Doing More with Less

“Doing More with Less”
Karen Hawley Miles, October 1, 2010
Four strategies for improving urban district
quality and productivity

The districts we have are not the systems we need
• Schools and students with same needs
receiving different levels of resources
• Rigidly defined budgets that don’t enable
principals to match needs
• Salary and job structures that do not
encourage effectiveness , contribution or
collaboration
• Antiquated schedules and school
organizations that do not match time and
individual attention to priority needs
WE HAVE
Effective teaching for all
students
School designs that
maximize teaching
effectiveness, academic
time and individual attention
WE NEED
Equitable, transparent, and
flexible funding across
schools
2EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.

The districts we have are not the systems we need
• Underinvestment in formative assessments
and fragmented professional development
• Underinvestment to build and reward
leadership effectiveness
• Central office services that are not designed
to improve productivity or customize support
to school needs
• Districts that pay too much for social
services and non-core instruction that could
be provided through outside partners
Aligned curriculum,
Instruction, assessment, PD
Strong school and district
leaders
Central services that foster
empowerment,
accountability and
efficiency
Partnership with families,
communities and outside
experts
WE HAVEWE NEED

1. Class Size Models
Strategically raising class sizes and rethinking one-size-fits-all
class size models for providing individual attention
2. Special Education
Redirecting special education spending to early intervention
and targeted individual attention for all students
3. Making Every Minute Count
4. Restructuring Compensation
Reducing compensation spending by managing teaching
work-force mix and differentiating instructional roles
4
We have chosen four big opportunities for the focus of
this discussion
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC.

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
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 5
Source: Data from ERS work with twelve urban US districts. The chart draws on Elementary Grades Homeroom file Oct 2009; Includes
elementary schools and K-8 schools (grades K0-5); excludes classes that are special ed 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)
Most districts have opportunities to strategically raise
class size…

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
*Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Art, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign Language
Source: District A and B 9th and 12th grade course data (internal – Resource Mapping presentation)
…and to target class sizes to priority subjects and
students
In these districts class sizes for core subjects are higher than non-core

29
25
22
26
18
22
29
20
22
17
14
13
14 14
16 16
12
15
District S District M District E District B District A District C District P District R District G
GENERAL EDUCATION CLASS SIZE VERSUS STUDENT-TEACHER RATIO
ERS Estimated Average General Ed Class Size Average Total Student-to-Teacher Ratio
EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES, INC. 7
Districts have more teaching staff, but use those FTEs for
specialist positions outside of the core classroom

A cycle of isolation and specialization pulls
students with additional needs out of regular education
classrooms
Large, diverse classes
Overextended teachers
Remove “problem”
student from
classroom
Administration to coordinate,
monitor special services
Resources and responsibility
move outside regular classroom
Current
Structure of
SWD & ELL
services
Provide additional
support:
- Social services
- Pull-out instruction

$11.7
$15.2
$19.9
$42.6
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
General Ed ELL SWD Resource SWD Sub Sep
FullyAllocated$PerPupil
(Thousands)
DISTRICT SPENDING BY STUDENT TYPE
2009-2010
LEP
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
Moving students into rigidly defined programs
diverts dollars from early intervention and targeted
small groups for all students
Enrollment: 37.8K 6.6K 5.4K 5.5K
Weight: 1.0 1.2 1.7 3.5
Poverty
Increment

2.5%
9.6%
3.7% 4.0% 4.5%
3.5%
6.4%
8.0%
8.7%
8.7%
12.0%
5.7%
13.6%
2.0%
7.4%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
District A District B District C District D District E District F District G
%TotalEnrollment
K-12 SPECIAL EDUCATION PLACEMENTS AS % OF TOTAL ENROLLMENT
Integrated Special Class
Resource Room/Consultant
Self Contained & Home Instruction
*District G SWD enrollment includes all students with a designated category of disability.
Source: ERS Benchmark Database, National data from U.S. DOE Programs, SDP Special Ed student data (PIMS); Self contained typically defined as 60% or more time in
special education setting.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, selected years, 1992 through 2007, and IDEA Act database
Districts vary widely in how many students they place in
special education settings
National ID rate:
13.4%
10.5%
18.3%
12.4%
16.0%
10.2%
17.1%
15.8%

11
Note: For the average district this translates into a savings of almost 7% of total budget
The opportunity to redirect dollars can come from
meeting student needs in different ways and using cost-
effective practice
100%
80% 75% 68%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Total%of
SpecialEducationBudget
SPECIAL EDUCATION COST DYNAMICS
IN A TYPICAL URBAN DISTRICT
Base Case Reduce referrals to
12% by supporting
high need students
in other ways
Shift 1% of
students from
self-contained
to resource
Increase class
fill rates from
75% to 90%
Total sped 15% 12% 12% 12%
Self-contained sped 5% 4% 3% 3%
Percent of Enrollment

