Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

2,137 views

Published on

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.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,137
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
883
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
41
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Excited
    National interest
    Inflection point

    Objective over the next 45 min or so is to:
    introduce ERS and the project
    Describe why we think now is a particularly important point in the district’s overall resource strategy
    And then go through some of the highlights of our analysis – what we see as the key takeaways and the action implications we think they raise
  • ERS: Non-profit strategy consulting group based in Boston, work with large urban districts across the country.

    At the highest level our objective is to help systems make the most of the resource they’ve got.
    Resources = T M &P

    Through more than a decade of working with large urban school systems, we’ve learned a few very important things that help frame our work with every district.

    First, it’s not just about HOW MUCH you have, it’s also about HOW WELL you use what you have. Our focus is typically on the “how Well” part of this
    it’s what districts generally have greater agency over
    Sometime being able to demonstrate good stewardship of they resource you do have is important to being able to make the case for more.

    Second, we believe that there is no one “right” way to use resources. When we look at individual high performing schools, the thing that they have in common is not a single recipe or staffing configuration, resource level, etc., it’s that they’re deliberately organizing resources consistent with a set of guiding principles that I’ll speak to in more detail later on. So we think it’s important for system leadership to see the ways in which its schools are and are not using resources against these guiding principles.

    And finally, we believe that school systems are the key to improving our schools.
    - Across the country there are lots of examples of individual school successes – but no system that has brought success to scale. So part of our work is to help district leaders think through what “central office” needs to look like and do in order to drive teaching effectiveness and student outcomes in schools. Ultimately schools need to achieve success because of central, not despite it.

    [Transparency is the first step. You can’t change what you don’t know. And giving district and school leaders the information they need about their resource use can be a real challenge for many districts. That’s why our work can be helpful – we create a huge data map that integrates data from across the district – finance, hr, payroll, course schedule, student demographics, student performance – to drill down on how resource use at the district and school level.]
  • This slide obviously shows the other districts that we’ve partnered with over the years…one thing to note from this relates to how we think about comparative data.
    Going to show data from DPS up against a number of these cities.
    We think comparisons to other urban districts are important – certainly looking at how DPS compares to other districts within the same state has benefit as well, but often we find that looking at other cities outside the state is also helpful in seeing the different tradeoffs that other cities that face similar challenges or that operate with higher levels of funding are making
    There’s sometimes a knee-jerk reaction to seeing comparisons to other districts and jumping straight to a conclusion that we’re too high or too low.
    We want to use comparative data to first provide context on how the challenges that DPS faces may be similar or different from other places
    And if we are higher or lower, we want to understand what drives that – is it deliberate strategy? Is it an indirect consequence of something else?

    So I encourage you to keep this in mind as we look at comparative data in the slides coming up.
  • Not going to take a lot of time on this slide

    Draw your attention to three points:

    Group effort – The DPS leadership team has been engaged with this work (at a much deeper level) over the last 8 months or so – so the takeaways and action implicaitions we’re sharing have been largely informed by discussions the team has had looking much more deeply at the analysis

    Our analysis uses FY0910 as the primary source for data. Our method requires a full year of data – and when we began that was the most recent. We’ve flagged places in this presentation where we know the story has changed significantly since then, so know that unless otherwise stated, the analysis is of SY0910.

    Last point is that our method is a combo of quantitative and qualitative. So we’ve done lots of merging of data sets and number crunching to establish the fact base, but we’ve also done interviews, focus groups and visits to ensure we understand the reasons why the numbers are how they are – what’s deliberate strategy, what’s breaking down in implementation, etc. And I think you’ll see this come through in what we’re sharing today.

    So that’s a quick intro of ERS, how we think about this work, and our approach for this project.

    Let’s turn now to DPS, and layout the initial context for our analysis.

  • School Funding:
    Is DPS allocating resources equitably to meet its diverse school and student needs? How transparent are the allocations and process?

    School Resource Flexibility:
    Do schools have the resource flexibility they need to develop school designs (i.e., budgets, schedules, staffing plans, models) that best meet school and student needs?

    School Design:
    How well are schools organizing their resources (people, time, and money) to develop the best-fit school designs?

