1. F AIR S TUDENT F UNDING : P ROMOTING E QUITY &
A CHIEVEMENT IN B ALTIMORE C ITY P UBLIC
S CHOOLS
Andrés Alonso, Chief Executive Officer
Presented With: Tisha Edwards, Special Assistant to the CEO
& Matt Hornbeck, Principal, Hampstead Hill Academy
Additional District Members: Irma Johnson, Executive Director of
Elementary Schools , Sean Conley, Principal, Morrell Park ES/MS,
Jerrelle Francois, Vice Chair Board of School Commissioners
& Janet Johnson, Board Executive BALTIMORE CITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

2. AGENDA
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
1. GOALS & PRINCIPLES
2. CHALLENGES TO REFORM
3. PROCESS DEVELOPMENT &
IMPLEMENTATION
4. RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY 2
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

3. WHAT DO OUR CITY SCHOOLS LOOK LIKE?
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
School & District Statistics
• 19th largest urban school district in the country.
• 192 schools - 55 Elementary, 70 ES/MS, 19 Middle, 7 MS/HS, 35 High Schools, 6
Alternative Schools.
• 25 charter schools, 13 contract schools, 9 alternative programs, and 2 service
programs.
Student Demographics
• 82,565 students – 88.4% African American, 7.7% White, 2.8% Hispanic.
• 15.3% Special Education.
• 68.3% Free & Reduced Meals Program.
Other Factors
• City-State Partnership, governed by appointed Board of School Commissioners.
• Local & State government, private funding sources.
• 7 different CEOs in 10 years.
• Union affiliations – AFT, Baltimore Teachers Union (BTU), AFSCME, PSASA, CUB.
3
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

4. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Maryland School Assessment
Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
90
80.5
75.9
73.4
80
73.1
68.8
65.6
65.4
65.1
65.0
70
61.0
61.0
60.5
60.3
58.7
57.6
Percent Proficient or Advanced
54.6
53.6
60
49.9
49.0
46.4
45.7
45.5
43.8
43.5
50
43.0
42.5
42.4
40.0
39.7
39.4
40
30
20
10
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
(2008 N=6033) (2008 N=5904) (2008 N=5636) (2008 N=5490) (2008 N=5687) (2008 N=5775)
(2007 N=5850) (2007 N=5490) (2007 N=5536) (2007 N=5628) (2007 N=6126) (2007 N=6141)
(2006 N=5786) (2006 N=5789) (2006 N=6016) (2006 N=6359) (2006 N=6559) (2006 N=6688)
(2005 N=6020) (2005 N=6380) (2005 N=6705) (2005 N=6875) (2005 N=7416) (2005 N=7075)
(2004 N=6673) (2004 N=7053) (2004 N=7161) (2004 N=7743) (2004 N=7745) (2004 N=5937)
4
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

5. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT DATA
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Maryland School Assessment
Mathematics
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
90
79.8
80
73.3
72.2
67.4
63.9
70
62.7
62.0
60.4
56.5
Percent Proficient or Advanced
54.2
53.7
53.6
60
50.5
48.5
47.6
43.8
50
42.4
33.6
40
31.4
28.4
28.4
25.7
24.8
24.0
30
21.6
19.8
19.5
19.0
18.4
17.9
20
10
0
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
(2008 N=6032) (2008 N=5906) (2008 N=5632) (2008 N=5469) (2008 N=5678) (2008 N=5746)
(2007 N=5852) (2007 N=5496) (2007 N=5546) (2007 N=5626) (2007 N=6114) (2007 N=6108)
(2006 N=5794) (2006 N=5790) (2006 N=6011) (2006 N=6355) (2006 N=6549) (2006 N=6688)
(2005 N=6024) (2005 N=6374) (2005 N=6709) (2005 N=6892) (2005 N=7410) (2005 N=7064)
(2004 N=6691) (2004 N=7072) (2004 N=7173) (2004 N=7780) (2004 N=7756) (2004 N=5960)
5
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

6. CITY SCHOOLS: GRADUATION & DROPOUT RATES
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Baltimore City Graduation and Dropout Rates
65.0
60.6
58.7 58.5 59.0 62.6
60.1
55.0
54.2 54.3
50.5
49.5
45.0 46.2 46.0
42.6
35.0
25.0
15.0 13.8
13.5
10.9 11.3 11.7 11.7
10.2 10.4 10.3 10.5 10.5 9.6 7.9
5.0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
6
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

7. HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
ENROLLMENT
Official September 30 Enrollment
1994-1995 through 2008-2009
120,000
113,428
109,980 108,759
110,000 107,416 106,540
103,000
98,226
100,000 95,475 94,031
91,738
88,401
90,000 85,468
82,381 81,284 82,052
80,000
70,000
Number of Students
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009*
*2009 data still preliminary
Note: 2008 includes the return of three Edison Schools
7
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

8. HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
STAFFING
8
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

9. HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
ENROLLMENT-STAFFING CHALLENGE
Number of Students in City Schools vs. Number of Staff Employed
2000-01 through 2007-08
9
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

10. HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
GRADUAL INCREASED FUNDING SOON COMING TO A HALT
10
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

11. HISTORICAL STATE OF THE CITY SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
REVENUES
Shortfall in Base Operational Expenses
Baltimore City Public Schools
Estimated Increase in FY 2009 General Fund Revenue &
Expenditures (in thousands)
Estimated FY 2009 Revenue Increase $ 11,100
Estimated FY 2009 Expenditure Increase $ 61,500
Estimated FY 2009 Funding Shortfall
(without new needs)
$ (50,400)
11
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

12. PRIORITIES FOR REFORM
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Create a system of great schools led by great
principals, with the authority, resources and
responsibility to teach all of our students well.
• Engage those closest to the students in making
key decisions that impact them.
• Empower schools and then hold them
accountable for results.
• Ensure fair and transparent funding our schools
can count on annually.
• Right-size the district – schools & central office
– to address realities of revenues and
expenditures.
12
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

13. UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES FOR THE WORK
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Dollars should follow each student.
• Resources should be in the schools.
• Students with the same characteristics should
get the same level of resources.
• Equitable, simple, and transparent approach to
help schools get better results for our students.
13
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

14. CHALLENGES TO REFORMING THE SCHOOL FUNDING 14
MODEL
BALTIMORE CITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

15. PREVIOUS BUDGET MODEL: STAFFING-BASED
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Core Staffing Model 2006 Core Staffing Model 2007
Admin & Support Staff
 Principal – 1 per school
Admin & Support Staff
 Assistant Principal – 0-300 =0
301-500 =1
 Principal – 1 per school 501-1000=2
 Assistant Principal – 1 Per 300 students 1000 up =3
 Secretary – 1 Per school plus one extra for schools  Secretary – 1 Per school plus one extra for schools over
over 900 students 900 students
 Instructional Aide – 1 for every Pre-K and  Instructional Aide – 1 for every Pre-K and Kindergarten
class
Kindergarten class
 Non-Instructional Aide – 1 per school plus one per 250
students plus 1 Guidance Aide Per High School
Resource Teachers Resource Teachers
 1 for every 6 teachers in Elementary Schools  1 for every 8 teachers in Elementary Schools
 1 for every 3 teachers in Middle Schools  1 for every 3 teachers in Middle Schools
 1 for every 3 teachers in High Schools  1 for every 4 teachers in High Schools
Classroom Teacher Ratios
Classroom Teacher Ratios
 Pre-K: 1 per 20 Students (with an aide)
 Pre-K: 1 per 20 Students (with an aide)
 Kindergarten: 1 per 22 students (with an aide)
 Kindergarten: 1 per 25 students (with an aide)
 Grades 1-3: 1 per 22 students
 Grades 1-3: 1 per 24.9 students(grades combined)
 Grades 4-5: 1 per 27 students
 Grades 4-5: 1 per 26.9 students(grades combined)
 Grades 6-8: 1 per 30 students
 Grades 6-8: 1 per 30 students
 High Schools: 1 per 32 students
 High Schools: 1 per 32 students
 5 discretionary teacher positions per area
15
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

16. SOME SCHOOLS GOT MORE MONEY THAN OTHERS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
$35 School Attributed $/pupil
SY 2007 - 2008
$30
Thousands of Dollars
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$0
Elementary Elementary/ Middle High
Schools Middle Schools Schools Schools
Range: $8K-$28K $8K-$19K $11K-$29K $8K-$17K
Note: Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need; Actual salaries. Additionally, data does not reflect minor shifts
resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment reconciliations.
16
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

17. ENROLLMENT DOES IMPACT FUNDING
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Small Schools Received More Money than Larger Schools:
$35 $/pupil vs. % school size
SY 2007-2008
$30
$25
$/pupil (000)
$20
$15 R² = 0.1933
$10
$5
$0
0 500 1,000 1,500
K-12 Enrollment
Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all charter schools. Data in
chart is NOT adjusted for student need. Additionally, data does not reflect minor shifts resulting from November
5, 2008 enrollment reconciliations. 17
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

