Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

NASBE October 18, 2018 Presentation

208 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Karen Hawley Miles' presentation on Resource Equity at the October 2018 NASBE conference

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

NASBE October 18, 2018 Presentation

  1. 1. Resource Equity NASBE Annual Conference 10/18/2018
  2. 2. Today’s Objectives Build an understanding of: • What we mean by resource equity • How your state compares to others in terms of performance, spending, and equity and which key questions to explore further • Levers to improve resource equity and the role states can play
  3. 3. Our mission Education Resource Strategies is a national nonprofit that partners with district, school, and state leaders to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income.
  4. 4. What do we mean by resource equity?
  5. 5. 5 Equal Funding Schools get comparable resources based on size and/or other fixed allocation drivers. Equitable Funding Schools get resources that are comparable based on student needs and what it will take to reach high learning goals. With empowering, rigorous learning standards for all children…
  6. 6. 6 Resource Equity is the allocation and use of resources (people, time, and money) to create student experiences that enable all children to reach empowering, rigorous learning outcomes — no matter their race or income. What is Resource Equity?
  7. 7. 7 How Much and How Well How Much Student OutcomesHow Well Inequities persist, even when funding increases. How well those funds are used is critical to equitably improving student outcomes Skepticism and lack of clarity for what the money will buy has hindered the case for more funds. Greater clarity for how resources would be used and proof points for using them well would bolster the case for greater investment in education
  8. 8. 8 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. 9-12 550 22 84% 9-12 565 23 82% Grades Students Teachers Pct Poverty (FRL) $12,960 $13,080
  9. 9. 9 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools 13% 10% / 3% 7% 100% 24% 11% / 13% 22% 35% Special Ed Resource / Self-Contained 9th graders in bottom quartile ELA Chose to attend school Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. $12,960 $13,080
  10. 10. 10 Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools % ELA Proficient/Advanced Sky Blue Academy Green Street H.S. $12,960 $13,080 20 Year Vet “Star” Hand-picked Novice 8 Force placed, 8 subs, no ELA certified Principal Teaching Staff 68% 35% 7% %ELA in Lowest Quartile 22%
  11. 11. 11 States and districts can measure across how much and how well across “11 Dimensions of Resource Equity”
  12. 12. 12 States can play a powerful role in enabling and supporting both resource equity State Roles or Mechanisms: Funding Accountability & Reporting Support Flexibility & Innovation How much How well
  13. 13. There are four levels of resource equity that must be addressed States Divisions Schools Classrooms
  14. 14. What do you need to know to begin to assess the resource equity in your state?
  15. 15. Five key questions to ask about resource equity in your state 1. How does your state compare in terms of overall performance? Subgroup performance? 2. How does your state compare in terms of overall spending? Equity in funding across districts? 3. How much does spending vary within districts based on need? 4. Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to accelerate learning for ALL students? 5. Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making and support?
  16. 16. How does your state compare in terms of overall performance? In terms of subgroup performance? Key question #1
  17. 17. Overall performance varies across states Source: ERS analysis based on NAEP Data Explorer 207 236 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 Alaska NewMexico Louisiana SouthCarolina Nevada Texas Mississippi California Arizona Arkansas Hawaii Alabama Oklahoma WestVirginia Oregon Michigan Tennessee Wisconsin Georgia Illinois Maine Delaware NorthDakota Iowa SouthDakota NewYork Montana Missouri Idaho Washington Kansas RhodeIsland NorthCarolina Kentucky Nebraska Minnesota Colorado Pennsylvania Maryland Utah Ohio Indiana Vermont Wyoming Virginia Florida Connecticut NewHampshire NewJersey Massachusetts AverageScaleScore 2017 NAEP Average Scale Score, 4th Grade Reading National average = 222
  18. 18. The proportion of students living in poverty is highly correlated with performance –in Virginia: 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% PassRateonStandardsofLearningTests % of Economically Disadvantaged Students 2017 English Reading scores, Virginia Source: Virginia Department of Education, SY 16-17
  19. 19. In our partner districts, school-level concentration of poverty lowers performance for ALL students Source: ERS analysis of 8 large districts across 8 states 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100% PercentofStudentsRatedProficient School-Level Concentration of Poverty Student Performance vs. School-Level Concentration of Poverty Non-Economically Disadvantaged Student Economically Disadvantaged Student
  20. 20. How does your state compare in terms of overall spending? Equity in funding across districts? Key question #2
  21. 21. Even adjusted for cost of living, highest spending state spends 3X the lowest $7.5K $22.4K $0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Utah Indiana Arizona Nevada Idaho NorthDakota Texas California Oklahoma Mississippi NorthCarolina Florida Virginia Alabama Georgia Tennessee Maine Michigan SouthDakota Ohio Colorado Arkansas NewMexico Washington Kentucky Louisiana Missouri Wisconsin Kansas Hawaii Oregon Iowa SouthCarolina Minnesota Maryland Illinois Montana Nebraska RhodeIsland Pennsylvania WestVirginia Massachusetts Delaware NewHampshire NewJersey Wyoming Connecticut NewYork Vermont Alaska Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2017-18 (adjusted for geography) Source: Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018, NEA Research April 2018; NCES Comparable Wage Index; ERS analysis National median = $12.3K While spending levels don’t predict outcomes, they limit or create possibility.
