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.

Superintendent Academy_January 2019

48 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentation at Superintendent Academy in January 2019 by Karen Hawley Miles and Rob Daigneau

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Superintendent Academy_January 2019

  1. 1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc. 2018 Resource Allocation and the Superintendency National Superintendents Academy January 2018
  2. 2. • What does strategic resource use look like in schools and systems? • What, therefore, must I ask, know & do as Superintendent to maximize the impact of limited resources in my system? 2 Today’s Essential Questions:
  3. 3. 3 A quick warm up… TURN TO YOUR NEIGHBOR When you think of the biggest challenges with resources what comes to mind? What do you wish you knew? What do you wish you could do?
  4. 4. Agenda 1. Setting the stage (30 min) Introduction and Current state of education funding 2. The Strategic System(45 min) A lens for thinking about resource use and school system transformation 3. Break (10 min) 4. Budget Hold’em for Districts(85 min) A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the system level 5. Wrap-up (10 min ) Tools and resources to drive change moving forward 4
  5. 5. Every School. Every Child. Ready for Tomorrow. ERS 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.
  6. 6. WEST COAST California Sacramento, Oakland, Los Angeles Colorado Denver SOUTHWEST 15 Arizona Arizona Community Foundation New Mexico Santa Fe, Albuquerque Oklahoma Tulsa Texas El Paso, Austin, Aldine, Spring Branch MIDWEST Minnesota St. Paul Illinois Chicago Indiana Indianapolis Ohio Cleveland, Cincinnati Michigan Michigan State University SOUTH Tennessee Memphis, Nashville, Knox County, TN Dept. of Education Georgia Atlanta, GA Dept. of Education Florida Duval County, Lake County, Palm Beach County North Carolina Charlotte-Mecklenburg Louisiana Avoyelles Parish, LA Dept. of Education NORTHEAST Massachusetts Boston, Cambridge, Holyoke Rhode Island Providence Connecticut Hartford, Waterbury, New Haven, Connecticut Council for Education Reform New York Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, New York City, NY State Dept. of Education Pennsylvania Philadelphia New Jersey Newark Maryland Baltimore, Prince George’s County Washington, D.C. D.C. Public Schools Current State Work Past State Work Current District Work Past District Work We partner with districts across the country to transform resource use so that every school succeeds for every student.
  7. 7. Setting the stage: What is the current state of education funding?
  8. 8. 8 Until the great recession hit, real spending on education had increased nearly every year since 1920 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 National Public K-12 Expenditures Per Pupil (1920-2018) ($M) Current expenditures Per Pupil (Real) Current expenditures Per Pupil (Nominal)* Source: National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics. *Nominal expenditures expressed in constant 2018 dollars.
  9. 9. Source: U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Survey F-33, 2012-13 9 All levels of government fund education – Title I is the federal government’s largest contribution 10% 16% 45% 49% 45% 36% National Average Typical Urban District Sources of Education Funding Local State Federal
  10. 10. Even adjusted for cost of living, the 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
  11. 11. Spending varies widely across districts... 11Source: ERS database $7,800 $8,300 $9,200 $10,200 $10,800 $13,000 $14,100 $14,400 $16,800 $21,100 Aldine, TX Charlotte Knox County, TN Fulton County, GA Denver Prince George's County, MD Baltimore Cleveland D.C. Newark Per-Pupil Spending on Education ~3x
  12. 12. Systemic Budget Gaps cost structure rises regardless of revenue 12 • Longevity based teaching salaries grow at ~2- 4% annually • Benefits growing at ~10+% annually • SPED spending continues to grow • Pre-set COLA increases • Tax revenue falling • Enrollment declining • Drop in Federal Funds
  13. 13. What do districts spend their money on?
  14. 14. School Spending Quiz: Central administration consumes a significant portion of district funding True or False?
