Presentation given by ERS at the National Superintendents Academy in January 2018.

1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2013© Education Resource Strategies, Inc., 2016
Resource Allocation and the
Superintendency
National Superintendents Academy  Jan 2018

2. Today’s Essential Questions:
What does strategic resource use look
like in schools and systems?
What, therefore, must I ask, know & do
as Superintendent to maximize the
impact of limited resources in my
system?
1

3. A quick warm up..
2
Turn to your neighbor:
When you think of the biggest challenges with
“resources” what comes to mind? What do you wish
you knew? What do you wish you could do?

4. Agenda
1. Setting the stage (30 min)
Introduction and Current state of education funding
2. System 2020 (45 min)
A lens for thinking about resource use and school system
transformation
3. Break (5 min)
4. School Budget Hold’em (75)
A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the
system level
5. Wrap-up (10)
Tools and resources to drive change moving forward
3

5. Education Resource Strategies (ERS)
is a non-profit organization
dedicated to transforming how urban
school systems organize resources
(people, time, technology, and money)
so that every school succeeds for every student.

6. Over the last 12 years, we’ve worked closely with the
nation’s largest school systems to improve resource use
Saint
Paul
Chicago
Cincinnati
Atlanta
Philadelphia New York City
SyracuseRochester
Providence
Baltimore
Prince George’s County, MD
Washington,
D.C.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Duval County
Boston
Georgia Districts
Fulton County
Hall County
Vidalia City
Treutlen County
Marietta City
Cleveland
Austin
Albuquerque
Michigan
Tennessee
Waterbury, CT
Aldine
Newark
District work
State work
2015-16 partners
Recent partners
Knox County
Lake County
Indianapolis
Nashville
Georgia
Santa Fe
New Haven, CT
Tulsa
Palm Bach County
Los Angeles
Oakland
Sacramento
California
Buffalo
2

7. What is the current state of
education funding?
Setting the stage:

8. Until the great recession hit, real spending on education
had increased nearly every year since 1920
7
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
National Public K-12 Expenditures Per Pupil (1920-2014) ($M)
Current expenditures Per Pupil (Real) Current expenditures Per Pupil (Nominal)*
Source: National Center for Education Statistics: Digest of Education Statistics.
*Nominal expenditures expressed in constant 2016 dollars.

9. Spending varies widely across districts...
8Source: ERS database
$7,800 $8,300
$9,200
$10,200 $10,800
$13,000
$14,100 $14,400
$16,800
$21,100
Aldine,
TX
Charlotte Knox
County,
TN
Fulton
County,
GA
Denver Prince
George's
County,
MD
Baltimore Cleveland D.C. Newark
Per-Pupil Spending on Education
~3x

10. Systemic Budget Gaps
cost structure rises regardless of revenue
9
• Longevity based teaching salaries
grow at ~2-4% annually
• Benefits growing at ~10+%
annually
• SPED spending continues to grow
• Pre-set COLA increases
• Tax revenue falling
• Enrollment declining
• Drop in Federal Funds

11. What do districts spend their money on?

12. School Spending Quiz:
Central administration
consumes a significant portion
of district funding
True or False?

13. False: Most urban districts spend less on
central overhead than commonly perceived
12
District Governance, Management of the support
services provide to Schools
Example: Superintendent, Board, Strategy, Dir. of
Math, Dir. of Transportation
Leadership &
Management
“Central
Overhead”
All FTEs, services, and materials allocated
directly to schools in the district expenditures
Example: SBB Allocations, Non-SBB Resources
All FTEs, services, and materials not reported on
the school budget, but support schools on a
regular and predictable basis
Example: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNs
School-
attributed
All FTEs, services, and materials that provide
support to schools in ways that leverage scale
across schools
Example: Transportation, Maintenance
Shared
Services
“School-
Attributed”
This is what ERS uses to
compare spending across
schools.
District X
7%
12.3%
8.4%
72.3%

14. School Spending Quiz:
Instruction is the primary
business and consumes what
% of the budget?
1) 50-60%
2) 60-70%
3) 75%+

