Presentation to the DPS Board: Resource Mapping Summary …...managing the district’s diverse portfolio of schools. ... School budgets include most funding sources and are easy to

Rethinking Resources for Student Success

Presentation to the DPS Board:

Resource Mapping Summary Report

Denver Public Schools, January 17, 2012

Preliminary – Please do not cite or distribute

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 2

Through more than a decade of working with large urban school systems, we understand that…

It’s not just about how much, it’s also about how well.

There is no one “right” way to use resources, but there are

common principles of strategic resource use that can be

measured and observed.

If we want excellent schools for all children, we need to

develop school systems that can effectively support

high-performing schools.

Aligning resources with strategy and best practice requires

understanding current usage and key misalignments.


ERS partner districts include …

BALTIMORE (04,08,10) CINCINNATI

(05, 07, 08)

ROCHESTER (05,06,08, 09,10)

CHICAGO

(05)

LA (06, 07)

ST. PAUL (06) BOSTON (06,07,09)

ATLANTA (07,08, 09,10)

STATE OF GEORGIA (11,12)

OAKLAND (07)

PHILADELPHIA (07,08,09)

NYC (08)

CHARLOTTE (08,09,10)

ALBUQUERQUE (00,01)

PROVIDENCE (03,04)

NEWARK (11,12) SACRAMENTO(09)

DUVAL COUNTY (10)

PG COUNTY (10,11,12)

SYRACUSE (09)

DENVER (11) WASHINGTON DC (05,11,12)


ERS began work in DPS in March 2011 and engaged DPS leadership team in working session over the year

Data

Interviews

School Visits

Focus Groups

FY0910 Data Analysis: Expenditures, HR, Payroll,

Course Schedule, Student Demographics, Student

Performance, Special Education, ELL Data

Interviews with Central Office department

leaders and other key staff members

Visits to 5 schools: Force ES, Place Bridge K8,

Morey MS, West Denver Prep – Harvey Park MS,

East HS

3 sets of Principal Focus Groups: Charter Schools,

Innovation Schools, Traditional Schools


This project comes at an opportune moment for DPS

DPS must rapidly accelerate its rate of performance growth to exceed state averages and meet the upcoming challenge of Common Core.

Because DPS has such diverse student and school needs, DPS’ “managed

performance empowerment” theory of action is the right approach to managing the district’s diverse portfolio of schools.

Denver has lower funding and lower central spending (both as a $ amount

and as a % of operating expenditures) than other urban districts studied.

Given this context, new school-level investments can only come from

reorganizing resources within schools rather than identifying add’l $s to be reallocated to schools (absent new revenue).

Ensuring that schools are organizing people, time, and money effectively to meet their specific student needs and instructional models will be

essential to meeting the performance challenge.


Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Includes Charter Expenses; ERS benchmark database. Note: Dollars represent K-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using

the National Center for Education Statistics 2005 School District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars adjusted to 2009-10 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator

Overall, Denver spent less per pupil in SY0910 than many of

the other urban districts that ERS has examined

$19.6

$14.7 $14.2 $13.8 $13.3 $11.8

$10.7 $9.9 $9.8 $9.1 $8.6

$s represent all funds (federal, state, local, mill levy,

stimulus, grant, foundation, etc.)

Cross District Comparison of K-12 Operating $pp

(Adjusted for Cost of Living Differences)

K12 O

pe

ratin

g $

pp

(in

th

ou

san

ds)


Denver spent higher share of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on

Instruction and a lower share on Operations & Maintenance

compared to other districts

57% 58% 57% 51%

55% 54% 50%

8% 5% 8%

9% 5% 9%

9%

20% 20% 16% 23% 17%

20% 20%

3% 3% 5% 4% 8% 2%

4%

4% 6% 5% 5% 7% 7% 7%

8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 10%

Charlotte Duval Denver Prince

George's

Atlanta Boston Rochester

% o

f o

pe

ratin

g b

ud

ge

t/e

xp

en

ditu

res

Leadership

Instructional

Support & PD

Business

Services

Operations &

Maintenance

Pupil Services

Instruction

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.

Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Use

Lower $pp

District

Higher $pp

District


Compared to other districts, Denver also spent a smaller % of

Operating Expenditures and a lower $pp on central overhead

8%

6% 7%

6% 6%

8%

6%

12%

15%

11% 10%

Ch

arl

ott

e

Du

va

l

Ch

ica

go

De

nv

er

Prin

ce

Ge

org

e's

Ph

ila

de

lph

ia

St.

Pa

ul

Atla

nta

Wa

sh. D

.C.