  • .
  • Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

    1. 1. Rethinking Resources for Student Success Presentation to the DPS Board: Resource Mapping Summary Report Denver Public Schools, January 17, 2012 Preliminary – Please do not cite or distribute
    2. 2. 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.
    3. 3. 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)
    4. 4. 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 Groups 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
    5. 5. 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.
    6. 6. 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 $pp (Adjusted for Cost of Living Differences) K12Operating$pp(inthousands)
    7. 7. 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 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% Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's Atlanta Boston Rochester %ofoperatingbudget/expenditures Leadership Instructional Support & PD Business Services Operations & Maintenance Pupil Services Instruction Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database. Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Use Lower $pp District Higher $pp District
    8. 8. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 8 Compared to other districts, Denver also spent a smaller % of Operating Expenditures and a lower $pp on central overhead 8% 6% 7% 6% 6% 8% 6% 12% 15% 11% 10% Charlotte Duval Chicago Denver PrinceGeorge's Philadelphia St.Paul Atlanta Wash.D.C. Boston Rochester %ofexpenditures/budget Lower $pp District Higher $pp District Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database. % of K12 operating expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEAD $pp $685 $547 $689 $594 $664 $941 $797 $1,656 $2,134 $1,619 $1,955
    9. 9. 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
    10. 10. 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
    11. 11. 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
    12. 12. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 12 Transparency: High level of transparency relative to other districts studied 77% 77% 77% 76% 69% 66% 71% 58% %ofexpenditures/budget Lower $pp District Higher $pp District Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools % of K12 op. expenditures that is SCHOOL REPORTED Other 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
    13. 13. 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 $7.4K Hi-Lo Spread 1.8X Median $7.9K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X FY0910 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PWP Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools HS/SS Median $8.1K Hi-Lo Spread 1.4X School Funding
    14. 14. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 14 Equity: Overall equity in funding across schools on the high end of districts studied 54% 75% 81% 48% 59% 46% Duval Denver Baltimore Prince George's District A Newark %ofschools 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
    15. 15. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 15 $5,000 $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 HS SS $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 $11,000 $12,000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 ES K8 Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $pwp vs. Size School Size School-Attributed$pwp 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 $5,000 $7,000 $9,000 $11,000 $13,000 0 500 1000 1500 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.
    16. 16. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 16 R² = 0.45 $- $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 0 200 400 600 800 1000$pwp ES K8 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 R² = 0.08 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 $5,500 $6,000 $6,500 $7,000 $7,500 $8,000 $8,500 0 200 400 600 800 1000 $pwp ES K8 Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. SBB Expenditures School Funding
    17. 17. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 17 ELL: Re-evaluating the ELL resource strategy is important because ELLs are disproportionately low-performing 32% 38% 29% 39% 14% 11% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% DPS G3-5 All Test Takers DPS G3-5 Low Performers* 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 3rd -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
    18. 18. 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. $256 $268 $461 $290 $303 $496 $0 $100 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 SY0910 SY1011 SY1112 ES HS 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.)
    19. 19. 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 studiedSchool 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
    20. 20. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 20 DPS’ ELL spending focuses more on paraprofessionals than St. Paul (recognized for ELL “best practice”)School Funding 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% DPS St. Paul 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
    21. 21. 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 34% 21% 22% 17% 14% 16% 49% 39% 40% 30% 29% 32% <17 18-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28+ %ELLinClass % NEP % ELL # 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.
    22. 22. 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
    23. 23. 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
    24. 24. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 24 School Design: Summary of Key Findings School 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.
    25. 25. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 25 Teaching Effectiveness: ERS’ framework for school based instructional support stresses the inter-related nature of critical teaching effectiveness investmentsSchool Design
    26. 26. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 26 LEAP Teacher Effectiveness Individual Tchr. Developmental Needs LEAP Domain Expectations CELA Growth Student Needs Data Individual Tchr. Development Strengths DATA School 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.
    27. 27. 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 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Boston Rochester Philadelphia Milwaukee Baltimore Pittsburgh Seattle Duval DC Denver Prince George's AnnualTeachersHrs–StudentHrs DPS Teacher Time 8 hours* 184 days DPS Student Time 6 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 day 72 81 124 126 145 163 180 243 273 317 324 104 214 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
    28. 28. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 28 14 39 18 16 <15 15-20 21-25 >25 NumberofSchools 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
    29. 29. 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
    30. 30. 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
    31. 31. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 31 $- $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 $70 Charlotte Denver Duval Prince George's Syracuse Compensationin$1,000’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 0.3 0.4 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.
    32. 32. 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/pp 599 23 $71,658 9 62% Math $445 547 23 $74,734 8 84% Science $393 437 25 $69,807 8 70% Social Studies $383 444 25 $73,132 10 59% Foreign Language $372 198 26 $75,142 12 60% Art/Music $538 142 23 $74,555 10 60% Computer Literacy $489 27 20 $76,149 15 48% PE/Health $271 71 30 $78,288 14 44% Vocational/Career $519 47 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
    33. 33. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 33 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 Noncore-Core K8 MS 6-12 HS School Y Noncore Class Size = 16 Core 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 X Noncore Class Size = 31 Core Class Size = 22 School Design
    34. 34. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 34 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 StudentHoursPerYear Innovation Traditional Charter 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 SY0910School Design DPS should consider future investment to extend school day/year.
    35. 35. 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 adapt o 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.
    36. 36. 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 & Safety Giving 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 Liability The 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 students Giving 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/ Experience This 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 Control Ensuring 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 Scale Per 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-Pooling The 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
    37. 37. 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
    38. 38. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 38 40% 60% 71% 60% 40% 29% Loose Tight Most of these $s have some type of external constraint: • Title I • Special Ed: Mild Moderate & Center Program • Mill Levy: Kinder, Textbooks, Arts • Other 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
    39. 39. 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
    40. 40. 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
    41. 41. 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
    42. 42. 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
    43. 43. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 43 Source: 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 $74,674,239 Debt Service $69,424,083 Property Rental/Lease $46,661,450 Transfers $54,623,015 Other Exclusions $9,277,508 Exclude Non-PreK12 Costs $31 million Adult Ed/EGOS $19,231,896 Private Schools $1,203,940 SPED outplacement $4,072,243 Pre K External Contract $3,139,095 Tuition Based after school and summer school $ 3,290,877 SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures $738 million Charter $69,351,527 Appendix
    44. 44. 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
    45. 45. 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 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% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's 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 Appendix
    46. 46. 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 Schools Example: 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 basis Example: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNs All FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to schools in the district expenditures Example: 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 basis Example: 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, 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
    47. 47. 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
    48. 48. 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 Enrollment* 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
    49. 49. 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 allocation Targeted 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.
    50. 50. 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
    51. 51. Education Resource Strategies 51 What do we mean by flexibility over “How ”? Flexibility over “How”TIGHT Principal PD District determines that the amount spent on Principal PD will go towards funding network meetings and attending workshop X. Schools can choose how to use the 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 use the 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
    52. 52. Education Resource Strategies 52 What do we mean by flexibility over “Who/what”? Flexibility over “Who/what”TIGHT Principal PD 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

    ×