1. Districts face challenges accurately reporting per-pupil spending at the school level due to centrally reported costs and shared services. They will need to assess accounting practices and potentially reallocate some central costs. 2. Variation in per-pupil spending across schools is often driven by factors like student need, school programs, and size rather than inequity. Districts must analyze drivers of differences to understand resource allocation. 3. Financial reporting alone does not capture issues like teacher quality that influence equity. Districts should consider broader metrics and strategies to address non-funding factors affecting student outcomes.

1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2014
ESSA: Financial Reporting
Implications for Resource Equity
December 8, 2016

2. Online Session Norms
 We will record the full session to share with
colleagues who could not join today’s discussion.
 If any participants have concerns, please reach out to
us.
 In order to minimize background noise, please
mute your phone lines when you are not speaking.
 We will have lots of opportunities for whole group
discussion—please step up and share so we can
all learn together!
 This icon will be used to indicate group discussion
opportunities.
 We will use the chat feature to raise questions at
other points during the presentation.
 The slide deck will be disseminated after the
session so that it can serve as a resource as you
advance conversations.

3. Session objectives & agenda
Objectives
 Understand key facts about ESSA’s financial reporting
requirements and relevant regulations
 Identify challenges and opportunities that result from these
requirements
 Discuss actions districts can take to link financial
transparency to equity
Agenda
 Summary of ESSA financial reporting requirements and
regulations
 Key challenges and actions relevant to districts’ equity
agendas
3

4. What problem we are trying to solve?
R² = 0.7594
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Schoolpercentproficient,ELA
School percent FRL
District X: School ELA proficiency against percent FRL
4ERS data analysis of a large, urban district with nearly 100,000 pupils.

5. Supplement, not Supplant December 2017
Districts must be ready to comply
in 2018-19 or have a plan for
compliance in 2019-20
September 2019
Final compliance deadline
September 2018
First compliance deadline
ESSA has two financial provisions that are linked to
increasing equity
 Financial Transparency: Districts must report their per-pupil expenditures
at the LEA and school level annually, disaggregated by fund source.
 Supplement-not-Supplant: Districts must use title I dollars to supplement,
not supplant dollars schools would otherwise receive.
5September 2016 September 2017 September 2018 September 2019
Financial Transparency
2016-17
States must create a procedure
for statewide expenditure
reporting
Districts must plan to track per-
pupil expenditures in the next
fiscal year.
2017-18
Districts must track per-pupil
expenditures at the school
level.
December 31, 2018
Districts must report 2017-18
per-pupil expenditures
By June 30, 2019
Report 2017-18 per-pupil
expenditures

6. Financial Transparency: Final Regulation Key Details
 Required of States:
6
𝑫𝒐𝒍𝒍𝒂𝒓𝒔
𝑷𝒖𝒑𝒊𝒍𝒔
Numerator must include administration, instruction, instructional support,
student support services, transportation, operations, fixed charges,
preschool, expenditures to cover deficits for food service or activities, and
exclude capital, debt service, and community services.
Denominator must be the district’s pupil count on or about October 1.
District-level per-pupil metric
 Must disaggregate federal $’s from state & local
 States to Decide:
 How the calculation of the school-level metric differs from that
of the district-level metric
 How to treat charters for which district is the LEA
 How to define a “school”

7. ESSA requires districts and states to track per-pupil
expenditures to the school level
ESSA’s logic model: Financial transparency leads to equity
7
If districts
report per-pupil
expenditures at
the district and
school levels…
…then they will
distribute
resources
more
effectively and
equitably.
What happens in this black box?

8. Pause and Reflect
8
Clarification: What questions do you have on what districts are going to be
asked to do?
Challenge & Opportunity: What do you see as the critical challenges to
successfully using financial reporting to improve equity in your system?
Discussion

9. Districts will face three key challenges as they take
action on the new reporting requirement
9
Challenge #1:
“Show me the money.”
Accounting for and
minimizing the
discrepancy between
district- and school-
level reporting.
Challenge #2:
“These aren’t the
schools you’re looking
for.”
Understanding and
communicating the
drivers of variation in
funding.
Challenge #3:
“Having money isn’t
everything.”
Creating a window on
equity that goes
beyond funding
per-pupil.

