15<br />A cycle of isolation and specialization pulls students with additional needs out of regular education classrooms<br />Large, diverse classes<br />Overextended teachers<br />Remove “problem” student fromclassroom<br />Current<br />Structure of <br />SWD & ELL <br />services<br />Provide additional support:<br />- Social services<br />- Pull-out instruction<br />Administration to coordinate, monitor special services<br />Resources and responsibility move outside regular classroom<br />
    18. 18. 16<br />Moving students into rigidly defined programs diverts dollars from early intervention and targeted small groups for all students<br />Note: Excluded are all district Alternative/Adult schools. Sources: SY10 October enrollment, district budget as of 10/09. Excludes students who did not report; ELL includes those currently in programs, excludes students who opted-out<br />Poverty<br />Increment <br />
    19. 19. 17<br />Districts vary widely in how many students they place in special education settings<br />FY06: National ID rate: 9%<br />*Rochester SWD enrollment includes all students with a designated category of disability.<br />Source: ERS Benchmark Database, National data from U.S. DOE Programs, SDP Special Ed student data (PIMS); Self contained typically defined as 60% or more time in special education setting. <br />
    20. 20. 18<br />What can be done to rethink one-size-fits-all class size model and redirect special education spending to targeted individual attention for all students?<br />Highlight the class size vs. teacher quality trade-off<br />Strategically raise class sizes in non-core classes and later grades<br />Review special education spending to reduce compliance spending and unplanned extra spending on subscale programs<br />Encourage movement away from class size mandates in state regulations and contracts<br />Clarify rules on maintenance of effort spending<br />Champion revisions to special education funding that create incentives for more integrated services<br />Explore improved ways to measure special education outcomes<br />Start Now<br />Build Toward<br />
    21. 21. 19<br />Many districts have an opportunity to optimize instructional time by lengthening the school day <br />Sources: District figures are from Time and Attention in Urban High Schools: Lessons for School Systems (Frank, 2010) and from ERS analyses for the Aspen CFO network. Leading Edge school figures are from Shields, R. A., and K. H. Miles. 2008. Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small Urban High Schools. Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies. Charter school figures are from The Boston Foundation report (May 2010) “Out of the Debate and Into the Schools.”<br />National Avg. = 1170<br />
    22. 22. 20<br />….and by varying time by grade and subject<br />Typical District Percent of Student Time <br />By Grade & Subject <br />100%<br />PE<br />80%<br />Electives<br />Foreign Language<br />60%<br />Science<br />Social Studies<br />40%<br />Math<br />20%<br />ELA<br />0%<br />ES<br />7-9th<br />10-12th<br />
    23. 23. 21<br />By taking on tough choices, schools can move toward transformed practice<br />For the same cost a typical 25,000 student urban district can:<br />Reduce K-6 class size by 2<br />Add 90 minutes of collaborative planning time for all teachers<br />OR<br />Increase % SPED in HS by 2 percentage points<br />Invest in 1 RTI Specialist for every 160 K-2 students<br />OR<br />Double the salary of the top 5% of teachers<br />Give all teachers a 5% raise<br />OR<br />ERS’ District Reallocation Modeler (DREAM)<br />
    24. 24. Restructure compensation to link to individual and team contribution.<br />Rethink standardized class size models to target individual attention.<br />Use existing time better and extend time in critical areas to meet student needs.<br />Redirect Special Education spending to early intervention and targeted individual attention in general education settings.<br />Maximize use of buildings and facilities.<br />Develop leadership capacity by redirecting spending from compliance and monitoring to support and training.<br />Leverage technology & community partners.<br />22<br />Seven Tough Times Restructuring Priorities<br />
    25. 25. The Object of the Game: <br /> Use the Hold’em cards provided to create a “hand” of investment and savings options to create a budget that moves toward improved district performance while still meeting a budget reduction target of 8%<br />Step 1: Assign Roles and Review Rules 5 minutes<br />Step 2: Read and Respond 10 minutes<br />Step 3: Review priorities & select investments 10 minutes<br />Step 4: Select savings to finalize hand 5 minutes<br />Step 5: Discussion Questions: 15 minutes<br />23<br />Time to Play the Game<br />
    26. 26. Select cards carefully—not all the choices are strategic<br />Consider inter-relationships – Not all choices are independent of each other. Some choices may reduce the value of other choices – you can choose one or the other or make a rough estimate of additional changes. <br />Accept approximation—The budget percentages are estimates built from averages and including high-level assumptions. They are meant should be directionally correct, but actual district results could vary widely.<br />Budget cutting in education means cutting staff positions- there will be pain, the question is whether there are ways to leverage it to accelerate the freeing of resources from unproductive structures<br />24<br />Things to consider<br />
    27. 27. What were the biggest insights and/or surprises regarding opportunities for district transformation during budget-cutting times and what are the implications for how the state implements and support district budgeting ?<br />Are there particular “restructuring priorities” that appear to have the most leverage?<br />What can states do to help districts understand and help implement these actions?<br />Support?<br />Regulate?<br />Require?<br />Create incentives?<br />Get out of the way?<br />25<br />Discussion Questions<br />

    ×