  15. 15. False: Most urban districts spend less on central overhead than commonly perceived 15 District Governance, Management of the support services provide to Schools Example: Superintendent, Board, Strategy, Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation Leadership & Management “Central Overhead” All FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to schools in the district expenditures Example: SBB Allocations, Non-SBB Resources All FTEs, services, and materials not reported on the school budget, but support schools on a regular and predictable basis Example: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNs School- attributed All FTEs, services, and materials that provide support to schools in ways that leverage scale across schools Example: Transportation, Maintenance Shared Services “School- Attributed” This is what ERS uses to compare spending across schools. District X 7% 12.3% 8.4% 72.3%
  16. 16. School Spending Quiz: Instruction is the primary business and consumes what % of the budget? 1) 50-60% 2) 60-70% 3) 75%+
  17. 17. Typically 50-60% of most districts’ budgets is spent on instruction in schools 17 56% 56% 58% 53% 55% 58% 59% 52% 57% 6% 5% 6% 6% 6% 6% 5% 6% 6% 20% 19% 20% 23% 21% 20% 18% 22% 16% 7% 9% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8% 4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% District Average Palm Beach Duval Couty Lake County Aldine Charlotte Fulton PGC Denver Breakdown of Total Operating Spending: % by Use Business Services Leadership Pupil Services & Enrichment O&M ISPD Instruction Source: SDPBC FY15 Expenditures, ERS analysis, ERS Benchmark Database Adj. $pp $9.4 $9.8 $8.5 $7.4 $7.9 $9.7 $10.4 $11.6 Year 2014-2015 2009-2010 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2010-2011 2012-2013 2009-2010 PreK-12 Enrollment 166 (K) 121 (K) 36 (K) 66 (K) 137 (K) 88 (K) 126 (K) 77 (K)
  18. 18. School Spending Quiz: School level spending goes mostly to people and consumes what % of the budget? 1) 60-70% 2) 70-80% 3) 80-90%
  19. 19. 80-90% of a schools budget is typically spent on staff; therefore, strategic budget reform must look first and foremost at people or “Who does What?” 19 65% 5% 2% 5% 8% 1% 2% 9% School X Teachers Instructional Aides Student support Administration Clerks & Other Staff Substitutes Supplies & Contracted Services Utilities & Maintenance
  20. 20. Spending and Performance
  21. 21. Does spending level matter? 21 A generation of research says “no” • Hanushek summarizes the existing literature to say “no.” • Dollars per pupil are NOT systematically related to student outcomes • Very consistent finding over time • Consistently cited as reason to oppose spending increases
  22. 22. Inputs always matter. Logically, there exists a production function (or multiple functions) to describe the relationship between inputs and student learning. So, what’s up here? How could education researchers possibly find (and so consistently) such a negligible relationship between spending levels (dollars per pupil) and student learning outcomes? 22 Question for discussion: ? ?
  23. 23. How much versus how well: Dollars go to things that don’t improve student performance (misalignments). Spending more wrongly doesn’t make a difference…Need a theory of what matters most… • Class size reductions • Teacher compensation is 50% of budgets and 30% of that goes to experience and education pay that are unrelated to student performance • More students served in special education (eg: 20%+ in Syracuse) Data: Spending data used in the research doesn’t get to the student level • Equity within schools. But what if within a school some general education students get 20% more than others? • What if some schools do a better job of targeted specific additional interventions to need? Time horizon: Most existing research is premised on “same-year” relationship between spending and outcomes • What if some investments take longer to demonstrate benefits than the year they’re implemented? 23 Possible reasons that scholars cannot find a relationship between spending and performance…
  24. 24. • Sustained increases in per pupil spending in the 1970s-80s led to increased educational attainment (years of completed education) and higher wages for low-income students. (Jackson, Johnson, Persico. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and Economic Outcomes: Evidence From School Finance Reforms” October 2015) • Sustained increases in per pupil spending in low-income school districts ordered by courts in the 1990’s also enabled increases in student achievement for students in those districts (Lafortune, Rothstein, Schanzenbach. “School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement” February 2016) 24 But wait… More recent findings say that: Notes: “Educational attainment” was measured by years of completed education; “Student achievement” was measured by NAEP scores
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. Reflection (2 minutes) 26 TURN TO YOUR NEIGHBOR Where have you seen the biggest opportunities to use resources more effectively? What gets in the way of optimizing resources?