15. Typically 50-60% of most districts’ budgets is spent
on instruction in schools
14
56% 56% 58% 53% 55% 58% 59%
52% 57%
6% 5%
6%
6% 6%
6% 5%
6%
6%
20% 19%
20%
23% 21%
20% 18%
22% 16%
7% 9% 5% 6% 6% 6% 8% 8% 8%
8% 7% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 8% 8%
4% 5% 3% 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 5%
District
Average
Palm Beach Duval CoutyLake County Aldine Charlotte Fulton PGC Denver
Breakdown of Total Operating Spending: % by Use
Business
Services
Leadership
Pupil Services
& Enrichment
O&M
ISPD
Instruction
Source: SDPBC FY15 Expenditures, ERS analysis, ERS Benchmark Database
Adj. $pp $9.4 $9.8 $8.5 $7.4 $7.9 $9.7 $10.4 $11.6
Year 2014-2015 2009-2010 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2010-2011 2012-2013 2009-2010
PreK-12
Enrollment
166 (K) 121 (K) 36 (K) 66 (K) 137 (K) 88 (K) 126 (K) 77 (K)

16. School Spending Quiz:
School level spending goes mostly
to people and consumes what % of
the budget?
1) 60-70%
2) 70-80%
3) 80-90%

17. 80-90% of a schools budget is typically spent on staff;
therefore, strategic budget reform must look first and foremost
at people or “Who does What?”
16
65%
5%
2%
5%
8%
1%
2%
9%
School X
Teachers
Instructional Aides
Student support
Administration
Clerks & Other Staff
Substitutes
Supplies & Contracted Services
Utilities & Maintenance

18. Relationship History:
Spending and Performance

19. Linking dollars to student performance:
A one-word research history and the word is “no.”
18
A generation of research: Do resources/inputs matter?
 Hanushek summarizes the existing literature to say
“no.”
 Dollars per pupil are NOT systematically related to
student outcomes
 Very consistent finding over time
 Consistently cited as reason to oppose spending
increases

20. Question for discussion:
Inputs always matter. Logically, there exists a
production function (or multiple functions) to
describe the relationship between inputs and
student learning. So, what’s up here?
How could education researchers possibly find
(and so consistently) such a negligible relationship
between spending levels (dollars per pupil) and
student learning outcomes?
19
?
?

21. Possible reasons that scholars cannot find a
relationship between spending and performance…
How much versus how well: Dollars go to things that don’t improve student
performance (misalignments). Spending more wrongly doesn’t make a
difference…Need a theory of what matters most…
 Class size reductions
 Teacher compensation is 50% of budgets and 30% of that goes to experience and
education pay that are unrelated to student performance
 More students served in special education (eg: 20%+ in Syracuse)
Aggregation Level: Most existing research measures dollars per pupil across
schools or districts (not what students experience)…
 Equity within schools. But what if within a school some general education students
get 20% more than others?
 What if some schools do a better job of targeted specific additional interventions to
need?
Time horizon: Most existing research is premised on “same-year” relationship
between spending and outcomes
 What if some investments take longer to demonstrate benefits than the year they’re
implemented? 20

22. But wait… More recent findings say that:
 Sustained increases in per pupil spending in the 1970s-80s led to
increased educational attainment (years of completed education)
and higher wages for low-income students. (Jackson, Johnson,
Persico. “The Effects of School Spending on Educational and
Economic Outcomes: Evidence From School Finance Reforms”
October 2015)
 Post 1990 court mandated school finance reforms also led to
large, sustained increases in spending in low-income school
districts, which drove increases in student achievement for
students in those districts (Lafortune, Rothstein, Schanzenbach.
“School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student
Achievement” February 2016)
21Notes: “Educational attainment” was measured by years of completed education; “Student achievement” was measured by NAEP scores

23. Common resource
misalignments
Setting the stage:

24. Many districts and schools still invest in practices with
little impact on student outcomes
23
Restructuring Resources for High Performing Schools .(2011). Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies
Up to $0.40 of every $1 spent is not
correlated with student outcomes
Teacher comp.
not aligned
with student
learning
Whole day
class size
reductions in
all subjects
Students
in overly
restrictive
settings
Time not
varied for
student
proficien
cy
5-15¢ 10-15¢ 3-5¢ 3-5¢
“Resource
Misalignments”

25. Four types of Resource Misalignments
Underinvestment in the
right things
Non-strategic over-
investment in “good
things”
Piecemeal investment in
an integrated solution
Opportunities for
Reallocation
Opportunities for
Strategic Investment
Resources tied up in
the wrong things

26. Example: Investing more time for struggling
students
24% 25% 24%
29%
21%
19% 20%
16%
19%
21%
17%
15% 15% 14%
16%
Fulton Hall Treutlen Vidalia Marietta
% Time in 9th Grade Math, by Prior Year
Proficiency
Did not meet standards Proficient Advanced
Source: ERS
Piecemeal
investment in
an integrated
solution
24%
14%
Math Support Teachers All Math Teachers
% of All Teachers that are Novice
Most GA districts gave additional time to struggling
students….
However, these classes were
disproportionately staffed by novice teachers

27. Reflection (2 minutes)
26
Turn to your neighbor:
What resource misalignments have you seen in your
district?
Why do you think they persist?