18. SMALL ES & MS RECEIVED DISPROPORTIONATELY MORE
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
MONEY
School Attributed $/pupil
Elementary and Middle Schools
SY 2007-2008
$12 $10.9
Thousands of Dollars
$10 $9.1
$8.5
$7.8
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
<250 251-500 501-750 >750
Enrollment category:
Number of Schools: 18 70 21 6
Avg. enrollment: 214 363 620 898
Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all charter schools. Data in chart is
NOT adjusted for student need; includes Elementary, Elementary/Middle and Middle schools; excludes 10 Middle Schools
that are in the process of closing; per pupil calculation excludes Food Services. Note: Data does not reflect minor shifts
resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment reconciliations. 18
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

19. SMALL HIGH SCHOOLS WERE RECEIVING VIRTUALLY THE SAME
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
AMOUNT PER PUPIL AS LARGE HIGH SCHOOLS…
School Attributed $/pupil
High Schools
SY 2007 - 2008
$10 $9.2 $9.1 $9.0
Thousands of Dollars
$8
$6
$4
$2
$0
< 500 501-750 > 750
Enrollment category:
Number of Schools: 11 8 11
Avg. enrollment: 351 610 1,112
Note: excludes 5 Alternative schools, 7 Special Ed schools, 3 Edison contract schools, all
charter schools. Data in chart is NOT adjusted for student need; excludes Baltimore School
for the Arts. Per pupil calculation excludes Food Services
19
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

20. THE NEED:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Analysis of school operations and feedback from schools and community
indicated that the then-present way was not working:
• Present funding system was unfair, complex, inflexible, and lacked
transparency, with unexplained variances among schools.
• Schools did not have sufficient flexibility to use resources to address the
specific needs of their students, and provide the optimal programs to bring
all schools to excellence.
• The City Schools’ outcomes had improved over time, but the recent baseline
continued to be unacceptable: 92 schools remained in school improvement
status.
• City Schools could not hold schools accountable and build responsibility for
outcomes without providing schools with resources and opportunity to
exercise leadership in the use of those resources.
Most importantly: There is no time to waste.
20
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

21. PROCESS: GETTING FROM THERE TO HERE 21
BALTIMORE CITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

22. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
The Board – “Courageous Decision-Making”
• Transparency and proactive approach to information-sharing to
support fundamental shifts in funding policies – multiple Board work
sessions.
• Requirement of honesty about the challenges – winners & losers as
a result of paradigm shifts.
Baltimore City Mayor & City Council – “Partners in the Work”
• Key funder of the City Schools, State primary funder.
• Historical City-State Partnership, created political tensions.
• City Councilpersons as historic defenders of individual schools
throughout the City.
External Partners with Historic Ties to City Schools – “School-Based
Decision-Making”
• Moving from central funding to school-based funding.
• Vested interests in the status quo. 22
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

23. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTD…)
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Central Office Staff – “Moving in a New Direction”
• “Right-Sizing” & “Right-Staffing”: Handling significant
changes in leadership at all levels, including the elimination
of 309 central office positions.
• Changing the culture of the approach to the work – moving
from a reactive culture to a proactive culture.
• Overcoming a hesitation to change – pilot v. system-wide
initiative.
• Developing a common vocabulary and mission.
The Unions – “Avoiding the Pitfalls of Reform”
• Frequent collaboration & discussion to ensure that
contractual obligations reflected the shifting priorities of the
system.
• Avoiding failures of earlier attempt at school-based decision
making.
23
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

24. POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS (CONTD…)
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
School-Based Staff – “A New View of Central Office”
• Effectively communicating the reforms to the field.
• Addressing an overwhelming distrust of central office.
Parents & Families – “Empowering Parental Involvement”
• Parent information sessions & backpacked materials.
• All Fair Student Funding information on the web.
• Parental communication requirements in school budget
creation.
The Public – “Informing for Change”
• Transparency with the media to promote awareness.
• Not change for change’s sake but focus on the students.
24
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

