Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Maximizing Resources for School Improvement, Part 1

Part 1 of our presentation to the Council of Chief State School Officers on how states can support low-performing schools in the age of ESSA standards. The presentation was held June 22, 2017.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Maximizing Resources for School Improvement, Part 1

  1. 1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2017 Draft – do not cite or disseminate Maximizing Resources for School Improvement How states can support low-performing schools in the age of ESSA: Part 1 June 22, 2017
  2. 2. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate ESSA & Low-Performing Schools
  3. 3. Draft – do not cite or disseminate ESSA streamlines funding for states to improve low-performing schools, but is unlikely to dramatically change the amount of federal funding for this purpose 2 $- $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 $30,000,000 $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $45,000,000 Connecticut Delaware Indiana Kentucky Mississippi New Jersey Pennsylvania West Virginia Projected change in school improvement from NCLB to ESSA transition 2016 Projected (4% Title I Set-Aside + SIG) 2018 Projected (7% Title I Set-Aside) 2016: Title I Set-Aside & SIG 2018: Title I Set-Aside ESSA provides that states cannot spend less in 2018 than they did immediately before the transition.
  4. 4. Draft – do not cite or disseminate However, the discretion with which states can allocate that funding will increase Under ESSA, states can—  Exercise additional control over which schools and districts are eligible for aid.  Determine whether they wish to distribute funds according to a formula or through a competitive grant process.  Offer and incent a wider range of intervention strategies. 3
  5. 5. Draft – do not cite or disseminate Context matters: State school improvement strategies should take into consideration specific policy and resource situations 4 Key Questions Context Considerations How many and which schools and districts will we serve? • Magnitude of school improvement endeavor • Concentration of schools in need of improvement What types of interventions will we implement? • Existing school improvement policies • Other enabling state policies • Alternative providers • Local empowerment What resources will we use to support these interventions? • Availability of resources • Method of distribution How will we create capacity to implement these interventions? • District-level capacity • State-level capacity How will we ensure interventions are effective and sustainable? • Effectiveness • Sustainability • Accountability Consistent with this principle, sustainable school improvement strategies should place the district at the center of the planning process
  6. 6. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate Limited Dollars 5
  7. 7. Draft – do not cite or disseminate The challenge of leveraging limited federal dollars into sustainable school reform Strategies to best leverage all available resources to build district capacity for ongoing improvement: 1) Resources targeted where they’re needed most 2) Tailored tiers of intervention for differentiated support 3) District-centered approach 6 While states’ discretion in supporting school improvement has grown, federal school improvement resources alone are insufficient to sustainably turn around low- performing schools.
  8. 8. Draft – do not cite or disseminate Addressing the root cause of chronic low performance may require dramatic change 7 Declining expectations (faculty, students, families) Remaining students fall further behind and high needs get concentrated Teachers and families with options leave Persistently poor performance Resource levels and expertise no longer match needs Leaders and teachers have less capacity to collaborate and adjust instruction Cycle of chronic low performance
  9. 9. Draft – do not cite or disseminate State & Local $9,810 82% Support for Low- Performing Schools $859 7% Other Federal $1,309 11% Simulated possible spending per-pupil at a school in the highest-need quartile of districts within a typical state State & Local Support for Low-Performing Schools Other Federal Federal school improvement dollars make up only a small fraction of a low-performing school’s budget 8 Source: NCES, US Department of Education, ERS Analysis. Assumes federal support dollars are distributed evenly to lowest-performing 5% of schools and that all district spending is reported at the school level. State & local and federal (non-support) expenditures from FY 2012, adjusted for inflation. Sufficient Resources
  10. 10. Draft – do not cite or disseminate Meanwhile, state funding systems vary in how equitably and adequately they fund needy schools This equity metric describes the difference in funding levels between a state’s highest-poverty quartile of districts and its lowest-poverty quartile of districts. 9 -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% IL NY PA TX MD MI NC ID IA MO MT RI WY ME NE NH AL AZ VA KS SC CO VT AR FL ND NM WA MS CT WV OR WI OK UT GA LA NJ CA KY MA IN TN DE SD OH MN $2,142 $1,205 Relatively fewer resources to low-income districts Relatively more resources to low-income districts Source: Education Trust Sufficient Resources $2,541
  11. 11. Draft – do not cite or disseminate These dollars may be barely sufficient to redress inequitable state funding, much less to support transformation 10 Source: NCES, US Department of Education, ERS Analysis. Assumes federal support dollars are distributed evenly to lowest-performing 5% of schools and that all district spending is reported at the school level. State & local and federal (non-support) expenditures from FY 2012, adjusted for inflation. Sufficient Resources $9,810 $13,093 $2,168 $286 $459 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 $16,000 High Need Schools Low Need Schools DollarPerPupil Pennsylvania State & Local Other Federal Support for Low-Performing Schools $10,248 $11,964 $2,189 $386 $444 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 High Need Schools Low Need Schools DollarPerPupil Illinois State & Local Other Federal Support for Low-Performing Schools
  12. 12. Draft – do not cite or disseminate To succeed, states should articulate a clear goal for what they want incremental funds to accomplish–and target them, rather than spreading them thin SHOULD  Provide temporary transition support to create success in a few situations  Diagnose the needs and capacities of targeted schools or communities  Support the creation of peer networks to build capacity of select school, system, and state leaders  Identify, document, and create tools to share best practices  Create conducive conditions for success  Help targeted schools and systems realign all of their resources for improved outcomes, particularly in struggling schools  Be integrated with other federal dollars to support a unified vision to accomplish the state’s goals 11 If the goal is to create sustainable success at scale, federal dollars for low performing schools— SHOULD NOT  Be spread evenly across all failing schools  Compensate for inadequate funding for education  Redress fundamental resource inequities created by state or district formulas  Fund permanent positions or expenditures required for long-term school success  Rely upon capacity that does not yet exist  Be the sole state investment in support for low performing schools Sufficient Resources
  13. 13. Draft – do not cite or disseminate In summary, states should be deliberate in distributing their support dollars, and they should think about how they supplement and sustain those resources 1. States should target federal funding to a few high-capacity or especially high-need local education agencies. We strongly advocate a non-formula approach to the distribution of most or all of these dollars. 2. Those states that are giving dollars by formula in year one should strongly consider setting aside dollars (in year one or in future years) for incentive grants in a few districts to support strategic initiatives, including ESSA- mandated resource allocation studies. 3. States should ensure the reallocation of resources beyond these incremental dollars (including state and local funds), with a clear purpose. 4. States should structure their transitional investments to lead to success that can be sustained. 5. States should invest to replicate success across all low-performing schools over time. 6. States should ensure that their plans for low-performing schools cohere with their overall strategy for school improvement. 12 Sufficient Resources
  14. 14. Draft – do not cite or disseminateDraft – do not cite or disseminate Contact us QUESTIONS?

×