Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Updated   Fair Student Funding Houston Presentation Final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Updated Fair Student Funding Houston Presentation Final

890
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
890
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: PROMOTING EQUITY & ACHIEVEMENT IN BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Andrés Alonso. Chief Executive Officer Presented With : Tisha Edwards, Special Assistant to the CEO & Matt Hornbeck, Principal, Hampstead Hill Academy Additional District Members: Irma Johnson, Executive Director of Elementary Schools , Sean Conley, Principal, Morrell Park ES/MS, Jerrelle Francois, Vice Chair Board of School Commissioners & Janet Johnson, Board Executive
    • 2. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • GOALS & PRINCIPLES
      • CHALLENGES TO REFORM
      • PROCESS DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION
      • RESULTS
      • AGENDA
    • 3. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • WHAT DO OUR CITY SCHOOLS LOOK LIKE?
    • 4. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
    • 5. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
    • 6. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • CITY SCHOOLS: GRADUATION RATES
    • 7. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • CITY SCHOOLS: GRADUATION RATES
    • 8. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
      • ENROLLMENT
    • 9. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
      • STAFFING
    • 10. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
      • ENROLLMENT-STAFFING CHALLENGE
      Number of Students in City Schools vs. Number of Staff Employed 2000-01 through 2007-08
    • 11. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
      • GRADUAL INCREASED FUNDING SOON COMING TO A HALT
    • 12. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
      • REVENUES
      Shortfall in Base Operational Expenses Baltimore City Public Schools Estimated Increase in FY 2009 General Fund Revenue & Expenditures (in thousands) Estimated FY 2009 Revenue Increase $ 11,100 Estimated FY 2009 Expenditure Increase $ 61,500 Estimated FY 2009 Funding Shortfall (without new needs) $ (50,400)
    • 13. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Create a system of great schools led by great principals, with the authority, resources and responsibility to teach all of our students well.
      • Engage those closest to the students in making key decisions that impact them.
      • Empower schools and then hold them accountable for results.
      • Ensure fair and transparent funding our schools can count on annually.
      • Right-size the district – schools & central office – to address realities of revenues and expenditures.
      • PRIORITIES FOR REFORM
    • 14. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Dollars should follow each student.
      • Resources should be in the schools.
      • Students with the same characteristics should get the same level of resources.
      • Equitable, simple, and transparent approach to help schools get better results for our students.
      • UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES FOR THE WORK
    • 15. CHALLENGES TO REFORMING THE SCHOOL FUNDING MODEL
    • 16. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • PREVIOUS BUDGET MODEL: STAFFING-BASED
      Core Staffing Model 2006 Core Staffing Model 2007
      • Admin & Support Staff
      • Principal – 1 per school
      • Assistant Principal – 1 Per 300 students
      • Secretary – 1 Per school plus one extra for schools over 900 students
      • Instructional Aide – 1 for every Pre-K and Kindergarten class
      • Admin & Support Staff
      • Principal – 1 per school
      • Assistant Principal – 0-300 =0
      • 301-500 =1
      • 501-1000=2
      • 1000 up =3
      • Secretary – 1 Per school plus one extra for schools over 900 students
      • Instructional Aide – 1 for every Pre-K and Kindergarten class
      • Non-Instructional Aide – 1 per school plus one per 250 students plus 1 Guidance Aide Per High School
      • Resource Teachers
      • 1 for every 6 teachers in Elementary Schools
      • 1 for every 3 teachers in Middle Schools
      • 1 for every 3 teachers in High Schools
      • Resource Teachers
      • 1 for every 8 teachers in Elementary Schools
      • 1 for every 3 teachers in Middle Schools
      • 1 for every 4 teachers in High Schools
      • Classroom Teacher Ratios
      • Pre-K: 1 per 20 Students (with an aide)
      • Kindergarten: 1 per 22 students (with an aide)
      • Grades 1-3: 1 per 22 students
      • Grades 4-5: 1 per 27 students
      • Grades 6-8: 1 per 30 students
      • High Schools: 1 per 32 students
      • 5 discretionary teacher positions per area
      • Classroom Teacher Ratios
      • Pre-K: 1 per 20 Students (with an aide)
      • Kindergarten: 1 per 25 students (with an aide)
      • Grades 1-3: 1 per 24.9 students(grades combined)
      • Grades 4-5: 1 per 26.9 students(grades combined)
      • Grades 6-8: 1 per 30 students
      • High Schools: 1 per 32 students
    • 17. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • SOME SCHOOLS GOT MORE MONEY THAN OTHERS
      Elementary Schools Elementary/ Middle Schools Middle Schools High Schools Note: Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need; Actual salaries. Range: $8K-$28K $8K-$19K $11K-$29K $8K-$17K
    • 18. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • ENROLLMENT DOES IMPACT FUNDING
      Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all charter schools. Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need. Small Schools Received More Money than Larger Schools:
    • 19. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • SMALL ES & MS RECEIVED DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE MONEY
      Number of Schools: 18 70 21 6 Avg. enrollment: 214 363 620 898 Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all charter schools. Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need; includes Elementary, Elementary/Middle and Middle schools; excludes 10 Middle Schools that are in the process of closing; per pupil calculation excludes Food Services. Enrollment category:
    • 20. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • SMALL HIGH SCHOOLS WERE RECEIVING VIRTUALLY THE SAME AMOUNT PER PUPIL AS LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS…
      Number of Schools: 11 8 11 Avg. enrollment: 351 610 1,112 Enrollment category: Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all charter schools. Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need; excludes Baltimore School for the Arts. Per pupil calculation excludes Food Services
    • 21. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Analysis of school operations and feedback from schools and community indicated that the then-present way was not working:
      • Present funding system was unfair, complex, inflexible, and lacked transparency, with unexplained variances among schools.