Highlight the class size vs. teacher quality trade-off
Strategically raise class sizes in non-core classes and
later grades
Review special education spending to reduce
compliance spending and unplanned extra
spending on subscale programs
Encourage movement away from class size
mandates in state regulations and contracts
Clarify rules on maintenance of effort spending
Champion revisions to special education funding
that create incentives for more integrated services
Explore improved ways to measure special
education outcomes
12
What can be done to rethink one-size-fits-all class size
model and redirect special education spending to
targeted individual attention for all students?
Start Now
Build Toward

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
DC
Rochester
Denver
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Leading Edge schools
Boston Charters
STUDENT HOURS PER YEAR
13
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.”
Many districts have an opportunity to increase
instructional time by increasing the school day
National Avg. = 1170
3. Making every
minute count

But there is huge opportunity to make better use of
existing time…by reducing unassigned or non-
instructional time
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
12TH GRADE STUDENTS: RANGE IN UNASSIGNED TIME
(As % of Total School Day)
Average = 12%
1/3 of 12th graders
have <6% of their
school day
unassigned
1/3 of 12th graders
have 6-17% of
their school day
unassigned
1/3 of 12th graders
have 17-40% of
their school day
unassigned
Source: District course file
3. Making every
minute count

15
….by varying time by grade and subject
TYPICAL DISTRICT PERCENT OF STUDENT TIME
BY GRADE & SUBJECT
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
ES 7-9th 10-12th
PE
Foreign Language
Electives
Science
Social Studies
Math
ELA
3. Making every
minute count

Source: ERS analysis of district data
…by matching instruction to student needs so that
course time isn’t wasted
Because student B repeated the same course, this district invested 400% more per
distinct math class in Student B, AND achieved a significantly worse outcome
STUDENT A STUDENT B
Proficiency at end of 8th
grade
Below proficient Below proficient
Semester-long math
classes in grades 9-10
• Algebra 1A
• Algebra 1B
• Technical Math 1
• Geometry
• Introductory Math
Cumulative investment $1,362 $1,341
Average investment per
distinct class
$341 $1,341
Status in grade 11 On track/college ready Dropped out
3. Making every
minute count

High-performing schools are about team, not just
individual performance
Collaborative
planning time
Formative
assessments
School-based
expert support
Deliberate assignments
to teaching team
Each school’s
specific
curricular,
faculty, and
student needs
4. Restructuring
Compensation

Compensation cost adjusted to District A area
Source: ERS District Aspen District Analysis FY 2009
Most districts spend little to reward increased teacher
responsibility and contribution
Base
Education
Longevity
Responsibility & Results
Benefits
51% 42%
3% 7%
20%
27%
2%
0%
25%
24%
$-
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
Rochester Northeast District A
$perteacher
TOTAL DOLLARS PER TEACHER
District A
Balanced work-force
District B
Senior work-force
$78,232
$88,052
4. Restructuring
Compensation

Stop or reduce increases for steps and credits to
redirect compensation spending toward
increased responsibilities and contribution
Aggressively manage low performers out of the
system
Revise compensation structures to link pay to
increases in responsibility and contribution as
well as individual results
Revise work rules to insure flexibility in teacher
assignment to match team and school needs
19
What can be done to optimize compensation
spending?
Start Now
Build Toward

For the same cost a typical 25,000 student urban district can:
ERS’ District Reallocation Modeler (DREAM)
By taking on tough choices, schools can move toward
transformed practice
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
Increase % SPED in HS
by 2 percentage points OR
Double the salary of the
top 5% of teachers
Invest in 1 RTI Specialist
for every 160 K-2
students
Add 10 days per year
for seniors to offset 50%
of unassigned time
OR
Assign to classes and
provide 15% with 1
hour/wk of 1:1 tutoring

21
The Baltimore City Schools Transformation Strategy—a
three-year journey
Under new teacher contract, decisions about trade-offs to pay higher salary
for teaching quality will be made at school level
BCPSS cut
$40M and
>200 FTEs
from the
central office
BCPSS shifted
~$70M to
school budget
and control
through Fair
Student
Funding
BCPSS realigned
Central to support
schools, moving
positions to school
focused support
“network” teams
BCPSS replaced
~90 of 200
principals
+
New teacher
contract increases
school flexibility
and increases
compensation tied
to performance
and contribution
Consolidation
Decentralization
Restructuring
Transformation

22
The biggest opportunities for improving productivity
include:
Opportunity
Increase
spending Restructure
Reduce
spending
TEACING
Invest in teacher evaluation 
Restructure teacher salaries away from steps and
lanes to pay for greater contribution and results

SCHOOLDESIGN
Invest in team based continuous improvement
through collaborative planning time and expert
support
 
Rethink one-size fits all class size model to provide
targeted individual attention to fit student and
subject needs
 