25. AGGRESSIVE STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF FAIR STUDENT
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
FUNDING:
Continually
Improve
• Implement revised
Evaluate process for FY10
Depth and Sustainability of Change
& Extend • Ongoing strategic
review and
• Analyze reform adaptation
impact vs. goals
Implement
• Evaluate FY09
budget process
• Roll-out FY09 implementation
budget
Plan • Provide ongoing
process
support where needed
• Train and • Deeper planning
• Analyze current state support
around future budget
• Design FY09 principals
cycles, system
budget, funding • Complete design, principal
system, and central school training, and
office systems to support budgeting implementation of
school autonomy BCPSS strategy
Jan–Mar 2008 April–May 2008 June–November 2008 Dec 2008 and beyond
25
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

26. FSF TIMELINE: PLANNING (JAN – APRIL)
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Creation of Guidance
Documents for Principals
Determine Locked v.
Unlocked
Devolution
Students Weights
& Hold Harmless
Caps
Workgroup
Creation &
Meeting
26
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

27. FSF WORKGROUPS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
1. New School Budgets
2. Resources to Schools (Shared
Services)
3. Training & Support for Principals
4. Financial Impact on Schools
5. Redesign of Central Office
27
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

28. PROGRESSING TOWARDS FAIR STUDENT FUNDING:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• City Schools faced a $76.9 million overall shortfall with inclusion of
new needs.
• Central office & school leadership team workgroups identified $165
million that could be utilized through FSF to cover the funding
shortfall and redistribute approximately $88 million to schools.
• Previously, principals had only $90 per pupil in discretionary
funding (Title I schools got an additional $1,000 per pupil). For
instance, a principal of a typical non-Title I school with 300 students
had just $27K in discretionary funds. With FSF, principals could
have as much as $1.7M.
• Schools have dramatic new flexibility over resources. Schools can
use new flexibility to redesign their programs according to their
needs, and identify the positions they require within their budget.
28
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

29. DECIDING UPON “LOCKED” V. “UNLOCKED” DOLLARS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Budget funds would be distinguished between “Locked”
and “Unlocked” dollars.
• “Locked” Dollars = Positions or resources tied to
compliance (i.e. Special Education), specialized
programs (CTE or vocational) and/or recommended by
a focus group of principals were kept as a central
mandate.
• “Unlocked” Dollars = Funds previously controlled by the
central office that were devolved to schools for site-
based management. Schools have discretion for all
other non-specified resources.
29
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

30. DEVOLVING DOLLARS TO SCHOOLS:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
$700
$22 Million
$600 $39
$500
Title I & Title II
$455 $455
Millions
$400 Grant Funds
Unlocked Funds
$300 $562
$200 Locked Funds
$100 $212 $212
$0
FY08 Total FY09 Initial FY09 Total
$601M Distribution Allocation
$667M $689M
* Excludes charter schools and Pre-K funding. 30
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

31. EXPLANATION OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Base funding for all students except
$3,940 per pupil
self-contained special ed pupils
Base funding for self-contained special
$1,282 per self-contained special ed pupil (not including devolved $)
ed pupils
Dollars devolved from central office $1,000 per pupil
Drop-out prevention weight $900 per high school student eligible for free or reduced-price lunch
Gifted weights
ES $2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on BOTH reading &
math Grade 1 Stanford 10 tests, extrapolated to school population
$2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on AT LEAST ONE
MS reading or math MSA test; incoming 6th grade scores from prior year extrapolated to
school population
$2,200 per advanced pupil, defined as students scoring advanced on AT LEAST ONE
HS reading or math MSA test; incoming 9th grade scores from prior year extrapolated to
school population
K-8 Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS
Low-performance weights
$2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring quot;not readyquot; on the K-Readiness
ES
Test
MS $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests
HS $2,200 per low-performing pupil, defined as % scoring basic on both tests
K-8 Treat the K-5 grades as ES and the 6-8 grades as MS
Hold harmless caps
Loss cap Losses capped at 15% of the current year budget, for year 1
Gain gap Gains capped at 10% of the current year budget, for year 1
Locked dollars Unique to each school (principals, vocational/ESOL/JROTC teachers, etc)
Special revenue Special ed and grant dollars allocated out per school given guidelines
31
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