  22. 22. In more than half of states, high poverty districts have lower funding levels than low poverty districts Source: Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card 7th Edition (February 2018) http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/is-school-funding-fair/reports 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% Nevada Illinois NorthDakota Maine Missouri SouthDakota Arizona Alabama Virginia Montana Maryland NewMexico Texas NewHampshire RhodeIsland Iowa Connecticut Nebraska NewYork Washington Oregon Tennessee Pennsylvania Michigan Florida Idaho Kentucky Vermont Kansas Mississippi WestVirginia California Oklahoma SouthCarolina Indiana Louisiana NorthCarolina Colorado Wisconsin Arkansas Georgia Massachusetts Wyoming NewJersey Ohio Minnesota Delaware Utah %DifferenceinFundingBetweenHighestand LowestPovertyDistricts Education Law Center Funding Distribution Ratio Funds for student poverty and district concentrated poverty Funds for district concentrated poverty Funds for student poverty Does not fund for poverty Regressive Progressive
  23. 23. States can choose a starting place for reform based on the level of spending and equity in funding Equity index is based on an average of the standard deviations across the EdTrust Funding Gaps 2018 metric and the ELC Funding Distribution Ratio. Spending level is calculated as difference from the national average for each state for per pupil expenditure for 2017-18 after controlling for geography. Source: Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018, NEA Research April 2018; NCES Comparable Wage Index; Funding Gaps 2018, EducationTrust; Is School Funding Fair 2018, Education Law Center; ERS analysis [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE][CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] [CELLRANGE] -$8K -$6K -$4K -$2K $0K $2K $4K $6K $8K $10K $12K -3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Equity index Spendinglevel Higher spending lower equity Focus on use & Level Lower spending lower equity Focus on Level Higher spending Greater Equity Focus on Use Lower spending Greater Equity Focus on Level
  24. 24. How much does spending vary within districts based on need? Key question #3
  25. 25. We typically see significant variation in funding between schools in the same district $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 Source: ERS Analysis; District Financial File 2016 Elementary Schools Middle Median $5.8K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X District Example- ERS analysis School Level Gen Ed. Dollar per Gen Ed. Student by School Excludes Federal Funds High Median $7.0K Hi-Lo Spread 1.9X Median $6.5K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X
  26. 26. Districts do not intentionally allocate resources inequitably …but district policies often unintentionally create inequity. Funding inequity is never intentional…
  27. 27. For example, most districts use average (as opposed to actual) teacher salary for budgeting which disguises inequity Using average salary School A School B District average salary $60,000 $60,000 Number of teachers 10 10 Budgeted for salary $600,000 $600,000 Though the district would appear to be making an equal investment in these schools on an average salary basis… …School B actually invests $300k more than School A Using actual salary School A School B Novice teachers earning $30,000 each 5 0 Mid-level teachers earning $60,000 each 5 5 Experienced teachers earning $90,000 each 0 5 Actual salary $450,000 $750,000
  28. 28. An important step for each district to take is to identify their drivers of spending variation District Strategy School opening/ closure $ School Level $ School Type $ Student Need Special Education $$$ English Language Learners $$ Economic Disadvantage $$ Other Student Needs $ Unplanned Enrollment/ School Size $$$ Teacher Compensation $ Building Utilization $ Enrollment Projections $ Ad-hoc exceptions $
  29. 29. Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to accelerate learning for ALL students? Key question #4
  30. 30. Schools that accelerate learning for all students “do” school differently
  31. 31. Organizing for high performance means making big shifts from traditional ways of organizing resources Design Essential From: To: Teacher Collaboration Teaching as an individual enterprise. Teams of teachers who work together to execute a collective vision for excellent instruction, and their own professional improvement. A “one-size-fits-all” teaching job. Roles, assignments and compensation that match each individual’s unique skills and expertise to needed roles. Personalized Time & Attention Standardized class sizes in “one- teacher classrooms.” Groups of teachers and students that vary across subjects, activities and students. Rigid time allocations. Flexible schedules that allow time to vary with needs of students. Whole Child Investments in culture and social- emotional support that remove resources from core instruction. Investments that are embedded within and reinforce the school’s core instructional work.
  32. 32. States and districts can support principals in making this transformation • Provide financial support to cohorts of districts or schools that want to pilot new ways of organizing resources • Provide tools for building class schedules, including scheduling models and example schedules • Create job-embedded and targeted strategic school design supports • Increase flexibility over financial and non-financial resources, such as flexibility over staffing assignments, hiring, and outside partnerships coupled with strong accountability for performance