      • Schools did not have sufficient flexibility to use resources to address the specific needs of their students, and provide the optimal programs to bring all schools to excellence.
      • The City Schools’ outcomes had improved over time, but the recent baseline continued to be unacceptable: 92 schools remained in school improvement status.
      • City Schools could not hold schools accountable and build responsibility for outcomes without providing schools with resources and opportunity to exercise leadership in the use of those resources.
      • Most importantly: There is no time to waste.
      • THE NEED:
    • 22. PROCESS: GETTING FROM THERE TO HERE
    • 23. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • The Board – “Courageous Decision-Making”
        • Transparency and proactive approach to information-sharing to support fundamental shifts in funding policies – multiple Board work sessions.
        • Requirement of honesty about the challenges – winners & losers as a result of paradigm shifts.
      • Baltimore City Mayor & City Council – “Partners in the Work”
        • Key funder of the City Schools, State primary funder.
        • Historical City-State Partnership, created political tensions.
        • City Councilpersons as historic defenders of individual schools throughout the City.
      • External Partners with Historic Ties to City Schools – “School-Based Decision-Making”
        • Moving from central funding to school-based funding.
        • Vested interests in the status quo.
      • POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
    • 24. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Central Office Staff – “Moving in a New Direction”
        • “ Right-Sizing” & “Right-Staffing”: Handling significant changes in leadership at all levels, including the elimination of 309 central office positions.
        • Changing the culture of the approach to the work – moving from a reactive culture to a proactive culture.
        • Overcoming a hesitation to change – pilot v. system-wide initiative.
        • Developing a common vocabulary and mission.
      • The Unions – “Avoiding the Pitfalls of Reform”
        • Frequent collaboration & discussion to ensure that contractual obligations reflected the shifting priorities of the system.
        • Avoiding failures of earlier attempt at school-based decision making.
      • POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTD…)
    • 25. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • School-Based Staff – “A New View of Central Office”
        • Effectively communicating the reforms to the field.
        • Addressing an overwhelming distrust of central office.
      • Parents & Families – “Empowering Parental Involvement”
        • Parent information sessions & backpacked materials.
        • All Fair Student Funding information on the web.
        • Parental communication requirements in school budget creation.
      • The Public – “Informing for Change”
        • Transparency with the media to promote awareness.
        • Not change for change’s sake but focus on the students.
      • POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTD…)
    • 26. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • AGGRESSIVE STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING:
      Depth and Sustainability of Change Dec 2008 and beyond Jan–Mar 2008 June–November 2008
      • Analyze current state
      • Design FY09 budget, funding system, and central office systems to support school autonomy
      • Roll-out FY09 budget process
      • Train and support principals
      • Complete school budgeting
      • Implement revised process for FY10
      • Ongoing strategic review and adaptation
      • Analyze reform impact vs. goals
      • Evaluate FY09 budget process implementation
      • Provide ongoing support where needed
      • Deeper planning around future budget cycles, system design, principal training, and implementation of BCPSS strategy
      April–May 2008 Plan Implement Evaluate & Extend Continually Improve
    • 27. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FSF TIMELINE: PLANNING (JAN – APRIL)
    • 28. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
        • New School Budgets
        • Resources to Schools (Shared Services)
        • Training & Support for Principals
        • Financial Impact on Schools
        • Redesign of Central Office
      • FSF WORKGROUPS
    • 29. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • City Schools faced a $76.9 million overall shortfall with inclusion of new needs.