32. STUDENT WEIGHTS IN THE FUNDING FORMULA
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
ADVANCED WEIGHTS LOW-PERFORMANCE WEIGHTS
$2,200 per low-performing $2,200 per low-performing pupil,
pupil, defined as follows: defined as follows:
• ES: % 1st graders scoring advanced • ES: $2200 per low-performing
on BOTH reading & math Grade 1 pupil, defined as % scoring quot;not
Stanford 10 tests * school population readyquot; on the K-Readiness Test
• MS: % incoming 6th grade students
• MS: $2200 per low-performing
scoring advanced on reading OR
math MSA test * school population pupil, defined as % scoring basic
on both tests
• HS: % incoming 9th grade students
scoring advanced on reading OR • HS: $2200 per low-performing
math MSA test * school population pupil, defined as % scoring basic
on both tests
• K-8: Treat the K-5 grades as ES and
the 6-8 grades as MS • K-8: Treat the K-5 grades as ES
and the 6-8 grades as MS
32
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

33. IMPACT OF HOLD HARMLESS CAPS: GAIN/LOSS BEFORE AND
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
AFTER CAPS (IN DOLLARS)
Gain/Loss BEFORE Hold Harmless Caps* Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps*
$2,000,000 $2,000,000
$1,500,000 $1,500,000
$1,000,000 $1,000,000
$500,000 $500,000
$0 $0
-$500,000 -$500,000
-$1,000,000 -$1,000,000
-$1,500,000 -$1,500,000
-$2,000,000 -$2,000,000
*General Fund unlocked dollars, not including Title I or devolved funds, since caps were applied prior to adding devolved funds.
$2,000,000
Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless $1,500,000
Caps, including Title $1,000,000
I, Devolved Dollars, and $500,000
Projected Enrollment Changes $0
Note: Data does not reflect minor shifts -$500,000
resulting from November 5, 2008
-$1,000,000
enrollment reconciliations.
-$1,500,000
-$2,000,000 33
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

34. IMPACT OF HOLD HARMLESS CAPS: GAIN/LOSS BEFORE AND
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
AFTER CAPS (IN PERCENTS)
% Gain/Loss BEFORE Hold Harmless Caps % Gain/Loss AFTER Hold Harmless Caps
50% 50%
40% 40%
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
-10% -10%
-20% -20%
-30% -30%
-40% -40%
-50% -50%
50%
40%
30%
% Gain/Loss AFTER Hold 20%
Harmless Caps, including Title 10%
I, Devolved Dollars, and 0%
Projected Enrollment Changes -10%
-20%
Note: Data does not reflect minor shifts
-30%
resulting from November 5, 2008
-40%
enrollment reconciliations.
-50%
34
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

35. FSF TIMELINE: IMPLEMENTATION (APRIL - OCT.)
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Budget Approval Enrollment
Process Reconciliation
Budget Title I & Title II
Distribution Distribution to
to Principals Schools
& Site- (ongoing)
Based Creation of
Support Online Budget
Submission
Tool &
Principal’s
Dashboard
35
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

36. BUDGET APPROVAL PROCESS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Initial guidance and support:
o Creation of guidance aligned with Essentials to assist schools in
making funding and programmatic decisions around priorities.
o Teams of key central office personnel and external partners met
individually with each school leadership team.
o Central office hosted peer group working sessions to discuss
“hot topics” related to budget development.
o Telephone hotline established for principal questions.
• Three rounds of review and feedback:
o Executive Directors coordinated preliminary feedback to all
schools prior to final submission.
o Budget Review Team compiled list of key positions and
contracts to be resolved and contacted each school.
o Budget Review Team compiled preliminary approval list and
contacted schools with outstanding issues.
36
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

37. CITY SCHOOLS REVISION OF THE BUDGET PROCESS AND
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL LEADERS
Principal
Training
Budget On-Site Team
Helpline Support
Pre-Submissio
Peer Support
n to CAO
Groups
Office
Vendor Fair
37
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

38. INCREASING COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Principals were required to meet with parents/communities about
school budgets to gather input about school priorities and direction.
• The central office communicated more frequently and directly with
all employees, external partners and students to ensure
understanding and support.
• Schools chose to allocate nearly $1 million for parent and
community involvement to host workshops and other activities.
o These funds were allocated in addition to the City School’s $1 million
investment in community outreach through a Parent and Community
Involvement RFP from City Schools central office.
o RFP provided opportunities for 23 community-based organizations to
service 68 schools to assist with efforts related to:
o FARM application submission rates, Great Kids Come Back
campaign, climate survey participation rates, Parent Portal
usage, recruitment of “community coaches” (spreading the word
about high school choice and college access), and strengthening
organized parent groups and helping parents support their children
in school. 38
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