28. The status quo persists because re-aligning
resources is hard
• Pure operating efficiencies are small and miss
the point
• Quick timelines inhibit significant changes
• Complex reallocations are multi-year, some
with up-front investment
• Hard to mobilize around the “from” without a clear vision for the “to”
• Can require eliminating policy barriers and/or changing peoples’ jobs
• Realigning resources may not be what the public or board wants

29. Agenda
1. Setting the stage
Introduction and Current state of education funding
2. System 20/20
A lens for thinking about resource use and school system
transformation
3. Break
4. School Budget Hold’em
A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the
system level
5. Wrap-up
Tools and resources to drive change moving forward
28

30. The School System 20/20 framework

31. Transforming outcomes for all students
requires tackling outmoded structures
30
System 20/20 Domain From To
Standards &
Instruction
Inconsistent or inadequate standards
with little support for teachers.
Rigorous, information-age standards
supported by effective curricula and
assessments.
Teaching
Isolated teachers with limited support,
flexibility, opportunities for growth.
A new way we hire, assign, support,
team, pay, and promote teachers.
School Design
A one-size-fits-all learning environment
that holds everyone back.
A re-imagined school day with new
schedules, dynamic groupings and
targeted instruction
Leadership
Limited autonomy, flexibility & support
to develop and reward strong leaders
Clear standards, support, and account-
ability for principals and district leaders.
School Support
Central office staff responsibilities that
focus on compliance and oversight.
A central office that is a service and
strategy partner that leverages data.
Funding
Wide funding variances across
schools.
Systems that allocate resources
equitably and flexibly across schools.
Partners
Schools providing a wide range of
services in addition to their core
educational mission.
Partnering to create innovative and
cost-effective ways to serve students
better.

32. 1. Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity,
transparency and flexibility
2. Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to
create “connected professional learning” for teachers
and leaders
3. Implement strategic school designs that personalize
learning for students based on need
31
Three high priority levers for transformation:

33. Flexibility
School leaders
define the resources
they need to drive
student
achievement
Elements of a healthy school funding system
Equity
Resources are
distributed
equitably based on
student need
Transparency
Clear and easily
understood rules
for where, how, and
why dollars flow
Source: ERS

34. $0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
60
15
39
367
346
51
61
99
34
114
82
105
79
42
14
90
49
54
88
107
31
103
327
109
69
48
384
93
94
315
83
359
19
63
106
391
356
44
55
87
96
57
74
302
58
16
43
70
65
621
716
618
501
614
723
626
617
708
School Attributed $ per Weighted Pupil ($pwp)
Magnet Traditional
After adjusting for student need, District X still has a
significant amount of variation in its student funding
Source: ERS analysis
Median: $7.3K
Hi-Lo Spread: 1.9x
Median: $8.9K
Hi-Lo Spread: 2.3x
ES/K-8
HS
33

35. The extent to which spending levels vary based on
need varies across systems
34
R² = 0.767
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40
R² = 0.2562
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50 1.60
R² = 0.499
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
R² = 0.1437
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40

36. Districts should determine if variation is intentional and
strategic and then adjust accordingly to improve equity
35
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
$

37. 1. Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity,
transparency and flexibility
2. Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to
create “connected professional learning” for teachers
and leaders
3. Implement strategic school designs that personalize
learning for students based on need
36
Three high priority levers for transformation:

38. Teachers and leaders need a system of Connected Professional
Learning to ensure consistent, high-quality instruction
37
Empowering
curriculum
Expert-led
collaboration
Growth-oriented
feedback
• System provides curricular supports that lead to rigorous instruction
• Teachers spend most prep time anticipating students’ need for additional
support
• Content-focused teacher teams prepare lessons, analyze data, and adjust
instruction, for at least 90 minutes each week.
• Teachers spend at least 8-10 dedicated PL days per year with content experts
that provide resources, tools, and skills they can use and practice immediately.
• Principals organize content-focused teaching teams that are explicitly focused
on improving instruction and have access to content-specific experts.
• Teachers are observed at least bi-weekly and receive growth-oriented feedback
from content experts.
• Teachers regularly observe each other via formal and informal classroom visits
as well as videos, and have dedicated time to debrief and learn from each other.
• Principals act as “leaders of leaders.” distributing leadership to lower observers’
spans of review to <12 and ensuring all teachers have access to at least
biweekly, content-specific feedback based on informal observations.
1
2
3