  27. 27. The status quo persists because re-aligning resources is hard • Pure operating efficiencies are small and miss the point • Quick timelines inhibit significant changes • Complex reallocations are multi-year, some with up- front investment • Hard to mobilize around the “from” without a clear vision for the “to” • Can require eliminating policy barriers and/or changing peoples’ jobs • Realigning resources may not be what the public or board wants
  28. 28. Agenda 1. Setting the stage Introduction and Current state of education funding 2. The Strategic System A lens for thinking about resource use and school system transformation 3. Break 4. Budget Hold’em for Districts A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the system level 5. Wrap-up Tools and resources to drive change moving forward 28
  29. 29. Schools that accelerate learning for ALL students “do school” differently … Teacher Collaboration Organize sufficient time for teaching teams to improve instruction with content experts Time and Attention Match student grouping, learning time, technology and program to individual student needs Instruction Uphold rigorous, college-and- career-ready standards and use effective curricula, instructional strategies, and assessments to achieve them Talent Management Attract and retain the best teachers, ensure all teachers have ongoing access to growth-oriented feedback, and design and assign roles and responsibilities to match skills to school and student need Whole Child Ensure students are deeply known and more intensive social and emotional supports are integrated when necessary Growth-oriented Adult Culture Grow a collaborative culture where teachers and leaders share ownership of a common instructional vision and student learning
  30. 30. Transforming outcomes for all students requires redesigning the system & tackling outmoded structures 30 Strategic System Domain From To Standards & Instruction Inconsistent or inadequate standards with little support for teachers. Rigorous, information-age standards supported by effective curricula and assessments. Teaching Isolated teachers with limited support, flexibility, opportunities for growth. A new way we hire, assign, support, team, pay, and promote teachers. School Design A one-size-fits-all learning environment that holds everyone back. A re-imagined school day with new schedules, dynamic groupings and targeted instruction Leadership Limited autonomy, flexibility & support to develop and reward strong leaders Clear standards, support, and account- ability for principals and district leaders. School Support Central office staff responsibilities that focus on compliance and oversight. A central office that is a service and strategy partner that leverages data. Funding Wide funding variances across schools. Systems that allocate resources equitably and flexibly across schools. Partners Schools providing a wide range of services in addition to their core educational mission. Partnering to create innovative and cost-effective ways to serve students better.
  31. 31. Four high priority levers for transformation: 1.Implement strategic school designs that personalize learning for students based on need 2.Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to create “connected professional learning” for teachers and leaders 3.Restructure one-size fits all teacher compensation and job structures 4.Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity, transparency and flexibility 31
  32. 32. Most schools organize people, time, and money the same way they did 50+ years ago 32 One teacher per class 20-30 students per class Studying a particular subject For a set period of time (e.g., 50 min/day) For a set duration (e.g., full year)
  33. 33. Most districts have opportunities to strategically raise class size… 33Source: Elementary Grades Homeroom file Oct 2009; Includes elementary schools and K-8 schools (grades K0-5); excludes classes that are special education 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); ERS analysis 21 22 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
  34. 34. …and to target class sizes to priority subjects and students 34 *Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Arts, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign Language Source: District A and B 9th and 12th grade course data (internal – Resource Mapping presentation); ERS analysis In these districts class sizes for core subjects are higher than non-core 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
  35. 35. Many schools also have more adults than they actively manage to provide targeted attention Source: ERS analysis 35 18 26 22 22 22 25 29 20 29 14 14 16 13 15 14 16 12 17 District A District B District C District D District E District F District G District H District I General Education Class Size versus Student-Teacher Ratio ERS Estimated Average General Ed Class Size Average Total Student-to-Teacher Ratio
  36. 36. Cycle of isolation and specialization 36 Large, diverse classes Teachers without needed expertise and support Remove “problem” student Administration to coordinate Resources and responsibility fragmented Add on support
  37. 37. More spending on separate classrooms means less on early intervention 37 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 $11.7 $15.2 $19.9 $42.6 $0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 $40 $45 FullyAllocated$PerPupil (Thousands) Sample District Spending by Student Type 2009-2010 General Ed LEP Sped Resource Sped Separate Enrollment: 37.8K 6.6K 5.4K 5.5K Weight: 1.0 1.2 1.7 3.5 Poverty Increment