Bo

sto

n

Ro

ch

est

er

% o

f e

xp

en

ditu

res/

bu

dg

et

Lower $pp

District

Higher $pp

District

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.

% of K12 operating expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEAD

$pp $685 $547 $689 $594 $664 $941 $797 $1,656 $2,134 $1,619 $1,955


To determine how DPS can best use its limited resources to significantly improve teaching and transform outcomes for kids, this project focused on:

School Funding

Note on Human Capital: Teacher effectiveness - and human capital more broadly - are critical to effective resource strategy. Given DPS’s ongoing implementation of

LEAP, ERS analysis didn’t focus as deeply on DPS’s investments in this area in SY0910

School Design

School Resource Flexibility


ERS Principles of an Effective School Funding System:

Aligned to Strategy: Supports the district academic strategy.

Meets Student Needs: Allocates resources equitably across

students, based on student need.

Equitable Across Schools: Allocates resources equitably

across schools, based on student and school need.

Transparent: School funding rules, policies, and

processes understood by all stakeholders.

Reflective: Integrates lessons learned.

School Funding


School Funding: Summary of Key Findings

• DPS’ school funding system is more transparent and

equitable than other systems ERS has studied.

• School size is largest driver of variation in per pupil spending

across schools.

• ELL allocations to schools are lower than other districts studied and less than actual spending in some schools.

School Funding


Transparency: High level of transparency relative to other

districts studied

77% 77% 77% 76%

69% 66% 71%

58%

% o

f e

xp

en

ditu

res/

bu

dg

et

Lower $pp

District Higher $pp

District

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools

% of K12 op. expenditures that is SCHOOL REPORTED Other Transparency Indicators:

School budgets include most funding sources and are easy to compare.

Funding formulas are widely shared and understood.

Principals report understanding what they have and why.

School budget and expense information includes benefit

costs.

School Funding

Education Resource Strategies 13

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Equity: Variation in $pp across schools is less than what ERS has

seen in other districts (adjusted for student need)

ES/K-8 MS

Median $7.4K

Hi-Lo Spread 1.8X

Median $7.9K

Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X

FY0910 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PWP


HS/SS

Median $8.1K

Hi-Lo Spread 1.4X

School Funding


Equity: Overall equity in funding across schools on the

high end of districts studied

54%

75% 81%

48%

59%

46%

Duval Denver Baltimore Prince George's District A Newark

% o

f sc

ho

ols

Lower $pp

District

Higher $pp

District


Share of Schools Within 10% of School Level Median Per Weighted Pupil Spending

School Funding


$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

HS SS

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

ES K8

Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $pwp vs. Size

School Size

Sc

ho

ol-

Att

rib

ute

d $

pw

p

Middle Schools

High/Secondary

Equity: In FY0910, small schools were the main driver of inequity in

funding across schools - DPS spent an add’l $6.5M on schools <350

$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000

$13,000

0 500 1000 1500


School Funding

DPS has addressed many of these issues since FY0910 (i.e.,

eliminating subsidy which accounted for 25% of $6.5M), however

small schools likely still receive significantly more $pp.


R² = 0.45

$-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 $

pw

p

ES K8

School Enrollment


Equity: Higher spending levels in small schools were

driven from outside of the SBB

School Enrollment

Small schools receive add’l resources through flat allocations, step-function allocations, and subsidies beyond the stated formula.

Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. Non-SBB Expenditures

R² = 0.08 $4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

0 200 400 600 800 1000

$p

wp

ES K8

Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. SBB Expenditures

School Funding


ELL: Re-evaluating the ELL resource strategy is important

because ELLs are disproportionately low-performing

32% 38%

29%

39%

14%

11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DPS G3-5 All Test Takers DPS G3-5 Low Performers*

Source: DPS SY09-10 Enrollment Data and 2010 CSAP data. *Low performers are students who scored U or PP on 2010 CSAP. ELL students comprise 30% of the population in 3rd -5th grade; 95% of ELL students have CSAP scores for 2010. Note: 3rd-5th Grade Reading Disproportionality Ratios: ELL Poverty is 1.55 and English Only Poverty is 1.12

“ELL Poverty”

Disproportionality

Ratio: 1.37x

SY0910: Disproportionality of 3rd-5th Grade Math Low Performance by Student Type

Non-Poverty Students

ELL: Exited or Opt Out

ELL

English Only

Poverty Students

ELL: Exited or Opt Out

ELL

English Only

School Funding

“English Only Poverty”

Disproportionality

Ratio: 1.19x


ELL: Since SY0910, DPS has pushed additional resources to schools

with higher concentrations of ELL students by increasing the SBB FRL

weighting (in addition to Title I funding going to schools) School Funding

Despite these efforts, the greater disproportionality of ELLs as low performers raises

the question of whether DPS is sufficiently differentiating resources based on need.