39. PRINCIPALS’ ONLINE BUDGET TOOL
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Options for ongoing
Key improvements this year: improvement:
• Online budget submission • More tightly link the
tool created. Ongoing narrative strategies to the
development of Principal’s funding decisions.
Dashboard.
• Schools can see fund • Enable additional trend
sources and allocations more analysis.
easily. • Show more detail for
• Fringe benefit dollars are teacher positions by
reported along with salary in including grade and subject.
budgets.
• For positions reporting
• Job title details are now
average dollars, add an
included.
option to see actual dollars.
39
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

40. ENROLLMENT & SCHOOL BUDGET RECONCILIATION
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• In April, schools received enrollment projections from
Department of Research, Evaluation, and Academic
Achievement (DREAA).
• Principals were able to adjust their enrollment
projections, and the principal’s projection became the
basis for developing each school’s budget.
• Based on the September 30 enrollment data, schools
were required to adjust their budgets:
 Those that were under-funded received additional
dollars mid-year (dollars followed the students).
 Those which were over-funded made budget cuts to
reflect lower than anticipated costs.
40
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

41. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Enrollments Lower Than Projected Budget Reductions
• 7 schools had enrollments more • 6 schools’ FSF budgets were
than 20% below projection. reduced more than 20%.
• 14 schools had enrollments • 13 schools’ FSF budgets were
between 10-20% below projection. reduced between 10-20%.
• 30 schools had enrollments • 28 schools’ FSF budgets were
between 5-10% below projection. reduced between 5-10%.
Enrollments Higher Than Projected Budget Increases
• 22 schools had enrollments • 20 schools’ FSF budgets gained
between 5-10% above projection. between 5-10%.
• 11 schools had enrollments • 12 schools’ FSF budgets gained
between 10-20% above projection. between 10-20%.
• 5 schools had enrollments over • 3 schools’ FSF budgets gained over
20% above projection. 20%.
•94 schools had enrollments that were •101 schools’ FSF budgets that changed
within 5% of projection. less than 5%.
41
GOALS & PRINCIPLES CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

42. OUTCOMES OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING 42
BALTIMORE CITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

43. EVERY SCHOOL LEVEL EXPERIENCED AN INCREASE IN FUNDING
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
With the devolution of additional Title I and Title II grant
dollars, every school level on average experienced an
increase of funding.
ACTUAL Average $ ACTUAL % Increase from
Increase FY08
Elementary $380,785 19.79%
K-8 $459,895 17.83%
Middle* $13,621 0.55%
High $708,819 19.11%
* Traditional middle schools received a significant increase in funding (roughly $8.7 million) in SY07-08
to implement reforms, including small learning communities, additional collaborative planning periods
with SPAR teachers, alternatives to suspensions, twilight school, parent engagement, student
truancy, and professional development, which explains the small average increase this year when Fair
Student Funding balanced school funding district-wide.
43
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

44. DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS OF
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
DIFFERENT SIZES
$8,000 Total Under 300 300-800 Over 800
$7,254
$7,000 $6,698 $6,554 $6,572
$6,118
$6,000 $5,705 $5,830
$5,000 $4,817
$/PUPIL
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
BEFORE AFTER
300-
Level Total <300 800 >800 Total <300 300-800 >800
Ratios 1.00 1.17 1.02 0.84 1.00 1.11 1.00 0.93
Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. Additionally, data
does not reflect minor shifts resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment reconciliations.
44
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

45. DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
LEVELS
Total ES K-8 MS HS
$8,000
$7,239
$6,880 $6,899
$7,000 $6,554 $6,494
$6,269
$6,048
$6,000 $5,705 $5,719
$4,981
$5,000
$/PUPIL
$4,000
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
Level Total ES K-8 MS HS Total ES K-8 MS HS
Ratios 1.00 1.06 1.00 1.27 0.87 1.00 1.05 0.99 1.05 0.96
Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars.
Additionally, data does not reflect minor shifts resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment 45
reconciliations.
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

46. DOLLARS MORE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS SCHOOLS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
REGARDLESS OF PERFORMANCE LEVEL
Total Under 50% proficient 50-75% proficient Over 75% proficient
$7,000
$6,554 $6,613 $6,610
$6,354
$6,006
$6,000 $5,705 $5,703
$5,333
$5,000
$4,000
$/PUPIL
$3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0
BEFORE AFTER
Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars. Additionally, data
does not reflect minor shifts resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment reconciliations.
46
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