  38. 38. To target individual attention to students, in the short term, you can ... 38 To Support Sustainable Transformation Invest transition resources to  Provide expert PD to increase teacher capacity to use individual attention strategies  Create and use formative assessments and tools to enable targeted instruction and grouping Lay the groundwork for long-term change by…  Build understanding of impact of targeted group sizes & teaching effectiveness in strategic designs To Reverse Misalignments Reduce spending by…  Increasing general class size targets  Increasing class size for specific low need students, grade levels, and subjects  Leveraging technology for high cost courses and selected lessons Increase spending to …  Reduce group size for high need students, skills, grade levels and subjects
  39. 39. Most schools have the opportunity to optimize time by subject… Source: ERS analysis 39 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ES 7-9 10-12 PE Electives Foreign Language Science Social Studies Math ELA Typical District Percent of Student Time By Grade and Subject
  40. 40. 40 ….and by student need Note: % Time is based on the instructional time throughout the school day. It only includes periods entered in PowerSchool and does not include passing time, lunch, recess or maintenance/homeroom classes. Source: ERS Analysis, CMS SY2013-2014 Course Schedule PowerSchool Data, CMS SY2012-2013 EOG Performance Data 22% 22% 22% 22% 16% 14% 16% 14% 2% 5% Below Basic Proficient %ofInstructionalTime Prior Year ELA EOG Avg. % of Time by Core Subject for Below Basic and Proficient Middle School Students Foreign Lang. Social Studies Science ELA Math
  41. 41. Many districts have an opportunity to increase instructional time by increasing the school day 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.” ERS analysis. 41 963 1080 1110 1120 1125 1138 1160 1170 1180 1200 1210 1250 1250 1260 1276 1476 Chicago PG County LA Boston Seattle St Paul Milwaukee Washington DC Rochester Denver Baltimore Pittsburgh Philadelphia Atlanta Leading Edge schools Boston Charters Student Hours Per Year National Avg. = 1170
  42. 42. How does Revere High provide personalized learning to students? Introduction: Revere High School has prioritized the 9th grade student experience though a 9th grade academy. The academy is designed to provide additional support and time to students as they face more rigorous content through flipped learning and flexible groupings. As you watch, consider: What strategies are they using to provide personalized learning? What are the resource implications of these strategies? What system-level implications of these strategies? Video: Link 42Source: ERS
  43. 43. Four high priority levers for transformation: 1.Implement strategic school designs that personalize learning for students based on need 2.Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to create “connected professional learning” for teachers and leaders 3.Restructure one-size fits all teacher compensation and job structures 4.Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity, transparency and flexibility 43
  44. 44. Designed to “develop teachers”… Traditional professional development One-off workshops University classes Conferences Online learning modules …through disconnected learning events… …where knowledge is delivered to individual teachers… …who in turn try to extract and apply relevant information in their own classrooms.
  45. 45. 45 From traditional, one-way PD to dynamic, “Connected Professional Learning” Rigorous, comprehensive curricula and assessments Content-focused, expert-led collaboration Frequent, growth-oriented feedback
  46. 46. Making the shift from traditional PD to Connected Professional Learning 46 Element Traditional PD Connected Professional Learning Rigorous, comprehensive, curricula and assessments Curricula selected by district leaders, lacks rigor to meet College- and Career-Ready Standards Curricula, vetted by experts, adapted by teachers, linked to sample lesson plans and assessments Content-focused, expert-led collaboration Most planning done individually, with teams focused on administrative issues 90 minutes/week of expert-led collaborative time with teachers who teach the same content Frequent, growth-oriented feedback Annual observations for formal evaluations, with occasional visits from a district coach Weekly observations and feedback from a school-based instructional leader with content expertise Source: Igniting the Learning Engine, Education Resource Strategies, 2017
  47. 47. Research shows that the choice of instructional materials can have an impact as large as or larger than the impact of teacher quality 47Sources: Chingos and Whitehurst. (2012). Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness and the Common Core. “...improving teacher quality is challenging, expensive, and time consuming, making better choices among available instructional materials should be relatively easy, inexpensive, and quick.” – Chingos and Whitehurst Empowering curriculum
  48. 48. Case study systems provide more time for high- quality collaboration 48 75% 69% 45% 10% 10% 11% 11% 12% 17% 10% 11% 4% 14% Typical Systems Case study districts Case study CMO How teachers spend their time (pct of annual hours) Collaborative planning Professional learning days Individual planning Duties/lunch Instructional delivery Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders Annual hours 1,399 1,464 1,878 Expert-led collaboration
  49. 49. Potential Opportunities Works well when.. Considerations Early release/late start • Transportation & student day is flexible • Uninterrupted planning time is a priority • Difficult to schedule teachers together in the school day • Transportation costs Pay select teams to come in before/after school, or during school using subs to cover • Uninterrupted planning time is a priority • Additional money exists in budget • Stipends/overtime pay (or sub pay if releasing teachers during the day) Decrease teacher teaching time • Teacher planning during school day is a priority • Requires additional staff or raising class size Stack planning periods back-to- back (1x/week or more) • Resources are limited • Flexibility exists to change schedule • May require rotating schedule and/or additional staff Stack planning around other non- teacher moments (lunch, before/after school) • School can flexibly hire several part-time elective teachers (in exchange for full-time teachers) • Large teacher teams need to meet together at the same time • Part-time vs. full-time staff • Facility space for all electives at once Options for creating >90 minute blocks of collaborative planning time 49 Expert-led collaboration