      • Central office & school leadership team workgroups identified $165 million that could be utilized through FSF to cover the funding shortfall and redistribute approximately $88 million to schools.
      • Previously, principals had only $90 per pupil in discretionary funding (Title I schools got an additional $1,000 per pupil). For instance, a principal of a typical non-Title I school with 300 students had just $27K in discretionary funds. With FSF, principals could have as much as $1.7M.
      • Schools have dramatic new flexibility over resources. Schools can use new flexibility to redesign their programs according to their needs, and identify the positions they require within their budget.
      • PROGRESSING TOWARDS FAIR STUDENT FUNDING:
    • 30. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Budget funds would be distinguished between “Locked” and “Unlocked” dollars.
      • “ Locked” Dollars = Positions or resources tied to compliance (i.e. Special Education), specialized programs (CTE or vocational) and/or recommended by a focus group of principals were kept as a central mandate.
      • “ Unlocked” Dollars = Funds previously controlled by the central office that were devolved to schools for site-based management. Schools have discretion for all other non-specified resources.
      • DECIDING UPON “LOCKED” V. “UNLOCKED” DOLLARS:
    • 31. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • “ LOCKED” V. “UNLOCKED” DOLLARS:
      • LOCKED
      • General Funds
        • Special Education Teacher = 927 FTE
        • Special Education Para*= 289 FTE
        • IEP Team Associate = 140 FTE
        • Psychologist = 93 FTE
        • ES Principal = 64 FTE
        • MS Principal = 62 FTE
        • Speech Pathologist = 82 FTE
        • Special Ed. Assistant*= 180 FTE
        • HS Principal = 41 FTE
        • ESOL Teacher = 52 FTE
        • Other = 21 FTE
      • Special Funds & Grants
        • Food Service Workers = 150 FTE
        • Cafeteria Managers = 85 FTE
        • Teachers – Co-teaching = 22 FTE
        • Food Service Workers (6 hrs) = 36 FTE
        • Food Service Workers (3.5 hrs) = 55 FTE
        • IST Reading First = 11 FTE
        • Other = 21 FTE
      • UNLOCKED
      • General Funds
        • Elementary Teacher = 1,993 FTE
        • Secondary Teacher = 1,816 FTE
        • Asst. Principal = 246 FTE
        • Paraeducator = 426 FTE
        • Social Worker = 174FTE
        • Non-Instructional Asst = 379 FTE
        • Guidance Counselor = 147 FTE
        • Librarian = 100 FTE
        • IST = 86 FTE
        • Other = 352 FTE
      • Special Funds & Grants
        • IST = 196 FTE
        • Elementary Teacher = 57 FTE
        • Paraeducator = 26 FTE
        • Secondary Teacher = 15 FTE
        • Non-Instructional Asst = 36 FTE
        • Other = 41 FTE
    • 32. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • DEVOLVING DOLLARS TO SCHOOLS:
      * Excludes charter schools and Pre-K funding.