$256 $268

$461

$290 $303

$496

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

SY0910 SY1011 SY1112

ES

HS

FRL Status Free Only Free Only Free and Red.

Subject to Offset*? Yes Yes No

Kinder counted as 1.0? No No Yes

SBB Allocation per Student by Free and Reduced Lunch Status

*This means that these funds were subject to the offsets from the “hurdle” during those years.

Note: In addition to the FRL SBB Allocations above, schools also received Title I money which was $433 or $525pp in SY1112 (depending on poverty level of school.)


District ELL weight

(ERS-Defined)

ELL $pp

($K) % ELL

Denver 1.1 $0.7 23%*

Chicago 1.1 $0.7 14%

St. Paul 1.1 $0.8 42%

Prince George’s 1.2 $1.7 11%

Philly 1.3 $2.6 8%

Duval 1.4 $2.9 3%

Boston 1.3 $3.2 21%

D.C. 1.3 $3.6 8%

Charlotte 1.5 $3.7 6%

Rochester 1.5 $7.6 10%

The district-allocated ELL funding is less than observed

in other districts studied School Funding


Notes:

• Allocations to schools driven by

consent decree staffing requirements

• Allocations dependent on # of students and

languages spoken

• ELA-E teachers are funded through schools’ base SBB allocation; as such,

costs are excluded from ELL weight

* Excludes “Opt-Out” students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL


DPS’ ELL spending focuses more on paraprofessionals

than St. Paul (recognized for ELL “best practice”) School Funding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

DPS St. Paul

Other*

Leadership

Inst'l Support

& Prof Dev

Teachers

Paras/Aides

*Other includes Instructional Support/Program Management, Pupil Services, Operations & Business Services. See appendix for details within these areas.

** Excludes “Opt-Out” & Pre-K students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL

Breakdown of SY0910 ELL Designated Spending

Weight of 1.1 ($0.7k)

K-12: 23% ELL**

Weight of 1.1 ($0.8k)

K-12: 42% ELL


Across ES, some schools have created smaller classes for

ELLs using their “SBB base” funding, resulting in larger

classes for non-ELLs

Source: ERS Analysis DPS SY09-10 Coursefile

School Funding

34%

21% 22%

17% 14%

16%

49%

39% 40%

30% 29% 32%

<17 18-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28+

% E

LL in

Cla

ss

% NEP % ELL

# of Classes 335 343 254 345 312 210

SY0910: % Elementary NEP & ELL Students by Class Size

Class Size Buckets

How to Interpret:

• In elementary classes with 28+ students, 16% of students were NEP.

• In contrast, in elementary classes with <17 students, 34% of students were NEP.


Summary: DPS’ school funding system is more transparent

and equitable than other systems ERS has studied, however

there are still opportunities to refine the system

Summary of Key Findings DPS Action Steps

• DPS’ school funding system is more

transparent and equitable than other

systems ERS has studied.

• School size is largest driver of variation

in per pupil spending across schools.

• ELL allocations to schools are lower

than other districts studied and less

than actual spending in some schools.

• Explore further reduction of size-driven

variation in per pupil funding.

• For SY1213, add ELL weight to SBB

based on rethought service model.

• Explore adding other weights for

additional school and students need

characteristics to further differentiate allocations based on need.

School Funding


ERS experience: While not all high-performing schools

look the same, their school designs tend to share

common elements

Teaching Effectiveness

Our analysis of resource use looks at how DPS schools are investing in:

Teaching Effectiveness

Teaching teams and staffing

plans

Collaborative planning time

Expert support

Academic Time

Aligning schedule with

instructional design and

student needs

Providing longer blocks of

time on core subjects

Vary individual student time

/program when necessary

Individual Attention

Tracking individual

student progress and

continuously adjusting

instruction

Targeted individual

support through small

group sizes and

reduced teaching

loads in high needs

areas

Addressing students’

social and emotional

needs

School Design


School Design: Summary of Key Findings

School Design

Some schools demonstrate best practice resource use, though overall,

resource use is uneven

Teaching Effectiveness:

• Schools will need to redesign in order to capture the full ROI of the

district’s LEAP implementation.

Individual Attention:

• ES: Despite having flexibility and different student needs, many schools

use the same para-driven approach to intervention.

• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in noncore subjects which limits

their ability to provide individual attention in core.

Maximizing Time:

• Most district schools (with exception of DSSN schools) have fewer school

hours compared to Denver charters.


Teaching Effectiveness: ERS’ framework for school based

instructional support stresses the inter-related nature of

critical teaching effectiveness investments School Design


LEAP Teacher Effectiveness

Individual Tchr. Developmental

Needs

LEAP Domain Expectations

CELA Growth Student Needs Data

Individual Tchr. Development

Strengths

DATA School

Principal

Teaching Effectiveness: Previously, schools leaders had limited data

to help decide teaching team assignments, for example. Moving

forward, LEAP and other data can help school leaders make better

decisions School Design

DPS should create tools and support to enable principals to

leverage LEAP and other data.


Total

Teacher

Hours

1,152 1,134 1,328 1,285 1,345 1,395 1,260 1,393 1,463 1,472 1,440

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Boston Rochester Philadelphia Milwaukee Baltimore Pittsburgh Seattle Duval DC Denver Prince

George's

An

nu

al Te

ac

he

rs H

rs –

Stu

de

nt

Hrs

DPS Teacher Time

8 hours*

184 days

DPS Student Time

6 hours 45 min

171days

Teaching Effectiveness: Denver teachers are in schools for 317 more

hours (~40 working days) than students; this difference is significantly

higher than in other urban districts ERS has studied

104 more

hours due

to longer

year

214 more

hours due

to longer

day 72 81

124 126 145

163 180

243

273

317 324

104

214

Source: DPS Contract and TR3 Database and the Rochester School District

* This metric shows the difference in annual teacher hours based on contract (days*hours) and annual student hours

(days * hours). Duty free periods/lunches are included in the student hours per day for all districts.

Difference Between the Annual Teacher Hours and Annual Student Hours

School Design


14

39

18 16

<15 15-20 21-25 >25

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols

Teaching Effectiveness: Schools with high teacher-to-administrator

ratios will struggle to fully benefit from LEAP without reallocating to

invest in APs or significant restructuring of roles

ES: Schools by Teacher-to-Administrator Ratios

Source: ERS analysis, DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; - excludes charter schools

School Design

These Schools are mainly mid-sized schools (350-625

students) who do not have an

Assistant Principal.

Teacher-to-Administrator Ratio Buckets


1. LEAP and other data improve principals’ ability to create strategic teacher

teams and leverage teacher strengths and weaknesses.

2. Due to the extended teacher day, CPT will likely happen after school and

hence concurrently for teams so coaches can’t be at every meeting.

3. Current low investment in coaches/facilitators (and limited funding overall)

limits potential to add more coaches.

4. LEAP requires add’l evaluator time so opportunities for principals and APs

to support teams directly is increasingly limited.

DPS should explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles and compensation

as part of ProComp.*

*ProComp currently doesn’t offer additional compensation for taking on multiple responsibilities as

teachers, which is an important component of a broader teacher career development pathway.

Teaching Effectiveness: Given current structure and constraints on new

investments, developing teacher leaders may be best way to ensure expert

support to teams during Collaborative Planning Time (CPT) School Design


Individual Attention – Elementary: The dominant ES school design

use paras during “flooding periods” as the primary individual

attention strategy

• Started program in K; now in K-2

3-4 paras “flood” into the homeroom class

for 30 minutes each day to help conduct small group intensive literacy intervention

“Flooding” in all grades

Paras, interventionists, facilitators, SPED

teachers “flood” a grade level for 45 minutes each day to provide small group interventions

School X School Y

ERS criteria for effective Flexible Grouping School X School Y

Regular formative assessments, common to subject/grade

PD and support is provided on creating and using groups well

Time in schedule for all participants to review data, group students, and agree on strategy

High-quality staff is available to create groups

School Design


$-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Charlotte Denver Duval Prince George's Syracuse

Co

mp

en

satio

n in

$ 1

,00

0’s

Avg. para Comp. = 1/3 of Avg. Tchr. Comp. in DPS

Individual Attention – Elementary: Compared to other districts

studied, Denver paras have the lowest average compensation and

lowest relative compensation compared to teachers

0.5 0.3

0.4 0.5

0.5

Range of Para Compensation Across Districts

Source: DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; ERS analysis.

School Design

If use of paras continues as a core strategy, DPS should explore more rigorous

evaluation of paras to ensure high-quality.

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 32 Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data.