  50. 50. Case study systems devote radically increased time for cycles of informal, growth-oriented feedback 50 80 30-150 540- 1,080 60 30-150 540- 720 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 Time for observations and feedback (minutes/year per teacher) Feedback Observation Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders Informal observations & feedback Informal observations & feedback Typical system Case study systems Formal evaluation Typical teacher Struggling teacher Formal evaluation Typical teacher Struggling teacher • Equal to 30-50 mins per week • Enables continuous improvement • Fosters trust among professionals Ad hoc Growth-oriented feedback
  51. 51. Strategic systems direct more resources toward expert- led collaboration and more frequent observations 51 System-wide investment Typical Strategic Δ Education Pay (i.e. “Lanes”) 3.3% 1.1% -2.2% Direct PD Workshops & Coaching 3.8% 2.4% -1.4% Curriculum & Assessments 1.5% 2.1% +0.6% Support for School & Teacher Leaders 0.1% 0.6% +0.5% Strategic PL Days for Teachers 0.9% 2.1% +1.2% Expert Led CPT 0.9% 2.3% +1.4% Observations & Debriefs 0.2% 1.7% +1.5% Total investment 10.7% 12.2% +1.5% Less investment in traditional “PD” More investment in supported, school-based collaboration Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders Pct system operating expense
  52. 52. Four high priority levers for transformation: 1.Implement strategic school designs that personalize learning for students based on need 2.Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to create “connected professional learning” for teachers and leaders 3.Restructure one-size fits all teacher compensation and job structures 4.Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity, transparency and flexibility 52
  53. 53. Within total teacher compensation, benefits and experience pay make up the largest additions to base salary 53 Starting base 36% Experience 22% Education 10% Other 3% Benefits 29% District Total Teacher Compensation By reducing benefits 10% for teachers, this district would free up 1.5% of its total budget for strategic re-investment. Category $ Amount Starting Base $93M Experience $58M Education $25M Other $7M Benefits $75M
  54. 54. Strategy Misalignment Attract Early career teacher salaries not competitive with comparable professional opportunities. Retain Pay disconnected from contribution or role. Pension structure and slow rise in salary and encourage low performers to stay. Leverage Expertise Limited opportunity or incentive to take on greater challenges or leadership roles. Industrial age compensation structures don’t match needs of information age workforce 54
  55. 55. To transform the teaching job, in the short term, you can... To Support Sustainable Transformation Invest transition resources to…  Invest in effective evaluation and data systems  Create new school designs that make teaching job more doable  Design new compensation structures To Reverse Misalignments Reduce spending by…  Reduce benefits spending  Shrink or stop automatic step increases  Tighten approval process for moving lanes Increase spending to…  Pay teachers more for high-needs and leadership assignments  Support expert-led teacher teaming  Restructure time for teaming and planning Source: Do More, Add More, Earn More; Center for American Progress and Education Resource Strategies; 2015; https://www.erstrategies.org/library/do_more_add_more_earn_more
  56. 56. Four high priority levers for transformation: 1.Implement strategic school designs that personalize learning for students based on need 2.Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to create “connected professional learning” for teachers and leaders 3.Restructure one-size fits all teacher compensation and job structures 4.Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity, transparency and flexibility 56
  57. 57. Elements of a healthy school funding system Flexibility School leaders define the resources they need to drive student achievement Equity Resources are distributed equitably based on student need Transparency Clear and easily understood rules for where, how, and why dollars flow Source: ERS
  58. 58. We typically see significant variation in funding between schools in the same district Source: ERS Analysis; District Financial File 2016 $0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000 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
  59. 59. Districts do not intentionally allocate resources inequitably …but district policies often unintentionally create inequity. Funding inequity is never intentional…
  60. 60. 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
  61. 61. Districts should determine if variation is intentional and strategic and then adjust accordingly to improve equity 61 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 $
  62. 62. 10 Minute Break
  63. 63. Agenda 1. Setting the stage (30 min) Introduction and Current state of education funding 2. The Strategic System(45 min) A lens for thinking about resource use and school system transformation 3. Break (10 min) 4. Budget Hold’em for Districts(85 min) A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the system level 5. Wrap-up (10 min ) Tools and resources to drive change moving forward 63
  64. 64. A Card Game that’s More Than a Game… • Explore trade-offs through interaction • Vision what is possible • Break down silos—for everyone, not just the finance team 64 What is Budget Hold’em for Districts? Played by over 10,000 people in person and online!