47. HIGH POVERTY SCHOOLS STILL RECEIVE MORE FUNDING
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Before After
Note: General Fund unlocked dollars, including 100% of devolved funds and Title I dollars.
Additionally, data does not reflect minor shifts resulting from November 5, 2008 enrollment 47
reconciliations.
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

48. VARIANCES BETWEEN SCHOOLS ON THE TOP V. SCHOOLS ON
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
THE BOTTOM OF THE DISTRIBUTION
• Schools at the top of the distribution tend to be:
o Small (250 on average)
o Primary schools (no high schools are in this group)
o Mostly high poverty (three quarters have >80% free/reduced
lunch)
o Achievement levels vary widely (29-100% reading proficiency
rates)
• Schools at the bottom of the distribution tend to be:
o Larger (620 on average)
o More likely to be high schools (8) and less likely to be middle
schools (1)
o Less poor (only 2 out of 25 have >80% poverty)
o Achievement levels vary widely (28-98% reading proficiency
48
rates)
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

49. STAFFING SHIFTS: KEY POINTS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Student-teacher ratios became more equal across
schools.
• Assistant principal and aide positions, which had been
high relative to comparison districts, were reduced:
• Assistant principals dropped by 20%
• Instructional and non-instructional aides (excluding
SPED aides) were reduced by 25-30%
• Staffing shifted away from guidance and social workers
as schools found different ways to provide pupil
services.
• Over 500 additional FTEs are now reported at the
school level (e.g. custodial workers, hall monitors).
49
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

50. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
PLANNING TIME & COLLABORATIVE PLANNING HIGHLIGHTS
Planning Time Collaborative
Planning Time
All schools have at
least: All schools have at
•4 planning sessions least:
per week in elementary •1 collaborative
schools. planning session per
• 5 planning sessions week.
per week in secondary • 45 minute long
schools. collaborative planning
• 45 minute long sessions.
planning sessions.
50
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

51. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
ENRICHMENT, YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, & AFTER-SCHOOL ACTIVITIES
100%
100%
91%
80%
68%
% of Schools*
60% 55%
49% SY07-08
SY08-09
39%
40%
20% 16%
14%
0%
Offered School-based Program External Partners CAROI (HS Only)
(Teacher Stipends) (SES)
Summary: After-school programming is increasing in SY 08-09. In addition, contracts and
partnerships with after-school providers are also increasing.
Survey Response: 190 schools responded to the survey.
51
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

52. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
INCREASING STUDENT SUPPORT TO IMPROVE SCHOOL SAFETY
Schools’ choices emphasize providing additional support
and positive interventions for students.
Schools allocated over $3 million in FY09 for intervention
initiatives including twilight courses, character
education, school-based programs, Student Support
Teams, and others.
# Schools # Schools
2007-2008 2008-2009
Positive Behavior Interventions & Supports
32 46
(PBIS)
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies
2 6
(PATHS)
Mental Health Professionals 96 103
52
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

53. FAIR STUDENT FUNDING OUTCOMES:
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
ALTERNATIVES TO SUSPENSION
Alternatives to Suspension
120%
100% 100%
100% 90% 94%
81% 82% 85% 78%
83%
80% 71%
% of schools
60% 50% 54%
47% 46%
41% 42%
40%
16% 20%
20%
SY 07-08
0%
SY 08-09
Summary: Schools are increasing the alternatives to suspension in SY 08-09.
Survey Response: 190 schools responded to the survey.
53
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

54. EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON FINE ARTS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
EDUCATION
Fine Arts Education
120%
100% 100%
100% 86% 84% 81%
79%
% of schools
80%
65% 61%
57% 53%
60%
40% 33%
26% 24%
18%
20%
SY 07-08
0%
SY 08-09
*Summary: Although full-time
fine arts educators have
decreased slightly, schools
Title I & II Allocations: are expanding their offerings
in fine arts for SY 08-09.
• $40,000 directly to train & support fine arts
education. *Survey Response: 190
schools responded to the
• Funds used to acquire additional 0.5 FTE. survey. 54
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

55. EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON AFTER-SCHOOL
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
PROGRAMMING
Schools are providing trainings to staff and students to support
school climate.
Description Total
In-class Tutoring $451,360
Peer mentoring $433,207
Classroom Practices
$375,408
training
Innovative Training $300,248
Mentoring for new
$217,281
teachers
Student Support
$29,324
Services
Grand Total $1,806,828
55
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

