Doing More with Less

877 views

Published on

Based on ERS research and experience, this presentation presents four strategies for urban districts that offer the most promise for systemic and sustainable impact to improve instruction.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
877
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
29
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • File: BPS09 ES Contract Analysis.xls (sheet = Avg by Grade)
  • Excludes Alternative and SWD school types.
    Actual and target class sizes are based on a weighted average.
  • Source file: BPS budget; tab=Weights FA
  • Source file: Summary sheet $per pupil
    Boston charter schools: average an 8.2 hr day according to the tBF report on charters, p.25.
  • Research suggests that students are behind multiple grade levels may need more time in these subjects to catch up.
  • Add data table underneath showing size, demographics
  • Leadership Roles corrects for the fact that some leadership stipends are not additive. For example, you wouldn’t receive money for being a department head and for being a lead teacher.

    Leadership roles included…
    Department chair
    Building leadership team
    Curriculum Development
    Lead Teacher
    Mentoring New Teachers
  • Doing More with Less

    1. 1. “Doing More with Less” Karen Hawley Miles, October 1, 2010 Four strategies for improving urban district quality and productivity
    2. 2. The districts we have are not the systems we need • Schools and students with same needs receiving different levels of resources • Rigidly defined budgets that don’t enable principals to match needs • Salary and job structures that do not encourage effectiveness , contribution or collaboration • Antiquated schedules and school organizations that do not match time and individual attention to priority needs WE HAVE Effective teaching for all students School designs that maximize teaching effectiveness, academic time and individual attention WE NEED Equitable, transparent, and flexible funding across schools 2EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    3. 3. The districts we have are not the systems we need • Underinvestment in formative assessments and fragmented professional development • Underinvestment to build and reward leadership effectiveness • Central office services that are not designed to improve productivity or customize support to school needs • Districts that pay too much for social services and non-core instruction that could be provided through outside partners Aligned curriculum, Instruction, assessment, PD Strong school and district leaders Central services that foster empowerment, accountability and efficiency Partnership with families, communities and outside experts WE HAVEWE NEED 3EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    4. 4. 1. Class Size Models Strategically raising class sizes and rethinking one-size-fits-all class size models for providing individual attention 2. Special Education Redirecting special education spending to early intervention and targeted individual attention for all students 3. Making Every Minute Count 4. Restructuring Compensation Reducing compensation spending by managing teaching work-force mix and differentiating instructional roles 4 We have chosen four big opportunities for the focus of this discussion EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    5. 5. 21 22 22 2222 25 28 31 Grades K-2 Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12 IN THIS DISTRICT CLASS SIZES ARE FAR FROM MAXIMUM AND DO NOT VARY BY GRADE Average class size Contract max EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 5 Source: Data from ERS work with twelve urban US districts. The chart draws on 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) Most districts have opportunities to strategically raise class size… 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    6. 6. 27 21 18 18 District T District L AVERAGE CLASS SIZE BY COURSE TYPE 9th Grade Core Class Size* 12th Grade Non-Core Class Size EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 6 *Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Art, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign Language Source: District A and B 9th and 12th grade course data (internal – Resource Mapping presentation) …and to target class sizes to priority subjects and students In these districts class sizes for core subjects are higher than non-core 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    7. 7. 29 25 22 26 18 22 29 20 22 17 14 13 14 14 16 16 12 15 District S District M District E District B District A District C District P District R District G GENERAL EDUCATION CLASS SIZE VERSUS STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO ERS Estimated Average General Ed Class Size Average Total Student-to-Teacher Ratio EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 7 Districts have more teaching staff, but use those FTEs for specialist positions outside of the core classroom 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    8. 8. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 8 A cycle of isolation and specialization pulls students with additional needs out of regular education classrooms Large, diverse classes Overextended teachers Remove “problem” student from classroom Administration to coordinate, monitor special services Resources and responsibility move outside regular classroom Current Structure of SWD & ELL services Provide additional support: - Social services - Pull-out instruction 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    9. 9. $11.7 $15.2 $19.9 $42.6 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 General Ed ELL SWD Resource SWD Sub Sep FullyAllocated$PerPupil (Thousands) DISTRICT SPENDING BY STUDENT TYPE 2009-2010 LEP EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 9 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 Moving students into rigidly defined programs diverts dollars from early intervention and targeted small groups for all students Enrollment: 37.8K 6.6K 5.4K 5.5K Weight: 1.0 1.2 1.7 3.5 Poverty Increment 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    10. 10. 2.5% 9.6% 3.7% 4.0% 4.5% 3.5% 6.4% 8.0% 8.7% 8.7% 12.0% 5.7% 13.6% 2.0% 7.4% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% District A District B District C District D District E District F District G %TotalEnrollment K-12 SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENTS AS % OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT Integrated Special Class Resource Room/Consultant Self Contained & Home Instruction EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 10 *District G SWD enrollment includes all students with a designated category of disability. 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. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, selected years, 1992 through 2007, and IDEA Act database Districts vary widely in how many students they place in special education settings National ID rate: 13.4% 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education 10.5% 18.3% 12.4% 16.0% 10.2% 17.1% 15.8%
