how states can support transformation in tough...

How States Can Support Transformation in Tough Times

Moving Forward Conference January 13

• ERS is a non-profit consulting firm,

head-quartered in Boston

• We work with leaders of public school

systems to rethink the use of district and

school-level resources

• We analyze district spending, human

resources, school organization and

performance data to generate insight

around resource strategies

• We leverage this insight to design new ways to allocate and organize

resources at the district and school level

• Our work is grounded in over a decade of experience, working with

school districts across the country

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 2

Education Resource Strategies

• Real spending doubled from $3,800 to $8,700 per pupil

• 80% of increase went toward adding staff positions and

increasing benefits while educator salaries remained flat in real dollars*

• Spending on special education programs has gone from 4 to 21%

of district budgets while regular education spending has

dropped from 80% to 55%**

Despite increased spending achievement gaps persist

* Parthenon group analysis, 2008

**Richard Rothstein, Where has the money gone? 2009

From 1970 to 2005 :

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.

Source: Digest of Education Statistics 2007: Tables 61, 64, and 66

Overall class sizes have decreased, but basic structure of schooling has remained the same

4EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.


Budget Gaps are systemic due to a fundamental cost structure that continues to rise regardless of revenue

• Teaching salaries growing

at ~2-4% annually

• Benefits growing

at ~10+% annually

• Expensive class size mandates

• SPED spending continues to

grow

• Tax revenue falling

• Enrollment declining

• Sudden drop in Federal Funds

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


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 HAVE WE NEED


1. CompensationReducing compensation spending by managing teaching

work-force mix and differentiating instructional roles

2. Class size models to target individual attentionStrategically raising class sizes and rethinking one-size-fits-all

class size models for providing individual attention

3. Special Education

Redirecting special education spending to early intervention and targeted individual attention for all students

4. TimeStrategically using existing time and extending where needed to meet student learning needs

8

Four of the biggest areas of “misalignment” that states influence include:


• Build understanding of the needed changes

• Create the right incentives

• Remove barriers

• Support and invest in new strategies and structures

• Change legislation

• Provide political cover

9

How can states support transformation at the district level?


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


Compensation cost adjusted to District A areaSource: 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

$ p

er

tea

ch

er

TOTAL DOLLARS PER TEACHER

District A

Balanced work-force

District B

Senior work-force

$78,232

$88,052

12

Managing toward a work-force mix can allow much higher top salaries without increased spending


$50K

$35K

$70K

$90K

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

% o

f Te

ac

he

rs

TOTAL TEACHER SALARY

$25M $25M

# of teachers: 500 500

Avg. salary: $50K $50K

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

13

What can be done to optimize compensation spending?

Start Now

Build Toward


2122 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 14

Source: 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 Models2. Special Education

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


*Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Art, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign LanguageSource: 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


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


Districts have more teaching staff, but use those FTEs for specialist positions outside of the core classroom



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


$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

Fu

lly

Allo

ca

ted

$ P

er

Pu

pil

(Th

ou

san

ds)

DISTRICT SPENDING BY STUDENT TYPE

2009-2010

LEP


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

PovertyIncrement


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%

Atlanta FY06 Boston

FY06

Chicago FY06 DCPS

FY05

LA

FY06

St. Paul FY06 Rochester

FY09*

% T

ota

l En

rollm

en

t

K-12 SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENTS AS % OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT

Integrated Special Class

Resource Room/Consultant

Self Contained & Home Instruction


*Rochester 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.

Districts vary widely in how many students they place in special education settings

FY06:

National ID rate: 9%



Dollars to redirect come from the combination of fewer referrals and more cost-effective practice

Total # of Students

District Support Models

School Level Implementation (Fill Rates)

• Special Education

diagnosis rates by

disability type

• ELL enrollment trends

• Staffing models

• Inclusion models

• Out of district policies

• Program placement

• Student assignment

21

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


100%80% 75% 68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Tota

l %

of

Sp

ec

ial Ed

uc

atio

n B

ud

ge

t

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


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

22

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?


Start Now

Build Toward

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

23

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


3. Making every minute count

24

….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


3. Making every minute count








25










26



• Build understanding of the needed changes

• Create the right incentives

• Remove barriers

• Support and invest in new strategies and structures

• Change legislation

• Provide political cover

27

How can states support transformation at the district level?

1. Revise funding systems to promote equity and flexibility

2. Revamp teacher compensation, including benefits and pensions, to increase compensation for

teachers who have the best results and contribute

the most to improving student performance

3. Overhaul regulations that strictly define specific staff positions and use of school time

4. Rethink graduation requirements that are linked to taking specific courses rather than demonstrating

skills and knowledge


Top 10 things states can do in “tough times” to focus resources to their most productive uses …

5. Create new models of accountability and support for

special education and English language learners that redirect resources to more integrated settings

6. Insist on turnaround strategies that restructure

existing resources and consider district-wide impact, including the challenge of displaced teachers

7. Invest in statewide leadership development and succession planning, including providing information

tools


Top 10 things states can do…

8. Remove barriers to creative provision of education and support services by untraditional providers

9. Promote the use of technology as a productivity

improvement tool in education and school support

services

10.Report useful comparative data on school and

district resource use that includes information on

spending by student as well as on the use and

organization of resources


Top 10 things states can do…

31

Back up

32

The Baltimore City Schools Transformation Strategy—a three-year journey

Under new teacher contract, decisions about trade-offs to pay higher salaryfor teaching quality will be made at school level


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

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 paymentsSource: 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


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


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100% Performance

Pay

National Board

Certification

Leadership

Roles

Education

Experience


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

Base124% 156% 92% 142% 122% 135% 113% 115% 131% 117% 111% 134% 128%

36

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


how states can support transformation in tough...

Documents