56. EFFECT OF TITLE I & TITLE II ALLOCATIONS ON SCHOOL-
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
BASED PROGRAMS SUPPORTING SUSPENSION REDUCTION
Schools are providing trainings to staff and students to support
school climate.
Description Total
In-class Tutoring $451,360
Peer mentoring $433,207
Classroom Practices
$375,408
training
Innovative Training $300,248
Mentoring for new
$217,281
teachers
Student Support
$29,324
Services
Grand Total $1,806,828
56
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

57. GUIDANCE & COLLEGE READINESS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
2007-2008 2008-2009
# Schools & AOP Programs
102 101
with Guidance Counselors
# Schools with College
20 29
Access Programs
CollegeBound, Loyola
College Access Program College Advising
CollegeBound
Providers Core, and College
Summit
New in 2008-2009
- Urban Alliance: 2 schools
- College-readiness workshops and experiences.
- AVID: 1 school
- 4 year, college-readiness curricular program.
57
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

58. GENERAL RESULTS OF FAIR STUDENT FUNDING
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• An additional $88M goes directly to schools.
• Principals have more control over the staff positions and other
resources in their school.
• Principals have more responsibilities.
• Dollars are distributed more evenly across school levels and school
sizes.
• Student-teacher ratios have become more equal across schools.
• The high number of assistant principals and aides has been reduced.
• Small schools appear to have sufficient staffing this year, but may
not in future years as hold harmless caps are phased out.
• Funding in Baltimore is more transparent.
58
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

59. NEXT STEPS FOR CITY SCHOOLS
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Determine how the hold harmless caps should be phased out and long-term
impact on specific schools.
• Revisit weight amounts (determine sufficiency of base amount).
• Revisit weight basis (should % basic and % advanced be allowed to sum to more
than100%?).
• Revisit locked categories (particularly special education).
• Refine enrollment projections system (totals and weighting data).
• Revisit charter school funding levels and services.
• Assess small school funding issues.
• Monitor allocations to small schools, schools in transition, and alternative
schools.
• Continue improvements to our Principal Dashboard – budget reconciliation tool.
• Make final decision on average and actual salary.
59
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

60. CONTINUAL REDESIGN OF CITY SCHOOLS CENTRAL OFFICE
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Clarify objectives and goals for each department; clearly delineate
responsibilities. Are the right people in the right jobs?
• Determine how to provide the right services at the right costs.
• Continue to develop support & accountability processes.
• Refine data collection and reporting systems.
• Determine how best to use staff who are no longer needed by schools but
who are under contract with the district.
• Develop communication strategies to ensure coherence within and across
departments.
• Re-negotiate union contracts to give principals more control over staffing, as
contracts are up for renewal.
60
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

61. COMMITMENT TO CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
Process and Structures:
• Continued redefinition of the role of central office toward
guidance, support and accountability to schools.
• Concerted effort for customer service to schools, staff, and
community, with opportunities for feedback increasing.
• Continuous improvement project management approach taken
with central office projects.
Stakeholder Involvement:
• Principals involved in all decisions and vetting of processes and
initiatives.
• Feedback solicited from teachers, unions, formal parent
organizations, community leaders, and other school staff.
61
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

62. GUIDANCE, SUPPORT, & ACCOUNTABILITY
FAIR STUDENT FUNDING: CITY SCHOOLS
• Shift to greater school flexibility requires significant central and partner
support, a clear accountability framework, and structures designed to
provide guidance and checks and balances to principals and school-based
leadership teams.
• Schools received greater flexibility over resources in exchange for accepting
responsibility for fiscal accountability, academic accountability, and pupil
services accountability, all with clear consequences when accountability
metrics are not met.
• In addition to following Federal and state guidelines, each school’s education
plan must also meet City Schools set guidelines. For instance, City Schools
includes an accountability metric that assesses whether schools are
providing Algebra in the 8th grade, whether schools are offering Algebra to all
Algebra-ready students, and whether schools are providing college access
services.
• Autonomy is bound. It is not “do as I wish” but “do within a framework set by
policy, outcomes, and student needs.”
62
OVERVIEW CHALLENGES PROCESS RESULTS
B ALTIMORE C ITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS

63. F AIR S TUDENT F UNDING : P ROMOTING
E QUITY & A CHIEVEMENT IN B ALTIMORE
C ITY P UBLIC S CHOOLS
Copies of this presentation are available at:
http://www.bcps.k12.md.us
QUESTIONS & COMMENTS? 63
BALTIMORE CITY
P UBLIC S CHOOLS