Individual Attention - Secondary:

In HS, higher per student cost of class in non-core subjects than in

core is driven by lower class sizes and higher teacher compensation

Subject Avg Cost of GenEd

Class

# of Classes

Avg. GenEd

Class Size

Avg. Tchr Comp

Avg. Yrs of Exp.

% on Pro-Comp

ELA $426/pp 599 23 $71,658 9 62%

Math $445 547 23 $74,734 8 84%

Science $393 437 25 $69,807 8 70%

Social Studies $383 444 25 $73,132 10 59%

Foreign Language $372 198 26 $75,142 12 60%

Art/Music $538 142 23 $74,555 10 60%

Computer Literacy $489 27 20 $76,149 15 48%

PE/Health $271 71 30 $78,288 14 44%

Vocational/Career $519 47 22 $84,542 15 69%

Denver SS G9-12: Average Cost of Class by Subject

Given this differential, DPS should explore expanding flexibility to schools around non-

traditional ways of offerings noncore classes.

School Design


-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500

No

nc

ore

- C

ore

K8

MS

6-12

HS

School Y

Noncore Class Size = 16

Core Class Size = 25

Individual Attention - Secondary:

Smaller HS and upper grades (6-8) of K-8s have largest

differentials in core v. non-core class size

Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data. Note: ERS defines core subjects as ELA, Math, Social Studies, Science & Foreign Language.

Denver SS: Difference in Avg. Noncore and Core Class vs. School Size

At these schools,

noncore >

Core Class Sizes

School Size

At these schools,

noncore <

Core Class Sizes

School X

Noncore Class Size = 31

Core Class Size = 22

School Design


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Stu

de

nt

Ho

urs

Pe

r Y

ea

r

Innovation Traditional Charter

Mode- 1204, equivalent to 172 days that are 7 hours

DPS Secondary Schools

DPS: Secondary Student Hours per Year by School

Source: DPS 0910 Course Schedule

Maximize Time: Most charters have opted for more

student hours, while district schools almost all had the

same school hours per year in SY0910 School Design

DPS should consider future investment to extend school day/year.


Summary: Some schools demonstrate best practice

resource use, though overall, resource use is uneven

particularly in the following areas: School Design


Teaching Effectiveness:

• Schools will need to redesign in order to capture the full ROI of the district’s LEAP

implementation.

Individual Attention:

• ES: Despite having flexibility and different student needs, many schools are using the same para-driven approach to intervention.

• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in

noncore subjects which limits their ability to provide individual attention in core.

Maximizing Time:

• Most district schools (with exception of DSSN

schools) have fewer school hours

compared to Denver charters.

• Actively promote the effective use of resources in all schools: o Continue to build school leader capacity o Build capacity within school support depts.

(OSRI and Area Supt’s offices)

o Create research-based school design templates for principals to adapt

o Revise Framework for Effective School Leadership to hold principals accountable for the effective use of resources

o Create tools/support to enable principals

to leverage LEAP and other data

• Explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles and compensation as part of ProComp.

• Consider future investment to extend school

day/year.


The purpose of providing resource flexibility to schools is to

enable them to develop the strategic school designs that will best

meet their school and student needs

Guiding Principles to be “tight”

Protection of Student Health & Safety Giving schools control over this service could negatively impact the health & safety

outcomes of students; holding schools accountable to those outcomes is costly or risky.

Compliance with Law/Legal Liability The district has accountability for the service/activity (i.e., to state, federal) and

transferring the accountability to the school-level would not actually give schools more

flexibility and/or would create additional legal risk.

Targeting of Funds to Highest Need students Giving schools control over this service could negatively impact the District’s ability to

target the use of funds to serve students with greater needs.

Consistency of District Strategy/ Experience This service is critical to district strategy, important to ensure the consistency of student

experience across district, or important for system but not for individual schools.

Quality Control Ensuring the quality of this service requires specialized expertise or content knowledge

that principals are unlikely to have, or is more effectively managed centrally .

Economies of Scale Per student or per school cost of providing the service/activity across all schools is much less than providing it at a single (or small number of) school(s).

Insurance/Risk-Pooling The need for this service/activity is unpredictable and/or varies greatly across schools,

and the costs are significant – i.e., major facilities repairs, low-incidence SPED, etc.

Three Dimensions of Financial

Flexibility:

How Much: Flexibility “over how much to spend on a

service”

How: Flexibility “over how to provide the service”

Who: Flexibility “over who/what is used to provide

the service”

School Flexibility

1

2

3


School Flexibility: Summary of Key Findings

• Overall, lack of capacity around strategic school design has

been greater limiting factor to the effective use of resources

than lack of flexibility.