10. Challenge #1
“Show me the money”
$5,983
$1,520
$1,235
$760
$9,497
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
LEA $pp LEA $pp by Reporting
District Spending by Level of Reporting
School Reported School on Central Budgets Shared Services L&M All LEA Dollars to Report
Dollars currently
reported at the
school level
Centrally-reported
dollars for school or
student facing
activities
Solely Central
Office dollars
Districts typically report 45%-70% of
their spending at the school level
Dollars the
public sees at
the district level
Not all dollars spent on students will be reported at schools, leaving a potentially large
gap between a school’s spending per-pupil and the district’s spending per-pupil.
10
Reporting accurately

11. Challenge #1
“Show me the money”
11
School A: $1220 pp
School-within-school, with
most teachers reported at
main building rather than
School A
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
SR$pp
School B: >$50,000 pp
School site where many
central staff are reported who
are actually assigned out to
schools across the district
All expenses and students must be accurately tagged to the schools to which they
are assigned to avoid artificial outlier school expenditure figures.
MS HS
Reporting accurately

12. ERS foresees four categories of accounting
challenges that districts and states may face
12
Reporting accurately
Districts must assess their accounting practices in advance of developing
budgets that can report school-level per-pupil spending.
 Exclusions. Districts are required to exclude certain expenditures from their
reporting, and states may require more. Charts of accounts must be set up to
separate these costs.
 School reported vs. centrally reported. Districts must understand what
expenditures play out in schools but are reported centrally and take steps to
report those expenditures at schools if possible.
 Allocations. Districts may need or wish to develop a method of allocating
central costs out to schools and students based on the types of students those
expenditures serve.
 Alignment of dollars and enrollment. The “schools” to which student
enrollment is reported must match the “schools” to which expenses are
accounted. All expenses must be billed at the schools where they play out; all
students must be tagged to the schools they attend.
ERS is creating an accounting readiness self-assessment worksheet, which we
will share with EdCounsel districts in January

13. Challenge #1
“Show me the money”
13
Reporting accurately
Technical: What questions do you have about how you’ll need to change your
accounting structures to accurately report per-pupil spending?
Strategic: Given that the state will create a standard reporting methodology
for all districts, what input would be important for SEA leaders to consider?
Discussion

14. Challenge #2
“These aren’t the schools you’re looking for”
14
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
$18,000
$20,000
SR$pp
Assuming a district reports expenditures at the school-level as much as possible,
and adjusts accounting and student enrollment reporting, spending differences will
remain across schools.
MS HS
% FRL % FRL
Low LowHigh High
Understanding variation

15. Challenge #2
“These aren’t the schools you’re looking for”
15
Just because some schools receive more money per pupil does not mean they are over-
resourced; just because some schools receive less money per pupil doesn’t mean they are
under-resourced. Many factors drive differences in per pupil spending.
Drivers of variation What drives up per-pupil expenditure?
School size
Subscale schools, typically below 350 for an elementary school or 500 for a secondary
school
Student need
Schools with significantly more students with disabilities, English language learners,
and low-income students nearly always receive significant additional resources.
School/program type and
level*
Magnet, choice, and other specialized programs can require additional resources
Building utilization Schools with many empty seats, commonly less than 85% of capacity filled
Teacher compensation*
Traditional compensation systems that pay for experience but not impact, while
experienced teachers shift to schools with less needy students as their careers
progress
Inaccurate enrollment
projections
Over-projecting enrollment without making appropriate fall resource adjustments
Ad-hoc exceptions* “Squeaky wheel syndrome” and/or lack of clear systems for allocating resources
Largestdrivers
*Most closely tied to the intent of the law
Higher
Lower
Impactofdriveron$pp
Understanding variation

16. These drivers of funding fall into three general
categories, each with its own implications for equity
16
Type of driver Example driver Implications for equity
Service richness and
quality
• General education funding
per pupil
• Special programs
• Teacher compensation
• Enrollment projection error
Variation in this driver indicates the
possibility of inequity across schools.
Student need
• Special education enrollment
• ELL enrollment
• FRL enrollment
Variation in this driver relates to the
possibility of inequity among students
within a school but does not relate
directly to equity across schools.
Structural conditions • School level
There is no inherent relationship
between this driver and overall equity.

17. Challenge #2
“These aren’t the schools you’re looking for”
17
School $ PP
High Avg.
Teacher
Compensation?
Accurate
Enrollment
Projection?
Large SWD
Population?
Large FRL
Population?
Large ELL
Population?
Small
school?
A High Low
Over-
Projected
Above avg. Above avg. Average Small
B High Low At Projection Average Above avg. Above avg. Small
C High Average
Over-
Projected
Below avg. Average Average Small
D High Low
Over-
Projected
Above avg. Above avg. Above avg. Average
E High Average At Projection Above avg. Average Above avg. Average
V Low Average At Projection Below avg. Average Average Average
W Low Average
Under-
Projected
Average Below avg. Above avg. Large
X Low Average At Projection Average Average Below avg. Average
Y Low High
Under-
Projected
Below avg. Below avg. Below avg. Large
Z Low High
Under-
Projected
Below avg. Below avg. Average Large
High$PPLow$PP
Drives higher spending
Drives lower spending
Understanding variation

18. Challenge #2
“These aren’t the schools you’re looking for”
18
Understanding variation
Technical: What analysis do you need to conduct to understand the extent to
which variation in per-pupil spending across schools in your district is related
to inequity?
Strategic: Given your answer above, how do you intend to engage
stakeholders productively in the data?
Discussion