39. Research shows that the choice of instructional materials can have an
impact as large as or larger than the impact of teacher quality
38Sources: Chingos and Whitehurst. (2012). Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness and the Common Core.
“...improving teacher quality is challenging, expensive, and
time consuming, making better choices among available
instructional materials should be relatively easy,
inexpensive, and quick.” – Chingos and Whitehurst
Empowering
curriculum

40. Case study systems provide more time for high-
quality collaboration
75%
69%
45%
10%
10%
11%
11%
12%
17%
10%
11%
4%
14%
Typical Systems Case study districts Case study CMO
How teachers spend their time (pct of annual hours)
Collaborative
planning
Professional
learning days
Individual planning
Duties/lunch
Instructional
delivery
39Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders
Annual hours 1,399 1,464 1,878
Expert-led
collaboration

41. Potential Opportunities Works well when.. Considerations
Early release/late start • Transportation & student day is flexible
• Uninterrupted planning time is a priority
• Difficult to schedule teachers together
in the school day
• Transportation costs
Pay select teams to
come in before/after
school, or during school
using subs to cover
• Uninterrupted planning time is a priority
• Additional money exists in budget
• Stipends/overtime pay (or
sub pay if releasing
teachers during the day)
Decrease teacher
teaching time
• Teacher planning during school day is
a priority
• Requires additional staff
or raising class size
Stack planning periods
back-to-back (1x/week or
more)
• Resources are limited
• Flexibility exists to change schedule
• May require rotating
schedule and/or add’t staff
Stack planning around
other non-teacher
moments (lunch,
before/after school)
• School can flexibly hire several part-
time elective teachers (in exchange for
full-time teachers)
• Large teacher teams need to meet
together at the same time
• Part-time vs. full-time staff
• Facility space for all
electives at once
Options for creating >90 minute blocks of
collaborative planning time
40
Expert-led
collaboration

42. Case study systems devote radically increased time
for cycles of informal, growth-oriented feedback
80 30-150
540-
1,080
60 30-150
540-
720
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Time for observations and feedback
(minutes/year per teacher)
Feedback
Observation
41Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders
Informal
observations
& feedback
Informal
observations
& feedback
Typical system Case study systems
Formal evaluation
Typical
teacher
Struggling
teacher
Formal evaluation
Typical
teacher
Struggling
teacher
• Equal to 30-50 mins per week
• Enables continuous improvement
• Fosters trust among professionals
Ad hoc
Growth-oriented
feedback

43. Strategic systems direct more resources toward expert-led
collaboration and more frequent observations
42
System-wide investment Typical Strategic Δ
Education Pay (i.e. “Lanes”) 3.3% 1.1% -2.2%
Direct PD Workshops & Coaching 3.8% 2.4% -1.4%
Curriculum & Assessments 1.5% 2.1% +0.6%
Support for School & Teacher Leaders 0.1% 0.6% +0.5%
Strategic PL Days for Teachers 0.9% 2.1% +1.2%
Expert Led CPT 0.9% 2.3% +1.4%
Observations & Debriefs 0.2% 1.7% +1.5%
Total investment 10.7% 12.2% +1.5%
Less investment
in traditional “PD”
More investment
in supported,
school-based
collaboration
Source: ERS analysis of district financial, HR and performance data, interviews with district and school leaders
Pct system operating expense

44. Within total teacher compensation, benefits and experience
pay make up the largest additions to base salary
43
Starting base
36%
Experience
22%
Education
10%
Other
3%
Benefits
29%
District Total Teacher Compensation
By reducing benefits 10% for
teachers, this district would free
up 1.5% of its total budget for
strategic re-investment.
Category $ Amount
Starting Base $93M
Experience $58M
Education $25M
Other $7M
Benefits $75M

45. 1. Revise funding formulas to achieve greater equity,
transparency and flexibility
2. Restructure investments in PD and teacher time to
create “connected professional learning” for teachers
and leaders
3. Implement strategic school designs that personalize
learning for students based on need
44
Three high priority levers for transformation:

