Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

Rethinking Resources for Student Success

Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary ReportDenver 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Preliminary – Please do not cite or distribute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 Group

s

Resource Mapping Analysis

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)

K1

2 O

pera

tin

g $

pp

(in

th

ou

san

ds)

Appendix

See appendix

for definition

of SY0910

Operating

Exp.


Denver spent higher share of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on Instruction and a lower share on Operations & Maintenance compared to other districts

Charlo

tte

Duval

Denve

r

Prince

Geo

r...

Atlant

a

Bosto

n

Roche

ster

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%

Leadership

Instructional Support & PD

Business Services

Operations & Maintenance

Pupil Services

Instruction

% o

f opera

ting b

udget/

expendit

ure

s

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

Appendix

See appendix

for notes on

ERS coding

and drilldown

on O&M

spending

Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Use

Lower $ppDistrict

Higher $ppDistrict


Compared to other districts, Denver also spent a smaller % of Operating Expenditures and a lower $pp on central overhead

Charl

ott

e

Duval

Chic

ago

Denver

Pri

nce

Georg

e's

Philadelp

hia

St.

Paul

Atl

anta

Wash.

D.C

.

Bosto

n

Roch

este

r

8%6%

7%6% 6%

8%6%

12%

15%

11%10%

% o

f expendit

ure

s/b

udget

Lower $ppDistrict

Higher $ppDistrict

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

% of K12 operating expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEADAppendix

See appendix

for definitions of

ERS terms

and methodologie

s

$pp

$685 $547 $689 $594 $664 $941 $797$1,65

6$2,13

4$1,61

9$1,95

5


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

Charlo

tte

Duval

Chica

go

Denve

r

Prince

Geo

rge'

s

Phila

delp

hia

St. P

aul

Atlant

a

77% 77% 77% 76%69% 66%

71%

58%

% o

f exp

en

dit

ure

s/b

ud

get

Lower $pp

District

Higher $ppDistrict

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

% of K12 op. expenditures that is SCHOOL REPORTEDOther 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

Appendix

See appendix for

notes on ERS

coding

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 $7.4KHi-Lo Spread 1.8X


FY0910 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PWP


HS/SS


School Funding

Appendix

$pwp = per

weighted pupil

which adjusts for

differences in

student need across

schools. See

Appendix for

methodology.


Equity: Overall equity in funding across schools on the high end of districts studied

Duval Denver Baltimore Prince George's

District A Newark

54%

75%81%

48%

59%

46%

% o

f sch

ools

Lower $pp

District

Higher $pp

District


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

School Funding


0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000 HS SS

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000 ES K8

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

School Size

Sch

ool-

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

0 500 1000 1500$5,000

$7,000

$9,000

$11,000

$13,000


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.


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 $-

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

R² = 0.454122509610849

ES

K8

$pw

p

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

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 $4,000

$4,500

$5,000

$5,500

$6,000

$6,500

$7,000

$7,500

$8,000

$8,500

R² = 0.0824582271126115

ES

K8

$pw

p

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

School Funding

Appendix

See appendix for

breakdown

of Non-SBB

$s


ELL: Re-evaluating the ELL resource strategy is important because ELLs are disproportionately low-performing

DPS G3-5 All Test Takers DPS G3-5 Low Performers*0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

32% 38%

29%

39%

14%

11%

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 3 rd -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.

SY0910 SY1011 SY1112$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$256 $268

$461

$290 $303

$496

ESHS

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

DPS St. Paul0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%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

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

34%

21% 22%17%

14% 16%

49%

39% 40%

30% 29%32%

% NEP % ELL

% E

LL in C

lass

# 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 FindingsSchool 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

DATASchool

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 decisionsSchool 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

Boston Rochester Phila-delphia

Mil-waukee

Baltimore Pitts-burgh

Seattle Duval DC Denver Prince George's

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Annual Teachers

Hrs

– S

tudent

Hrs

DPS Teacher Time8 hours*184 days

DPS Student Time6 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

day72 81

124 126145

163180

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


<15 15-20 21-25 >25

14

39

18 16

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

ools

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


Charlotte Denver Duval Prince George's

Syracuse $-

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

Com

pensati

on in $

1,0

00’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 0.30.4

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 32Source: 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/pp599

23

$71,658 9 62%

Math $445547

23

$74,734 8 84%

Science $393437

25

$69,807 8 70%

Social Studies $383444

25

$73,132 10 59%

Foreign Language $372198

26

$75,142 12 60%

Art/Music $538142

23

$74,555 10 60%

Computer Literacy $48927

20

$76,149 15 48%

PE/Health $27171

30

$78,288 14 44%

Vocational/Career $51947

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


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

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

K8

MS

6-12

HS

Nonco

re -

Core

School YNoncore Class Size = 16Core 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 XNoncore Class Size = 31Core Class Size = 22

School Design


0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800Innovation Traditional Charter

Stu

dent

Hours

Per

Year

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 adapto 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 & SafetyGiving 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 LiabilityThe 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 studentsGiving 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/ ExperienceThis 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 ControlEnsuring 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 ScalePer 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-PoolingThe 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

Appendix

See appendix for

add’l explanation

of the dimensions


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 con-straint:

Title I Special Ed: Mild Moderate & Center ProgramMill Levy: Kinder, Textbooks, ArtsOther 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 43Source: 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 $74,674,239Debt Service $69,424,083Property Rental/Lease $46,661,450Transfers $54,623,015 Other Exclusions $9,277,508

Exclude Non-PreK12 Costs $31 million Adult Ed/EGOS $19,231,896Private Schools $1,203,940SPED outplacement $4,072,243Pre K External Contract $3,139,095Tuition Based after school and summer school $ 3,290,877

SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures $738 millionCharter $69,351,527

Appendix

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 44Source: 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

Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

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%

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 Methodology

ERS-defined

“operating

expenses”

exclude capital

expenses/ bond

authorizations

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 SchoolsExample: 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 basisExample: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNsAll FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to schools in the district expendituresExample: 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 basisExample: 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,

SY0910 vs. SY11

12

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 Enrollmen

t*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


$223 for non-FRL Students


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

allocationTargeted 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

PrincipalPD

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

Schools can choose how to usethe amount spent on Principal PD – i.e., they want to take workshop

Y and get executive coaching.


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 usethe 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

PrincipalPD

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.


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 Report

Education

dps dps

dps sy0910 expenditures

charter schools

dps board

groupsinnovation schools

excellent schools

ers partner districts

ers analysis didnt