19. Challenge #3
“Having money isn’t everything”
19
There are many factors that influence the quality of education and the distribution of key
educational resources that won’t show up in spending per-pupil.
School $ PP
School Avg. Teacher
Effectiveness?
Access to Rigor?* Suspension Rates?*
Racial
Segregation?
A High Below Avg. Below Avg. Above Avg. More Segregated
B High Below Avg. Average Average Average
C High Average Below Avg. Average More Integrated
D High Average Average Above Avg. Average
E High Below Avg. Average Average More Segregated
V Low Average Average Below Avg. More Integrated
W Low Average Above Avg. Above Avg. More Segregated
X Low Average Average Above Avg. Average
Y Low Above Avg. Above Avg. Average More Segregated
Z Low Above Avg. Above Avg. Below Avg. More Segregated
High$PPLow$PP
*Metrics addressing these factors are required as part of ESSA
More Strategic
Less Strategic
Broadening equity

20. Like in many districts, student proficiency rates range widely in
District A, despite giving additional dollars to its lowest
performing schools…
20
37%
48%
70%
79%
31%
48%
68%
83%
36%
49%
68%
79%
31%
43%
63%
81%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4
Avg. % Proficient by Sch. Performance
Avg. % Proficient Reading Avg. % Proficient Math
Middle Schools High Schools
Avg. %
Proficient
Source: ERS Database
$PP $7.3K $6.6K $6.2K $6.3K $6.8K $6.1K $6.2K $6.6K
Broadening equity

21. Therefore, to improve student achievement, what non-
financial drivers of equity could District A focus on?
Targeting individual attention in priority subjects
Attracting and retaining top talent to its lowest performing schools
Ensuring equitable access to Special Education supports across
the district
Providing additional time to students who are struggling
Ensuring equitable access to rigorous coursework
Ensuring fair and equitable discipline practices
Promoting racially integrated schools
21
Broadening equity

22. But was not differentiating class size in low-performing
schools, as a lever to provide more individual attention
22
19 19 19
20
23 23 23
24
19
20 21 21
23
24
23
24
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4
Avg. Class Size by Sch. Performance
ELA Math
Middle Schools High Schools
Source: ERS Database
Broadening equity

23. The lowest-performing schools also experienced higher rates of
attrition, which is driven by higher rates of transfer within
District A
23
7.6% 8.4% 8.1% 7.7%
6.2%
4.8%
7.3%
5.2%
3.9%
3.3%
1.7%
2.8%
1.8%
1.6%
1.0%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
1.4%
1.1%
All schools Lowest
performing
schools
2nd quartile
performance
3rd quartile
performance
Highest
performing
schools
Teacher Attrition and Transfer in 2012-2015
by School Performance
Retired
Transferred to a non-
teaching role in District A
Transferred to another
District A school
Left the district
Sources: ERS Database
19.4%
16.0%
14.6%
11.6%
15.3%
Broadening equity

24. As a result, schools with the greatest need had the
least stability in their teaching force
24
45%
56% 59%
69%
30%
23% 20%
13%
25% 21% 20% 18%
Lowest-performing
schools
2nd quartile
performance
3rd quartile
performance
Highest-performing
schools
Stability of 2015-2016 Teaching Force by School Need, since 2012
Transfers
New Hires
In The Same
School
Sources: ERS Database
Avg Yrs
of Exp
10.3 12.1 13.2 14.7
Broadening equity

25. And lower-performing schools had the most novice
teachers and the fewest veteran teachers
25
23% 20%
15% 11%
24%
18% 15% 11%
23% 27%
19%
18%
22%
20%
16%
16%
54% 53%
67% 71%
54%
62%
69% 72%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4
Distribution of Core Teacher Experience by School
Performance
% Veteran
% Experienced
% Novice
Middle Schools High Schools
Source: ERS Database
Broadening equity

26. Challenge #3
“Having money isn’t everything”
26
Broadening equity
Strategic: What other measures of equity should inform and supplement your
analysis?
Technical: Do you have the data, staff, and processes in place to calculate
those metrics?
Discussion

27. Summary: What can districts do to use the ESSA
transparency requirement to increase equity?
ESSA’s logic model: Financial transparency leads to equity
27
If districts
report per-pupil
expenditures at
the district and
school levels…
…then they will
distribute
resources
more
effectively and
equitably.
…and they do so accurately and
comprehensively…
…and they understand what causes
variation in funding…
…and they understand what additional
metrics illustrate equity…
…and they [ ]…
What else?

28. We intend to launch a cohort of districts to discuss
these questions collaboratively
ESSA regulations are being finalized, and as states
implement their plans, we will work with districts to—
 Further understand the steps they must take to report
clearly and accurately on equity to their communities.
 Study these issues together and articulate a set of
recommendations districts can make to their states as
they develop plans.
28
Feel free to reach out to EdCounsel or to ERS
directly if you’re interested in learning more

29. Thank you for attending
www.erstrategies.org/signup
@ERStrategies
www.erstrategies.org
VISIT
SUBSCRIBE
LIKE + FOLLOW