• Schools have the most flexibility in deciding “who” should

provide the service.

• Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more about

who can provide the service and less about how to provide it.

School Flexibility


40%

60% 71%

60%

40% 29%

Loose Tight

Most of these $s

have some type of

external constraint:

• Title I

• Special Ed: Mild

Moderate &

Center Program

• Mill Levy: Kinder,

Textbooks, Arts

• Other Grants

Under SBB, schools have the most flexibility in

deciding who/what to spend on

Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations

School-Attributed Spending: By Flexibility Category

How Much How Who/What

School Flexibility


Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more

about who can provide the service and less about how

to provide it

2010-11 Menu Estimated Total 1011 $s Available to Innov.

Schls

How much How Who

Custodians $1.6M Loose Loose Loose

PSNs $539k Loose Loose Loose

Occupational & Physical Therapist $258k Tight Tight Loose

Textbook Acquisition (Fund 16) $189k Tight Loose Loose

High School Athletics $163k Tight Loose Loose

Title IID $103k Tight Loose Loose

College Readiness $93k Tight Tight Loose

Post-Secondary Education Options $88k Tight Loose Loose

Credit Recovery $67k Tight Loose Loose

Human Resources $51k Loose Loose Loose

District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 10) $39k Loose Loose Loose

Library, Film, LION, Book Baskets $35k Tight Tight Loose

District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 16) $30k Tight Tight Loose

9th Grade Academies $25k Tight Loose Loose

AVID: Participation $18k Tight Loose Loose

Teacher Leadership Development $12k Loose Loose Loose

Career & Tech Program $12k Tight Loose Loose

Textbook Acquisition (Fund 10) $9k Loose Loose Loose

Principal PD $7k Loose Loose Loose

Total $3.3m

School Flexibility

Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations


School Flexibility: Summary


• Overall, lack of capacity around strategic school design has been

greater limiting factor to the effective

use of resources than lack of flexibility.

• Schools have the most flexibility in

deciding “who” should provide the

service.

• Innovation School Menu of Service

has focused more about who can

provide the service and less about

how to provide it.

• Support and incentivize the

development of school designs to

meet specific needs.

• Moving forward, specific strategic

school design needs should drive

greater flexibility (especially over “how” to provide services).

School Flexibility


DPS has already put in place much of the groundwork it needs to successfully

implement its “managed performance empowerment” theory of action:

How, overall, will DPS be able to use its limited resources to significantly improve teaching and transform outcomes for kids?

School Design

• DPS’ school funding system is highly transparent and equitable though there are

opportunities to refine: further adjust the SBB formula to match student needs (particularly in ELL) and further reduce size-driven variation.

However, the ultimate success of a “managed performance empowerment”

system lies in the hands of its principals – whether they can leverage funding

and flexibility to best meet the needs of their students:

• Thus, it is critical for DPS to actively promote the effective use of resources in all schools by building school leader capacity, building capacity for those who support school leaders (OSRI, Instructional Sups), and creating the tools, systems, and structures that will best support them both.

• Ultimately, the demands of strategic school designs should drive flexibility

expansion; DPS can foster greater flexibility by incentivizing designs that focus on specific needs


Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures

ERS Use & Function Coding

Drilldown into SY0910 Operations & Maintenance Expenditures

ERS Sharing Level Coding

Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars

ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need

Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112

Additional Explanation of Flexibility Dimensions

Appendix Slides

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 43 Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures, ERS analysis

Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures

SY0910 Expenditures $1.024 billion

Exclude Non-SY0910-Operating Costs $255 million

Capital $74,674,239

Debt Service $69,424,083

Property Rental/Lease $46,661,450

Transfers $54,623,015

Other Exclusions $9,277,508

Exclude Non-PreK12 Costs $31 million

Adult Ed/EGOS $19,231,896

Private Schools $1,203,940

SPED outplacement $4,072,243

Pre K External Contract $3,139,095

Tuition Based after school and summer school $ 3,290,877

SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures $738 million

Charter $69,351,527

Appendix

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 44 Source: ERS knowledge management

ERS Use & Function Coding: To ensure comparability across

districts in our analysis, ERS uses its own methodologies,

definitions and coding structures – including “use” and “function”

Pupil Services & Enrichment

Instruction

Operations & Maintenance

Instruction Support & Prof. Dev.