  33. 33. Many districts don’t have meaningful flexibility over resources, in part because of state categorical mandates which limits their ability to use their resources strategically 1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% 10%10%10%10%10%11%12%12%12%13%14%14%15%15%16% 18%19%19%19%20%20%20% 22% 26% 28%29%30% 44% 55% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Arizona NewYork Georgia NewMexico Indiana Louisiana Montana Wyoming NewHampshire Maryland NorthDakota Hawaii Alabama Idaho RhodeIsland Arkansas Colorado Kansas Missouri WestVirginia Massachusetts Alaska Oregon Kentucky Wisconsin California SouthDakota Vermont Nevada Florida Minnesota Ohio Washington Michigan Connecticut Oklahoma Virginia Maine Illinois Utah NorthCarolina NewJersey Pennsylvania SouthCarolina Categorical Mandates as Percent of State Education Budget (2013) These percentages may not be indicative of the “true” amount of flexible resources when considering the form in which resources are distributed (i.e. teacher positions), among other characteristics of funding systems. AZ NY GA NM IN LA MT WY NH MD ND 7 17 14 14 13 2 1 6 4 2 5 In general, states with a higher % of categorical funds also have a greater # of categorical programs MI CT OK VA ME IL UT NC NJ PA SC 50 9 26 30 4 9 31 12 8 29 36 # Categorical Funds 2013 Source: Center for American Progress, Categorical Funds: The Intersection of School Finance and Governance, 2013
  34. 34. State support is particularly important where low-performing schools are spread out across many districts 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Delaware Maryland Nevada Kansas RhodeIsland Wisconsin NewYork Tennessee Alaska Connecticut Massachusetts Ohio Colorado Pennsylvania Kentucky NewMexico Utah Minnesota Florida Oklahoma Missouri SouthDakota NewHampshire Arkansas Indiana Alabama Oregon SouthCarolina NorthCarolina Idaho NewJersey Texas WestVirginia Mississippi Michigan Arizona Maine Georgia Virginia Share of low-performing schools in 5 largest districts in 2013-14 Source: U.S. Department of Education, SY 13-14
  35. 35. Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making and support? Key question #5
  36. 36. Leveraging the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) ESSA offers two important levers: 1. It requires spending to be reported at the school level 2. It requires states and districts to conduct reviews of resource allocation in the lowest performing schools How can we ensure ESSA moves beyond a compliance exercise and inspires actions that improve resource equity?
  37. 37. ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement • State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds • Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures • Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school • Must be reported for the previous fiscal year ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C)
  38. 38. Reporting needs to help explain the dollars that aren’t tracked to the school level—usually about one-third of spending 38 Source: ERS analysis ERS analysis in one state showed that the average district tracked 63% to schools $7,186 $3,536 $684 $11,407 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 LEA $pp LEA $pp by Reporting School Reported Centrally Managed School Services Leadership & Management 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 (6%) (31%) (63%)
  39. 39. Reporting can help explain why spending levels differ 39 Special Education, 23% Special Education, 36% English Learners, 5% English Learners, 29% Free and Reduced Price Meals, 9% Free and Reduced Price Meals, 21% Teacher Compensation, 12% Teacher Compensation, 1% School Size, 23% School Size, 5% Other, 29% Other, 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% District A District E What Explains the differences in spending across schools? StudentNeed StudentNeed %ofdifferencebetweenhigh andlowspendingschools Source: ERS Analysis
  40. 40. ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement • State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds • Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures • Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school • Must be reported for the previous fiscal year ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C) Equity Leader states will include data that HELP INTERPRET REASONS FOR SPENDING DIFFERENCES
  41. 41. States can report on resource for decision making by creating metrics linked to the “Dimensions of Resource Equity”
  42. 42. For example, this metric shows that in this district, students in the highest need schools are twice as likely to have a new teacher 42 17% 32% 38% Lowest need quartile Middle 50% of Schools Highest need % Novice Teachers by School Need Quartile, Source: District X PDR July, December 2015
  43. 43. ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement • State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds • Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures • Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school • Must be reported for the previous fiscal year ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C) Equity Leader states will include data that HELP INTERPRET REASONS FOR SPENDING DIFFERENCES + include data on STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCE USE
  44. 44. Resource Allocation Reviews can be a powerful lever for change Ask questions about the data to be included in the reviews, and how the data will be used to inform school improvement plans. Look for: Review of more than just dollars. Dollars are one important data point, but should not be the only piece of the conversation. Resources are more than just dollars. Reviews that include the whole pie. Not just the services and supports funded by “school improvement” dollars. Source: ERS and EdTrust Partnership
  45. 45. Five key questions to ask about resource equity in your state 1. How does your state compare in terms of overall performance? Subgroup performance? 2. How does your state compare in terms of overall spending? Equity in funding across districts? 3. How much does spending vary within districts based on need? 4. Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to accelerate learning for ALL students? 5. Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making and support?

×