  65. 65. Defining “trade-offs” begins by examining typical responses to budget gaps: An attempt to preserve current structures 65 Frozen salaries Incremental staffing ratio adjustments Across-the-board cutsFurlough days
  66. 66. Expanding on the idea of “trade-offs,” we see that for the same cost, a typical district can: 66 Reduce K-6 class size by 2 Add 90 minutes of collaborative planning time for all teachers OR Give all teachers a 5% raise OR Offer 25% higher principal salaries OR Double the raise for the top 5% of teachers Add school leader staff to increase time for teacher support Teaching School Leadership
  67. 67. Goal of this exercise Help District X use its limited resources strategically to improve student achievement and meet our goals. 1. Identify the core needs 2. Consider broad range of investment and savings options 3. Weigh investment and savings options 4. Make investment and savings decisions 67
  68. 68. The object of the game • Create a “hand” of investment and savings cards that represents a new budget for District X • Your hand must meet the district’s priorities (see handout) • Your hand must achieve a cost neutral status and improve student achievement 68
  69. 69. Hold’em cards are organized into seven categories 69 Teaching TimeGroup Size Special Education Career Path & Compensation Leadership Efficiency
  70. 70. Add 60 min of learning time to the school day in the 25% lowest performing schools Extended learning time can raise student achievement if it is targeted on core instruction with high quality teachers who are expert in critical subject and instructional areas. 1.7% Student impact indicators Investment (+) or Savings (-) as % of budget Card Description Note: Extending learning time can be costly. Ensure that the schools in which you invest have leaders and teaching staff who can deliver high quality instruction to struggling students. Considerations (Notes or Warnings) Turnaround schools Some cards are more effective when played together Time+ The Anatomy of a Hold’em Card (printed version) There are also wild cards that let you add more savings or investment options. Category Card Title
  71. 71. Things to consider • Select cards thoughtfully – consider your priorities • Consider inter-relationships between cards and try to get those bonus points • Acknowledge approximation • Be bold • Consider different staffing allocations • Use Wild Cards • Have fun! 71
  72. 72. Let’s Play
  73. 73. Directions 73 Step 1 5 min Read the District X fact sheet individually. Note priorities and challenges. Step 2 1 min Choose someone to record decisions online and someone to read the cards. Step 3 45 min The card reader will read the cards aloud (just the title and description), and your group will collectively sort them into Yes, No, and Maybe piles. TIP: It is often easiest to decide between No and Maybe, so start there. Step 4 15 min After your first pass, go back through your Yes and Maybe piles to decide what to add or remove in order to reach your targets. Calculate your budget and student impact. Step 5 2 min Take stock: Consider the expected performance outcomes of your choices – are you maximizing impact given resource limitations and district priorities? Online Scoring Instructions 1. Go to: erstrategies.org/scoresheet 2. Enter your team’s “Access Token” (on your table) 3. Enter decisions as you go
  74. 74. Debrief on Hold ‘Em
  75. 75. Discussion Questions—from up on the balcony 1.What were the biggest insights and/or surprises in your choices? 2.Which options are off the table or challenging, but promising, interesting, or important? What must change to make them a real option? 3.How did this exercise influence your thinking on: a. How to improve outcomes with limited resources? b. The use of impact data for leadership decision-making? 75
  76. 76. 1. Setting the stage Introduction and Current state of education funding 2. The Strategic System A lens for thinking about resource use and school system transformation 3. Break 4. Budget Hold’em for Districts A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the system level 5. Wrap-up Tools and resources to drive change moving forward Agenda 76
  77. 77. Today’s Essential Questions: 1. What does strategic resource use look like in schools and systems? 2. What, therefore, must I know, do, and ask as superintendent to maximize the impact of limited resources in my system? 77
  78. 78. Help ERS achieve our mission: to support you! • ERS has a variety of free tools to support meaningful change in your districts : • Online Budget Hold ‘Em • The Strategic Snapshot | Mini (Formerly Resource Check) • DREAM • School Funding Resource Guide • Talent Decision Planner • School Designer • And lots more… 78 ERS Tools www.erstrategies.org

×