    • 33. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • EXPLANATION OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
      Base funding for all students except self-contained special ed pupils $3,940 per pupil Base funding for self-contained special ed pupils $1,282 per self-contained special ed pupil (not including devolved $) Dollars devolved from central office $1,000 per pupil Drop-out prevention weight $900 per high school student eligible for free or reduced-price lunch Gifted weights   ES $2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on BOTH reading & math Grade 1 Stanford 10 tests, extrapolated to school population MS $2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on AT LEAST ONE reading or math MSA test; incoming 6th grade scores from prior year extrapolated to school population HS $2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on AT LEAST ONE reading or math MSA test; incoming 9th grade scores from prior year extrapolated to school population K-8 Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS Low-performance weights   ES $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring "not ready" on the K-Readiness Test MS $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests HS $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests K-8 Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS Hold harmless caps   Loss cap Losses capped at 15% of the current year budget, for year 1 Gain gap Gains capped at 10% of the current year budget, for year 1 Locked dollars Unique to each school (principals, vocational/ESOL/JROTC teachers, etc) Special revenue Special ed and grant dollars allocated out per school given guidelines
    • 34. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • STUDENT WEIGHTS IN THE FUNDING FORMULA
      • $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as follows:
      • ES: % 1 st graders scoring advanced on BOTH reading & math Grade 1 Stanford 10 tests * school population
      • MS: % incoming 6th grade students scoring advanced on reading OR math MSA test * school population
      • HS: % incoming 9 th grade students scoring advanced on reading OR math MSA test * school population
      • K-8: Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS
      • $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as follows:
      • ES: $2200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring "not ready" on the K-Readiness Test
      • MS: $2200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests
      • HS: $2200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests
      • K-8: Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS
      ADVANCED WEIGHTS LOW-PERFORMANCE WEIGHTS
    • 35. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • IMPACT OF HOLD HARMLESS CAPS: GAIN/LOSS BEFORE AND AFTER CAPS (IN DOLLARS)
      *General Fund unlocked dollars, not including Title I or devolved funds, since caps were applied prior to adding devolved funds. Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps, including Title I, Devolved Dollars, and Projected Enrollment Changes Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps* Gain/Loss BEFORE Hold Harmless Caps*
    • 36. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • IMPACT OF HOLD HARMLESS CAPS: GAIN/LOSS BEFORE AND AFTER CAPS (IN PERCENTS)
      % Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps % Gain/Loss BEFORE Hold Harmless Caps % Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps, including Title I, Devolved Dollars, and Projected Enrollment Changes
    • 37. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FSF TIMELINE: IMPLEMENTATION (APRIL - OCT.)
    • 38. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Initial guidance and support:
        • Creation of guidance aligned with Essentials to assist schools in making funding and programmatic decisions around priorities.
        • Teams of key central office personnel and external partners met individually with each school leadership team.
        • Central office hosted peer group working sessions to discuss “hot topics” related to budget development.
        • Telephone hotline established for principal questions.
      • Three rounds of review and feedback:
        • Executive Directors coordinated preliminary feedback to all schools prior to final submission.
        • Budget Review Team compiled list of key positions and contracts to be resolved and contacted each school.
        • Budget Review Team compiled preliminary approval list and contacted schools with outstanding issues.
      • BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS
    • 39. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • CITY SCHOOLS REVISION OF THE BUDGET PROCESS AND SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL LEADERS
    • 40. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Principals were required to meet with parents/communities about school budgets to gather input about school priorities and direction.
      • The central office communicated more frequently and directly with all employees, external partners and students to ensure understanding and support.
      • Schools chose to allocate nearly $1.1 million for parent and community involvement to host workshops and other activities.
        • These funds were allocated in addition to the City School’s $1 million investment in community outreach through a Parent and Community Involvement RFP from City Schools central office.
      • INCREASING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
    • 41. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • PRINCIPALS’ ONLINE BUDGET TOOL
      • Key improvements this year :
      • Online budget submission tool created. Ongoing development of Principal’s Dashboard.
      • Schools can see fund sources and allocations more easily.
      • Fringe benefit dollars are reported along with salary in budgets.
      • Job title details are now included.
      • Options for ongoing improvement:
      • More tightly link the narrative strategies to the funding decisions.
      • Enable additional trend analysis.
      • Show more detail for teacher positions by including grade and subject.
      • For positions reporting average dollars, a dd an option to see actual dollars.
    • 42. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • In April, schools received enrollment projections from Department of Research, Evaluation, and Academic Achievement (DREAA).
      • Principals were able to adjust their enrollment projections, and the principal’s projection became the basis for developing each school’s budget.
      • Based in the September 30 enrollment data, schools were required to adjust their budgets:
        • Those that were under-funded received additional dollars mid-year (dollars followed the students).
        • Those which were over-funded made budget cuts to reflect lower than anticipated costs.
      • ENROLLMENT & SCHOOL BUDGET RECONCILIATION
    • 43. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Enrollment Declines
      • 7 schools had enrollment declines greater than 20%.
      • 14 schools had enrollment declines between 10-20%.
      • 30 schools had enrollment declines between 5-10%.
      • 94 schools had enrollment that either did not change or declined or increased between 0-5%.
      • Enrollment Increases
      • 22 schools had enrollment increases between 5-10%.
      • 11 schools had enrollment increases between 10-20%.
      • 5 schools had enrollment increases over 20%.
      • Budget Reductions
      • 6 schools’ FSF budgets were reduced more than 20%.
      • 13 schools’ FSF budgets were reduced between 10-20%.
      • 28 schools’ FSF budgets were reduced between 5-10%.
      • 101 schools’ FSF budgets stayed the same or changed between 0-5%.