46. Most schools organize people, time, and money the
same way they did 50+ years ago
45
One teacher
per class
20-30 students
per class
Studying a
particular subject
For a set period of time
(e.g., 50 min/day)
For a set duration
(e.g., full year)

47. 46
ERS’ Strategic School Design Essentials
Expert-led
Collaborative Work
Organize sufficient time for
teaching teams to improve
instruction with content experts
Personalized Time
and Attention
Match student grouping,
learning time, technology
and program to individual
student needs
Empowering
Curricula Instruction
and Assessment
Uphold rigorous, college-and-
career-ready standards and use
effective curricula, instructional
strategies, and assessments
to achieve them
Maximized
Teaching Talent
Attract and retain the best teachers,
ensure all teachers have ongoing access
to growth-oriented feedback, and design
and assign roles and responsibilities to
match skills to school and student need
Responsive
School Community
Ensure students are deeply known and
more intensive social and emotional
supports are integrated when necessary
Growth-oriented
Adult Culture
Grow a collaborative culture where
teachers and leaders share ownership
of a common instructional vision and
student learning
Transformational School Leadership

48. Most districts have opportunities to
strategically raise class size…
47
Source: Elementary Grades Homeroom file Oct 2009; Includes elementary schools and K-8 schools (grades K0-5); excludes classes that are special
education 60%+, ELL 60%+; includes Advanced Work classes; excludes schools with Two-Way bilingual program; excludes classes with “mixed” grade
(mainly due to teacher data NA); ERS analysis
21
22 22 2222
25
28
31
Grades K-2 Grades 3-5 Grades 6-8 Grades 9-12
In this District Class Sizes are Far from Maximum
and Do Not Vary by Grade
Average class size Contract max

49. …and to target class sizes to priority subjects
and students
*Core class defined as ELA, Math, Science, Social Studies; Non-core defined as Arts, Computer Literacy, Vocational, Foreign Language
Source: District A and B 9th and 12th grade course data (internal – Resource Mapping presentation); ERS analysis
In these districts class sizes for core subjects are higher than non-core
27
21
18 18
District T District L
Average Class Size by Course Type
9th Grade Core Class Size* 12th Grade Non-Core Class Size
48

50. Most schools have the opportunity to
optimize time by subject…
49Source: ERS analysis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ES 7-9 10-12
PE
Electives
Foreign Language
Science
Social Studies
Math
ELA
Typical District Percent of Student Time
By Grade and Subject

51. ….And by student need
50
Note: % Time is based on the instructional time throughout the school day. It only includes periods entered in PowerSchool and does not include passing time, lunch, recess or
maintenance/homeroom classes.
Source: ERS Analysis, CMS SY2013-2014 Course Schedule PowerSchool Data, CMS SY2012-2013 EOG Performance Data
22% 22%
22% 22%
16% 14%
16% 14%
2% 5%
Below Basic Proficient
%ofInstructionalTime
Prior Year ELA EOG
Avg. % of Time by Core Subject for Below Basic and Proficient Middle
School Students
Foreign Lang.
Social Studies
Science
ELA
Math

52. Many districts have an opportunity to increase
instructional time by increasing the school day
51
Sources: District figures are from Time and Attention in Urban High Schools: Lessons for School Systems (Frank, 2010) and from ERS analyses for the
Aspen CFO network. Leading Edge school figures are from Shields, R. A., and K. H. Miles. 2008. Strategic Designs: Lessons from Leading Edge Small
Urban High Schools. Watertown, MA: Education Resource Strategies. Charter school figures are from The Boston Foundation report (May 2010) “Out of
the Debate and Into the Schools.” ERS analysis.
963
1080
1110
1120
1125
1138
1160
1170
1180
1200
1210
1250
1250
1260
1276
1476
Chicago
PG County
LA
Boston
Seattle
St Paul
Milwaukee
Washington DC
Rochester
Denver
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
Philadelphia
Atlanta
Leading Edge schools
Boston Charters
Student Hours Per Year
National Avg. = 1170

53. To target individual attention to students, in the
short term, you can ...
52
To Support Sustainable Transformation
Invest transition
resources to
 Provide expert PD to increase teacher capacity to use individual
attention strategies
 Create and use formative assessments and tools to enable targeted
instruction and grouping
Lay the
groundwork for
long-term
change by…
 Build understanding of impact of targeted group sizes & teaching
effectiveness in strategic designs
To Reverse Misalignments
Reduce
spending by…
 Increasing general class size targets
 Increasing class size for specific low need students, grade levels, and
subjects
 Leveraging technology for high cost courses and selected lessons
Increase
spending to …
 Reduce group size for high need students, skills, grade levels and
subjects