Business Services

Leadership

• Teacher Compensation

• Aides Compensation

• Substitute Compensation

• Librarian & Media Specialist

• Instructional Materials & Supplies

• Other Non-Compensation

• Other Compensation

• Extended Time & Tutoring

• Enrichment

• Social Emotional

• Physical Health Services & Therapies

• Career Academic Counseling

• Parent & Community Relations

• Professional Development

• Curriculum Development

• Recruitment(of Instructional Staff)

• Special Population Program Management

& Support

• Facilities & Maintenance

• Security & Safety

• Food Services

• Student Transportation

• Utilities

• Governance

• School Supervision

• School Administration

• Research & Accountability

• Communications

• Student Assignment

• Human Resources

• Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution

• Data Processing & Information Services

• Facilities Planning

• Development & Fundraising

• Legal

• Insurance

Use

Function

Appendix


Within O&M, Transportation and Facilities & Maintenance drive

most of difference; Facilities & Maintenance is particularly low

given Denver’s larger square foot per pupil

4.8% 7.2%

5.5%

9.1%

6.1%

4.7%

2.5%

5.9% 5.2% 4.2%

3.5%

3.8% 2.3% 3.0%

2.3%

2.7% 1.1% 0.8%

0.6%

0.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's

Security & Safety

Utilities

Food Services

Student Transportation

Facilities & Maintenance

19.9%

14.5%

22.3%

OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: % of PreK12 Operating

Lower $pp

District

Higher $pp

District

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database

19.5%

SqFt/pupil 132 130 166 143

Appendix


ERS Sharing Level Coding: ERS also recodes expenses to identify how

much the district spends at the following four “levels”:

District Governance, Management of the support services provide to Schools Example: Superintendent, Board, Strategy, Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation

Leadership & Management

“Central Overhead”

DPS: % of Expenses

6%

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

All FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to schools in the district expenditures Example: SBB Allocations, Non-SBB Resources

School on Central

School Reported

All FTEs, services, and materials that provide support to schools but generally on as-

needed or irregular basis Example: Transportation, Maintenance

Support Services

“School-Attributed”

This is what ERS uses to

compare spending across

schools

9%

9%

76%

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,

In SY1112, the “School-Reported” % will be even higher because

many of the resources that were “School on Central” in SY0910

like PSNs will now be accounted for at schools

Appendix


Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,

School Reported:

89%

All FTEs, services, and materials reported to schools in the expenditures file.

SBB: 65%

SBB Base funding: $3,931 for all schools K-12 (K=.5) in SY1112

Other SBB Allocations: For example – Mild Moderate, Title I, FRL Supplemental Funds, Mill Levy: Tech, Facilitators, Textbooks, Kinder, Elementary Arts, etc.

Non-SBB:

24%

For example: Custodial Services, Food Services, Security Services,

Special Education Center Programs, General Education Programs like Boost, AVID, Credit Recovery, College Readiness, etc.

School on Central:

11%

All FTEs, services, and materials that are reported on central budgets in the expenditures file, but supports schools on a regular and predictable basis.

For example: Athletics, Central Food Prep Kitchens, Related Services (OT, PT, Speech, etc.), Other SPED Services, Central Textbook Adoption, Teaching Effectiveness Coaches, Operations & Maintenance, etc.

Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars

Appendix


School S School D

% SPED 5% 9%

% ELA 1% 15%

% Pov 9% 75%

$6,764/pp $6,766/pp

These two schools have the same per pupil amount but School D serves a much

needier student population …

… so ERS takes the student type weights that we calculated to adjust each school’s enrollment to create an

“adjusted” per-pupil amount

School S School D

Enrollment 504 428

Weighed

Enrollment* 441 422

$7,957/pwp

$7,067/pwp

1 2

ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need: Comparing two

Denver schools shows why we need to try to "adjust" a school’s per-

pupil spending according to student needs


*For example: We know that the district overall spending on SPED-Mild Moderate students is 2.4 weight-> so any SPED Mild Moderate students at School D and School S are weighted 2.4 in the school’s weighted enrollment. Across the district, the weighted enrollment is then grossed down proportionally to get to the district’s actual enrollment.