Extend and strategically organize student time  
Redesign special education  
PARTNER
SHIP
Partner with community and outside experts to
provide social/emotional support, non-core
instruction and enrichment


50% 50%
55% 54% 52%
60%
9% 9%
5% 9%
7%
7%
7% 9% 7%
7%
4%
3%
20% 14% 17%
20%
24%
18%
4%
7%
8%
2%
3%
2%
10% 10% 7% 7%
8%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Rochester 09-10 Oakland 07-08 Atlanta 07-08 Boston 09-10 Philadelphia 08 Chicago 08
TOTAL OPERATING BUDGET BY USE
Uncoded
Leadership
Business Services
O&M
ISPD
Pupil Services
Instruction
Note: Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation (using BLS inflation adjusters) and for cost of living (NCES-CWI); all dollars from K-12 operating budgets.
Uncoded dollars in Philadelphia are dollars spent on alternative schools and additional EMO payments
Source: RCSD 2009-2010 budget data; RCSD BEDS enrollment; Oakland Unified School District annual report 2008; ERS Benchmark database
Real per pupil spending varies widely across districts,
but spending patterns similar
Enrollment 32K 39K 46K 55K 152K 405K
Operating
Budget per
Pupil
15.3K 7.9K 10.8K 11.5K 9.2K 7.7K

Autopilot compensation
increases
Other mandatory cost
increases
Declining revenue;
sudden drop in Fed $
Efficiency gains
Budget Gap
(before new
priorities)
Budget Gaps are systemic due to a fundamental cost
structure that continues to rise regardless of revenue

0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
Seattle Houston Boston Memphis Denver+ Philadelphia
PERCENT COLA INCREASE FROM 2009-10 TO 2010-11
BY ASPEN DISTRICT
Cost of living increases are the norm, although some
districts have suspended them in recent years
No COLA
Increase*
Atlanta
Charlotte
Long Beach
Los Angeles
PG County
Hillsborough
Baltimore
DISTRICT
PercentCOLAIncrease
*Districts with negative or zero COLA increase are included
+Denver has new formula for teachers in ProComp = CPI (inflation rate) + a factor
Source: NCTQ TR3 database

Assumptions:
Net step increase of 3.5% (4% average discounted for staff turnover)
Lane increase of 2.5%
Benefits increase 7.5% annually
One district example: If the district must pay COLA at 3.5%, this
number nearly doubles to equivalent of 360 average cost teachers
next year or 600+ first year teachers by 2015
$494.8m
$522.5m
$552.3m
$583.9m
$617.6m
$653.3m
-
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
700.0
FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15
Benefits
COLA (3.5%)
Experience (&
longevity)
Educational
Attainment
Base Compensation

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% Performance
Pay
National Board
Certification
Leadership
Roles
Education
Experience
The way districts reward salary increase over a
teaching career varies; merit pay is rare, primary
increase is for leadership roles and NBPT
TOTAL POSSIBLE RAISES OVER TEACHER’S CAREER
Source: Salary Schedules and Teacher Contracts.
Methodology:
Experience and
Education derived
from salary
schedules. Stipends
aggregated from
contracts –
leadership roles
conservative avg of
multiple stipends
(e.g. dept head,
lead tchr, curric
devel)
Total
Possible
Raise
$47k $54k $42k $61k $55k $60K $48k $47k $56k $42k $50k $49k $50k
% Over
Base
124% 156% 92% 142% 122% 135% 113% 115% 131% 117% 111% 134% 128%

29
Transformation: In year 2, BCPSS redesigned the remaining Central
Office support staff to create a “network” structure to provide more
direct support to schools
Moving From a
compliance focused
organization …
Fragmented, often
reactive support, far
away from the work
of schools
…to a performance-driven
organization that supports
school-based decision-
making:
Problem solving focused teams
closer to schools; flexible
design to meet the individual
needs of schools
School
School
School
School
School School
School
School
School
HR
PD
Budget Finance
Attend. Sc. Sch.
Office
Ac.
Achieve.
Ele. Sch.
Office Etc…Title I
Network
#1
Network
#2
10-15
Schools
10-15
Schools
Etc.
Network Team Members :
• Network Leader
• Instructional Support
• Finance & Ops
• Special Pops
• Human Resources

Dollars to redirect come from the combination of
fewer referrals and more cost-effective practice
Total # of
Students
District
Support
Models
School Level
Implementati
on (Fill Rates)
• Special Education
diagnosis rates by
disability type
• ELL enrollment trends
• Staffing models
• Inclusion models
• Out of district policies
• Program placement
• Student assignment

Doing More with Less

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (9)

Semelhante a Doing More with Less

Semelhante a Doing More with Less (20)

Mais de Education Resource Strategies

Mais de Education Resource Strategies (20)

Último

Último (20)

Doing More with Less

Notas do Editor