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