54. How does Revere High provide personalized
learning to students?
Introduction: Revere High School has prioritized the 9th grade student
experience though a 9th grade academy. The academy is designed to
provide additional support and time to students as they face more rigorous
content through flipped learning and flexible groupings.
As you watch, consider:
 What strategies are they using to provide personalized learning?
 What are the resource implications of these strategies?
 What system-level implications of these strategies?
Video: Link
53Source: ERS

55. 10 Minute Break

56. Agenda
1. Setting the stage
Introduction and Current state of education funding
2. System 20/20
A lens for thinking about resource use and school system
transformation
3. Break
4. School Budget Hold’em
A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the
system level
5. Wrap-up
Tools and resources to drive change moving forward
55

57. Goal of this exercise:
Help District X use its limited resources strategically to improve
student achievement and meet our goals.
1. Identify the core needs
2. Consider broad range of investment and savings options
3. Weigh investment and savings options
4. Make investment and savings decisions
56

58.  Create a “hand” of impact and savings cards that
represents a new budget for District X
 Your hand must meet the district’s priorities (see
handout)
 Your hand must achieve a cost neutral status and
improve student achievement
The Object of the Game
57

59. What’s a Hold’em card?
Add 60 min of learning time
to the school day in the 25%
lowest performing schools
Extended learning time can raise
student achievement if it is
targeted on core instruction with
high quality teachers who are
expert in critical subject and
instructional areas.
1.7%
Student impact
points
Investment (+) or
Savings (-) as % of
budget
Explanation
Note: Extending learning time
can be costly. Ensure that the
schools in which you invest have
leaders and teaching staff who
can deliver high quality
instruction to struggling
students.
Note
There are also wild cards
that let you add more
savings or investment
options.Turnaround schools (+1)
Some cards when played
together get bonus points
[IGNORE FOR TODAY]
Time+

60. Things To Consider
 Select cards thoughtfully – consider your priorities
 Consider inter-relationships between cards and try to get
those bonus points
 Acknowledge approximation
 Be bold
 Consider different staffing allocations
 Use Wild Cards
 Have fun!
59

61. Let’s Play!
© Education Resource Strategies 2014

62. Directions:
61
Step 2
1 min
Choose someone to record decisions
online and someone to read the cards
Step 3
45 min
The card reader will read the cards aloud
(just the title and description), and your
group will collectively sort them into Yes
and No piles. Try to reach consensus,
but if you can’t, put it in a Maybe pile
Step 4
15 min
After your first pass, go back through your Maybe pile and make changes
in order to reach your target. Calculate your budget and student impact.
Step 5
2 min
Take stock: Consider the expected performance outcomes of your
choices – are you maximizing impact given resource limitations and
district priorities?
Step 1
5 min
Read the District X fact sheet individually. Note priorities and challenges.
Online Scoring Instructions
1. Go to:
erstrategies.org/scoresheet
2. Enter your team’s “Access
Token” (on your table)
3. Enter decisions as you go

63. Debrief on
Hold’em

64. Discussion Questions—from up on the balcony
63
1. What were the biggest insights and/or surprises in
your choices?
2. Which options are off the table or challenging, but
promising, interesting, or important? What must
change to make them a real option?
3. How did this exercise influence your thinking on:
a. How to improve outcomes with limited resources?
b. The use of impact data for leadership decision-making?

65. Agenda
1. Setting the stage
Introduction and Current state of education funding
2. System 20/20
A lens for thinking about resource use and school system
transformation
3. Break
4. School Budget Hold’em
A game to illustrate tradeoffs needed to drive success at the
system level
5. Wrap-up
Tools and resources to drive change moving forward
64

66. Today’s Essential Questions:
What does strategic resource use look
like in schools and systems?
What, therefore, must I know, do & ask
as superintendent to maximize the
impact of limited resources in my
system?
65

67. 66
Help ERS achieve our mission: to support
you!
ERS
Tools
ERS has a variety of free tools to support meaningful
change in your districts :
 Online Hold ‘Em
 System 20/20 Overview
 Resource Check
 DREAM
 School Funding Resource Guide
 Talent Decision Planner
 School Designer
 And lots more…
www.erstrategies.org