    11. 11. 11 Note: For the average district this translates into a savings of almost 7% of total budget The opportunity to redirect dollars can come from meeting student needs in different ways and using cost- effective practice EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 100% 80% 75% 68% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Total%of SpecialEducationBudget SPECIAL EDUCATION COST DYNAMICS IN A TYPICAL URBAN DISTRICT Base Case Reduce referrals to 12% by supporting high need students in other ways Shift 1% of students from self-contained to resource Increase class fill rates from 75% to 90% Total sped 15% 12% 12% 12% Self-contained sped 5% 4% 3% 3% Percent of Enrollment 1. Class Size Models 2. Special Education
    12. 12. Highlight the class size vs. teacher quality trade-off Strategically raise class sizes in non-core classes and later grades Review special education spending to reduce compliance spending and unplanned extra spending on subscale programs Encourage movement away from class size mandates in state regulations and contracts Clarify rules on maintenance of effort spending Champion revisions to special education funding that create incentives for more integrated services Explore improved ways to measure special education outcomes 12 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? EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. Start Now Build Toward
    13. 13. 963 1080 1110 1120 1125 1138 1160 1170 1180 1200 1210 1250 1250 1260 1276 1476 Chicago PG County LA Boston Seattle St Paul Milwaukee DC Rochester Denver Baltimore Pittsburgh Philadelphia Atlanta Leading Edge schools Boston Charters STUDENT HOURS PER YEAR 13 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.” Many districts have an opportunity to increase instructional time by increasing the school day National Avg. = 1170 EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 3. Making every minute count
    14. 14. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 14 But there is huge opportunity to make better use of existing time…by reducing unassigned or non- instructional time -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 12TH GRADE STUDENTS: RANGE IN UNASSIGNED TIME (As % of Total School Day) Average = 12% 1/3 of 12th graders have <6% of their school day unassigned 1/3 of 12th graders have 6-17% of their school day unassigned 1/3 of 12th graders have 17-40% of their school day unassigned Source: District course file 3. Making every minute count
    15. 15. 15 ….by varying time by grade and subject TYPICAL DISTRICT PERCENT OF STUDENT TIME BY GRADE & SUBJECT 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ES 7-9th 10-12th PE Foreign Language Electives Science Social Studies Math ELA EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 3. Making every minute count
    16. 16. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 16 Source: ERS analysis of district data …by matching instruction to student needs so that course time isn’t wasted Because student B repeated the same course, this district invested 400% more per distinct math class in Student B, AND achieved a significantly worse outcome STUDENT A STUDENT B Proficiency at end of 8th grade Below proficient Below proficient Semester-long math classes in grades 9-10 • Algebra 1A • Algebra 1B • Technical Math 1 • Geometry • Introductory Math • Introductory Math • Introductory Math Cumulative investment $1,362 $1,341 Average investment per distinct class $341 $1,341 Status in grade 11 On track/college ready Dropped out 3. Making every minute count
    17. 17. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 17 High-performing schools are about team, not just individual performance Collaborative planning time Formative assessments School-based expert support Deliberate assignments to teaching team Each school’s specific curricular, faculty, and student needs 4. Restructuring Compensation
    18. 18. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 18 Compensation cost adjusted to District A area Source: ERS District Aspen District Analysis FY 2009 Most districts spend little to reward increased teacher responsibility and contribution Base Education Longevity Responsibility & Results Benefits 51% 42% 3% 7% 20% 27% 2% 0% 25% 24% $- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000 Rochester Northeast District A $perteacher TOTAL DOLLARS PER TEACHER District A Balanced work-force District B Senior work-force $78,232 $88,052 4. Restructuring Compensation
    19. 19. Stop or reduce increases for steps and credits to redirect compensation spending toward increased responsibilities and contribution Aggressively manage low performers out of the system Revise compensation structures to link pay to increases in responsibility and contribution as well as individual results Revise work rules to insure flexibility in teacher assignment to match team and school needs 19 What can be done to optimize compensation spending? Start Now Build Toward EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    20. 20. For the same cost a typical 25,000 student urban district can: EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 20 ERS’ District Reallocation Modeler (DREAM) By taking on tough choices, schools can move toward transformed practice Reduce K-6 class size by 2 Add 90 minutes of collaborative planning time for all teachers OR Give all teachers a 5% raise OR Increase % SPED in HS by 2 percentage points OR Double the salary of the top 5% of teachers Invest in 1 RTI Specialist for every 160 K-2 students Add 10 days per year for seniors to offset 50% of unassigned time OR Assign to classes and provide 15% with 1 hour/wk of 1:1 tutoring
