How States Can Support Transformation in Tough Times

How States Can Support Transformation in Tough TimesMoving 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 growingat ~2-4% annually

• Benefits growingat ~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


8

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 EducationRedirecting 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

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


9

• 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

How can states support transformation at the district level?


10

High-performing schools are about team, not just individual performance

Collaborative planning

time

Formative assessment

s

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

Rochester Northeast District A $-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$90,000

51% 42%

3% 7%

20%

27%2%

0% 25%

24%

Total Dollars per Teacher

$ p

er

tea

ch

er

District ABalanced work-force

District BSenior work-force

$78,232

$88,052

12

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

What can be done to optimize compensation spending?

Start Now

Build Toward


Grades K-2 Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12

21 22 22 222225

2831

In this District Class Sizes are Far from Max-imum

and do not Vary by GradeAverage class size Contract max

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 13

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 Models

2.Special Education

District T District L

27

2118 18

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

1.Class Size Models

2.Special Education


15

District S

District M

District E

District B

District A

District C

District P

District R

District G

29

25 22

26

18

22

29

20 22

17 14 13 14 14

16 16

12 15

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

1.Class Size Models

2.Special Education


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

CurrentStructure of SWD & ELL services

Provide additional support:- Social services- Pull-out instruction

1.Class Size Models

2.Special Education

General Ed ELL SWD Resource SWD Sub Sep$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$11,725.7 $15,230.4$19,949.1

$42,567.2

District Spending by Student Type2009-2010

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

1.Class Size Models

2.Special Education

Atlanta FY06

Boston FY06

Chicago FY06

DCPS FY05

LA FY06

St. Paul FY06

Rochester FY09*

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

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%

K-12 Special Education Placements as % of Total Enrollment

Integrated Special ClassResource Room/ConsultantSelf Contained & Home Instruction

% T

ota

l Enro

llm

ent


*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%

1.Class Size Models

2.Special Education


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

20

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


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

100%80% 75% 68%

Special Education Cost Dynamicsin a Typical Urban District

To

tal

% o

fS

pe

cia

l E

du

ca

tio

n B

ud

ge

t

Base Case Reduce refer-rals to 12% by supporting high need students in other ways

Shift 1% of students

fromself-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

21

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

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

Chicago

LA

Seattle

Milwaukee

Rochester

Baltimore

Philadelphia

Leading Edge schools

963

1080

1110

1120

1125

1138

1160

1170

1180

1200

1210

1250

1250

1260

1276

1476

Student Hours per Year

22

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

23

….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

24







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

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…

30

Back up

31

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 levelEDUCATION 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

Rochester 09-10

Oakland 07-08

Atlanta 07-08 Boston 09-10 Philadelphia 08

Chicago 080%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

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%

Total Operating Budget by UseUncoded

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

Pupil15.3K 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

FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 -

100.0

200.0

300.0

400.0

500.0

600.0

700.0

$494.8m$522.5m

$552.3m$583.9m

$617.6m

$653.3m

Benefits

COLA (3.5%)

Experience (& longevity)

Educational At-tainment

Base Compensation



34

Den

ver

Charlo

tte LA

Philade

lphia

Bosto

n

Atlant

a

Seat

tle

Baltim

ore

DC

Milw

auke

e

PG C

ount

y

Pittsb

urgh

Roche

ster

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 Base 124% 156% 92% 142% 122% 135% 113% 115% 131% 117% 111% 134% 128%

35

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 School

s

10-15 School

s

Etc.

Network Team Members :• Network Leader• Instructional Support • Finance & Ops• Special Pops• Human ResourcesEDUCATION RESOURCE

STRATEGIES, INC.

How States Can Support Transformation in Tough Times

Education

Transcript of How States Can Support Transformation in Tough Times