Appendix


Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112

Appendix

ALLOCATION FY09-10* FY10-11* FY11-12 NOTES

Base Per Pupil*

$3,335 for all schools K-12 (K=.5) Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle

Middle Schools $58 * 6-12 Schools $3 *

High Schools $157 *

$3,335 for all schools K-12 (K=.5) Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle

Middle Schools $58 * 6-12 Schools $3 *

High Schools $157 *

$3,931 for all schools K-12 (K=.5)

Instructional Dollars $193 K-12 (K=.5) $193 K-12 (K=.5) Included in Base

Guest Teachers NONE $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00) $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00) Guest Teachers (Substitutes) were budgeted

centrally until FY10-11 when dollars were devolved to schools

Supplemental Base for Center Programs

NONE NONE

$ Per Center Program per K-12 (K=.5)

Until FY11-12 this allocation was included as part of PSN staffing allocation (below)

ES - $12 K8 - $12 MS - $13

6-12 - $13 HS/Alt - $11

PSN (Student Service Days) Staffing Allocation*

NONE

As of FY11-12 - No specific PSN staffing allocation -

$110-114 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 included in Base (above) $50-55 (FL grades K-12, K=.5) $52-$57 (FL grades 1-12) $52-$57 included in FRL Supp Funds Allocation

$11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5) FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure

appropriate staffing

$11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5) FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure

appropriate staffing

$11-13 included in Supp Base for Center Programs

Mild Moderate Staffing Allocation*

$351 for FRL Students $334 for FRL Students

NONE

As of FY11-12 - No specific MM staffing allocation

$234 for non-FRL Students

FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure appropriate staffing

$223 for non-FRL Students

FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure appropriate staffing

FRL is a standalone allocation (below)

Non-FRL students funded as part of SBB Base - (All K-12, K=.5)

Free Lunch / Free and Reduced Lunch Supp Funds*

$256 Elementary FL ($122 subject to offset) $268 for Elementary FL ($128 subject to offset) $461 for Elementary As of FY11-12 allocated to free AND REDUCED lunch

students and K @ 1.00 $290 Secondary FL ($220 subject to offset) $303 for Secondary FL ($230 subject to offset) $496 for Secondary

Gifted & Talented Per Pupil*

$95 $95 $120 Per identified GT (gr. 1-8) in addition to .25 FTE

allocation Targeted Interventions

$100,000 targeted allocation $100,000 targeted allocation $100,000-$250,000

SPF "Orange" and "Red" schools

Performance Allocation

NONE NONE

$65/student - SPF Blue

NEW for FY11-12 $95/student for growth to Orange $100/student for growth to Yellow $105/student for growth to Green $115/student for growth to Blue

Extra Allocations (IB, Montessori, Arts)

$2.2 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $2.3 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE Funding added to class size relief pool, additional school funding addressed through that process

Small School Factor $1,649,768 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $854,000 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE Funding added to class size relief pool, additional school funding addressed through that process

* Subject to offset due to hurdle. This offset was eliminated with FY11-12 formula changes.


What do we mean by flexibility over “How Much”

Flexibility over “How Much” TIGHT

Principal PD

District determines a minimum amount that each school must spend on Principal PD.

Schools can choose if they want to spend any $ on Principal PD, and if so, how much. They can choose to

spend no $ if they want.

Speech Pathology

Services

Districts review IEPs/student need at school and tell schools how

much Speech Pathology to offer.

Schools review IEPs/student needs themselves to decide how much

Speech Pathology to offer. They can provide none but only if their

students don’t need it.

The school decides if they want to provide a service, and

if so, how much to spend.

The district decides that the service must be provided and the minimum amount to be spent.

LOOSE

Appendix

Source: ERS knowledge management


What do we mean by flexibility over “How ”?

Flexibility over “How” TIGHT

Principal PD

District determines that the amount spent on Principal PD will go towards funding network meetings and attending workshop X.

Schools can choose how to use the amount spent on Principal PD –

i.e., they want to take workshop Y and get executive coaching.

Speech Pathology

Services

District determines that the amount spent on Speech Pathology will go

towards funding a full time 1.0 FTE at the school.

Schools can choose how to use the amount spent on Speech

Pathology, i.e., hire 2 partial FTEs OR purchase services by hour.

The school decides the structure through which the

service will be provided.

The district decides the structure through which the service will be provided.

LOOSE

Appendix



What do we mean by flexibility over “Who/what”?

Flexibility over “Who/what” TIGHT

Principal PD

District determines that principals can only attend workshops off an approved list or get executive

coaching from provider X.

Schools can choose which workshops to attend, which coach/mentor to hire, etc.

Speech

Pathology Services

District assigns the Speech

Pathologist OR determines the provider that schools can purchase hourly services from.

School hires the Speech

Pathologist OR can decide which provider to purchase hourly

services from.

The school decides who to hire or from which provider

they will procure the resource.

The district decides the person or provider or significantly restricts the set of people or providers from which they

can choose.

LOOSE

Appendix


Presentation to the DPS Board: Resource Mapping Summary …...managing the district’s diverse portfolio of schools. ... School budgets include most funding sources and are easy to

Documents