    21. 21. 21 The Baltimore City Schools Transformation Strategy—a three-year journey Under new teacher contract, decisions about trade-offs to pay higher salary for teaching quality will be made at school level EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. BCPSS cut $40M and >200 FTEs from the central office BCPSS shifted ~$70M to school budget and control through Fair Student Funding BCPSS realigned Central to support schools, moving positions to school focused support “network” teams BCPSS replaced ~90 of 200 principals + New teacher contract increases school flexibility and increases compensation tied to performance and contribution Consolidation Decentralization Restructuring Transformation
    22. 22. 22 The biggest opportunities for improving productivity include: Opportunity Increase spending Restructure Reduce spending TEACING Invest in teacher evaluation  Restructure teacher salaries away from steps and lanes to pay for greater contribution and results  SCHOOLDESIGN Invest in team based continuous improvement through collaborative planning time and expert support   Rethink one-size fits all class size model to provide targeted individual attention to fit student and subject needs   Extend and strategically organize student time   Redesign special education   PARTNER SHIP Partner with community and outside experts to provide social/emotional support, non-core instruction and enrichment  EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    23. 23. 23 Back up
    24. 24. 50% 50% 55% 54% 52% 60% 9% 9% 5% 9% 7% 7% 7% 9% 7% 7% 4% 3% 20% 14% 17% 20% 24% 18% 4% 7% 8% 2% 3% 2% 10% 10% 7% 7% 8% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Rochester 09-10 Oakland 07-08 Atlanta 07-08 Boston 09-10 Philadelphia 08 Chicago 08 TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET BY USE Uncoded Leadership Business Services O&M ISPD Pupil Services Instruction Note: Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation (using BLS inflation adjusters) and for cost of living (NCES-CWI); all dollars from K-12 operating budgets. Uncoded dollars in Philadelphia are dollars spent on alternative schools and additional EMO payments Source: RCSD 2009-2010 budget data; RCSD BEDS enrollment; Oakland Unified School District annual report 2008; ERS Benchmark database Real per pupil spending varies widely across districts, but spending patterns similar Enrollment 32K 39K 46K 55K 152K 405K Operating Budget per Pupil 15.3K 7.9K 10.8K 11.5K 9.2K 7.7K 24EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    25. 25. Autopilot compensation increases Other mandatory cost increases Declining revenue; sudden drop in Fed $ Efficiency gains Budget Gap (before new priorities) EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 25 Budget Gaps are systemic due to a fundamental cost structure that continues to rise regardless of revenue
    26. 26. 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% Seattle Houston Boston Memphis Denver+ Philadelphia PERCENT COLA INCREASE FROM 2009-10 TO 2010-11 BY ASPEN DISTRICT EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 26 Cost of living increases are the norm, although some districts have suspended them in recent years No COLA Increase* Atlanta Charlotte Long Beach Los Angeles PG County Hillsborough Baltimore DISTRICT PercentCOLAIncrease *Districts with negative or zero COLA increase are included +Denver has new formula for teachers in ProComp = CPI (inflation rate) + a factor Source: NCTQ TR3 database
    27. 27. Assumptions: Net step increase of 3.5% (4% average discounted for staff turnover) Lane increase of 2.5% Benefits increase 7.5% annually One district example: If the district must pay COLA at 3.5%, this number nearly doubles to equivalent of 360 average cost teachers next year or 600+ first year teachers by 2015 $494.8m $522.5m $552.3m $583.9m $617.6m $653.3m - 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 700.0 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 Benefits COLA (3.5%) Experience (& longevity) Educational Attainment Base Compensation 27EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    28. 28. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Performance Pay National Board Certification Leadership Roles Education Experience EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 28 The way districts reward salary increase over a teaching career varies; merit pay is rare, primary increase is for leadership roles and NBPT TOTAL POSSIBLE RAISES OVER TEACHER’S CAREER Source: Salary Schedules and Teacher Contracts. Methodology: Experience and Education derived from salary schedules. Stipends aggregated from contracts – leadership roles conservative avg of multiple stipends (e.g. dept head, lead tchr, curric devel) Total Possible Raise $47k $54k $42k $61k $55k $60K $48k $47k $56k $42k $50k $49k $50k % Over Base 124% 156% 92% 142% 122% 135% 113% 115% 131% 117% 111% 134% 128%
    29. 29. 29 Transformation: In year 2, BCPSS redesigned the remaining Central Office support staff to create a “network” structure to provide more direct support to schools Moving From a compliance focused organization … Fragmented, often reactive support, far away from the work of schools …to a performance-driven organization that supports school-based decision- making: Problem solving focused teams closer to schools; flexible design to meet the individual needs of schools School School School School School School School School School HR PD Budget Finance Attend. Sc. Sch. Office Ac. Achieve. Ele. Sch. Office Etc…Title I Network #1 Network #2 10-15 Schools 10-15 Schools Etc. Network Team Members : • Network Leader • Instructional Support • Finance & Ops • Special Pops • Human Resources EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.
    30. 30. EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 30 Dollars to redirect come from the combination of fewer referrals and more cost-effective practice Total # of Students District Support Models School Level Implementati on (Fill Rates) • Special Education diagnosis rates by disability type • ELL enrollment trends • Staffing models • Inclusion models • Out of district policies • Program placement • Student assignment

    ×