      • Budget Increases
      • 20 schools’ FSF budgets gained between 5-10%.
      • 12 schools’ FSF budgets gained between 10-20%.
      • 3 schools’ FSF budgets gained over 20%.
      GOALS & PRINCIPLES CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
    • 44. OUTCOMES OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING
    • 45. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • EVERY SCHOOL LEVEL EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN FUNDING
      With the devolution of additional Title I and Title II grant dollars, every school level on average experienced an increase of funding. * Traditional middle schools received a significant increase in funding (roughly $8.7 million) in SY07-08 to implement reforms, including small learning communities, additional collaborative planning periods with SPAR teachers, alternatives to suspensions, twilight school, parent engagement, student truancy, and professional development, which explains the small average increase this year when Fair Student Funding balanced school funding district-wide. ACTUAL Average $ Increase ACTUAL % Increase from FY08 Elementary $380,785 19.79% K-8 $459,895 17.83% Middle* $13,621 0.55% High $708,819 19.11%
    • 46. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS OF DIFFERENT SIZES
      Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. BEFORE AFTER Level Total <300 300-800 >800 Total <300 300-800 >800 Ratios 1.00 1.17 1.02 0.84 1.00 1.11 1.00 0.93
    • 47. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS LEVELS
      Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. Level Total ES K-8 MS HS Total ES K-8 MS HS Ratios 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.27 0.87 1.00 1.05 0.99 1.05 0.96
    • 48. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS REGARDLESS OF PERFORMANCE LEVEL
      Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. BEFORE AFTER
    • 49. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS STILL RECEIVE MORE FUNDING
      Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. Before After
    • 50. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • VARIANCES BETWEEN SCHOOLS ON THE TOP V. SCHOOLS ON THE BOTTOM OF THE DISTRIBUTION
      • Schools at the top of the distribution tend to be:
        • Small (250 on average)
        • Primary schools (no high schools are in this group)
        • Mostly high poverty (three quarters have >80% free/reduced lunch)
        • Achievement levels vary widely (29-100% reading proficiency rates)
      • Schools at the bottom of the distribution tend to be:
        • Larger (620 on average)
        • More likely to be high schools (8) and less likely to be middle schools (1)
        • Less poor (only 2 out of 25 have >80% poverty)
        • Achievement levels vary widely (28-98% reading proficiency rates)
    • 51. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • STAFFING SHIFTS: KEY POINTS
          • Student-teacher ratios became more equal across schools.
          • Assistant principal and aide positions, which had been high relative to comparison districts, were reduced:
              • Assistant principals dropped by 20%
              • Instructional and non-instructional aides (excluding SPED aides) were reduced by 25-30%
          • Staffing shifted away from guidance and social workers as schools found different ways to provide pupil services.
          • Over 500 additional FTEs are now reported at the school level (e.g. custodial workers, hall monitors).
    • 52. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
      • PLANNING TIME & COLLABORATIVE PLANNING HIGHLIGHTS
      • Collaborative Planning Time
      • All schools have at least:
      • 1 collaborative planning session per week.
      • 45 minute long collaborative planning sessions.
      • Planning Time
      • All schools have at least:
      • 4 planning sessions per week in elementary schools.
      • 5 planning sessions per week in secondary schools.
      • 45 minute long planning sessions.
    • 53. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
      • ENRICHMENT, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, & AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
      Summary : After-school programming is increasing in SY 08-09. In addition, contracts and partnerships with after-school providers are also increasing. Survey Response : 190 schools responded to the survey.
    • 54. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
      • INCREASING STUDENT SUPPORT TO IMPROVE SCHOOL SAFETY
      Schools’ choices emphasize providing additional support and positive interventions for students. Schools allocated over $3 million in FY09 for intervention initiatives including twilight courses, character education, school-based programs, Student Support Teams, and others. # Schools 2007-2008 # Schools 2008-2009 Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports (PBIS) 32 49 Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) 2 6 Mental Health Professionals 96 103
    • 55. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
      • ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
      Summary : Schools are increasing the alternatives to suspension in SY 08-09. Survey Response : 190 schools responded to the survey.
    • 56. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON FINE ARTS EDUCATION
      *Summary : Although full-time fine arts educators have decreased slightly, schools are expanding their offerings in fine arts for SY 08-09. *Survey Response : 190 schools responded to the survey.
      • Title I & II Allocations :
      • $40,000 directly to train & support fine arts education.
      • Funds used to acquire additional 0.5 FTE.
    • 57. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON AFTER-SCHOOL PROGRAMMING
      Schools are providing trainings to staff and students to support school climate. Description Total In-class Tutoring $451,360 Peer mentoring $433,207 Classroom Practices training $375,408 Innovative Training $300,248 Mentoring for new teachers $217,281 Student Support Services $29,324 Grand Total $1,806,828
    • 58. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON SCHOOL-BASED PROGRAMS SUPPORTING SUSPENSION REDUCTION
      Schools are providing trainings to staff and students to support school climate. Description Total In-class Tutoring $451,360 Peer mentoring $433,207 Classroom Practices training $375,408 Innovative Training $300,248 Mentoring for new teachers $217,281 Student Support Services $29,324 Grand Total $1,806,828
    • 59. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • GUIDANCE & COLLEGE READINESS
      • New in 2008-2009
      • Urban Alliance: 2 schools
        • College-readiness workshops and experiences.
      • AVID: 1 school
        • 4 year, college-readiness curricular program.
      2007-2008 2008-2009 # Schools & AOP Programs with Guidance Counselors 102 101 # Schools with College Access Programs 20 29 College Access Program Providers CollegeBound CollegeBound, Loyola College Advising Core, and College Summit
    • 60. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • GENERAL RESULTS OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING
      • An additional $88M goes directly to schools.
      • Principals have more control over the staff positions and other resources in their school.
      • Principals have more responsibilities.
      • Dollars are distributed more evenly across school levels and school sizes.
      • Student-teacher ratios have become more equal across schools.
      • The high number of assistant principals and aides has been reduced.
      • Small schools appear to have sufficient staffing this year, but may not in future years as hold harmless caps are phased out.
      • Funding in Baltimore is more transparent.
    • 61. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Determine how the hold harmless caps should be phased out and long-term impact on specific schools.
      • Revisit weight amounts (determine sufficiency of base amount).
      • Revisit weight basis (should % basic and % advanced be allowed to sum to more than100%?).
      • Revisit locked categories (particularly special education).
      • Refine enrollment projections system (totals and weighting data).
      • Revisit charter school funding levels and services.
      • Assess small school funding issues.
      • Monitor allocations to small schools, schools in transition, and alternative schools.
      • Continue improvements to our Principal Dashboard – budget reconciliation tool.
      • Make final decision on average and actual salary.
      • NEXT STEPS FOR CITY SCHOOLS
    • 62. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Clarify objectives and goals for each department; clearly delineate responsibilities. Are the right people in the right jobs?
      • Determine how to provide the right services at the right costs.
      • Continue to develop support & accountability processes.
      • Refine data collection and reporting systems.
      • Determine how best to use staff who are no longer needed by schools but who are under contract with the district.
      • Develop communication strategies to ensure coherence within and across departments.
      • Re-negotiate union contracts to give principals more control over staffing, as contracts are up for renewal.
      • CONTINUAL REDESIGN OF CITY SCHOOLS CENTRAL OFFICE
    • 63. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Process and Structures :
        • Continued redefinition of the role of central office toward guidance, support and accountability to schools.
        • Concerted effort for customer service to schools, staff, and community, with opportunities for feedback increasing.
        • Continuous improvement project management approach taken with central office projects.
      • Stakeholder Involvement :
        • Principals involved in all decisions and vetting of processes and initiatives.
        • Feedback solicited from teachers, unions, formal parent organizations, community leaders, and other school staff.
      • COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
    • 64. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
      • Shift to greater school flexibility requires significant central and partner support, a clear accountability framework, and structures designed to provide guidance and checks and balances to principals and school-based leadership teams.
      • Schools received greater flexibility over resources in exchange for accepting responsibility for fiscal accountability, academic accountability, and pupil services accountability, all with clear consequences when accountability metrics are not met.
      • In addition to following Federal and state guidelines, each school’s education plan must also meet City Schools set guidelines. For instance, City Schools includes an accountability metric that assesses whether schools are providing Algebra in the 8 th grade, whether schools are offering Algebra to all Algebra-ready students, and whether schools are providing college access services.
      • Autonomy is bound. It is not “do as I wish” but “do within a framework set by policy, outcomes, and student needs.”
      • GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, & ACCOUNTABILITY
    • 65. QUESTIONS & COMMENTS? FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: PROMOTING EQUITY & ACHIEVEMENT IN BALTIMORE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Copies of this presentation are available at: http://www.bcps.k12.md.us