WORKING DRAFT

Last Modified 3/20/2015 9:03 AM Eastern Standard Time
Printed 3/10/2015 8:50 AM Eastern Standard Time

Boston Public Schools
Operational Review - Draft
March 5, 2015
CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY
Any use of this material without specific permission is strictly prohibited

INTRODUCTION

This report was done as part of an 8-week review at the request of the
Mayor’s office in collaboration with the district. Findings are preliminary
and indicate potential options for leadership consideration
What this work IS

What this work IS NOT

Exploration of potential options to
improve student achievement, lower
district costs and drive operational
efficiency

Estimates of ranges of savings to
identify magnitude of savings from
various options

Collaborative idea generation and
discussion with district to bring
insights to light

These are not recommendations
– Further analysis is required to
identify specific opportunities and
to implement
– Public conversations about
tradeoffs required for many
options
– Strategic process to weigh costs
and benefits of options would be
needed to transform to
recommendations

Exact analysis to predict how much
money the district will save

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 2|

INTRODUCTION

The core focus of this review is on student outcomes in
pursuing improved operational effectiveness and reduced costs, all while
engaging and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders
Multiple considerations are essential

▪ Ultimately, improved student outcomes is the

Cost
effectiveness

Student
outcomes

Operational
effectiveness

goal of any effort to reduce cost and inefficiency
and reallocate those funds where they can do
more for students
Beyond students, considering the impact on
teachers, parents, and other stakeholders is
critical to identifying the most beneficial and
feasible improvements

Stakeholder
engagement

Opportunities
Opportunities for
for BPS
BPS have
have been
been prioritized
prioritized
while
while keeping
keeping all
all of
of these
these factors
factors in
in mind
mind

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 3|

INTRODUCTION

Glossary of terms
Term

Definition

English Language Learner (ELL)

Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluency
in English appropriate with their grade level

Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Students who have been formally evaluated by BPS and have been found
to have a disability that requires additional resources to meet the student
need, beyond a traditional general education setting

Inclusion

Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the general
education and special education populations and is research proven to be a
better approach to special education for the entire student population

Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP is
designed by the school team to meet that student’s needs

Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy
(OTPT)

OT is individualized support for students to help them acquire basic skills for
daily living (e.g., self-grooming, self-feeding, self-dressing); PT is
individualized support for developing motor skills (e.g., walking, jumping,
lifting)

Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)

FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students

Office of Instructional and Information
Technology (OIIT)

OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technological
services and hardware to the employees and the students of the district

Pull-out vs. push-in

Current special education practices in BPS require the “pulling out” of
students from general education settings to receive additional resources; a
“push in” method leaves the student in the general education classroom,
while ensuring that the resources meet her/him where they are
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 4|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 5|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Executive summary

BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics much
different from the city of Boston and SWD and ELL populations that outpace
state and national averages

While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant
number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds thin
across the system and lessening the impact of resources on a per pupil basis

To concentrate resources more effectively for students, BPS can right-size the
district to reflect current and projected BPS enrollment

Over a quarter of the BPS budget goes towards Special Education, meaning that
small changes in student classification can translate to large BPS savings
and better learning environments for students. A move towards inclusion,
currently underway, has a 12-year horizon that – if executed well – will improve
special education student outcomes and lead to substantial cost savings

As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addresses
overextension issues, the BPS central office will have an opportunity to
address some of the misaligned parts of the organization, driving performance
and capturing operational efficiencies in other areas like transportation, food
services and maintenance

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 6|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Capturable, but time-sensitive

Overview of BPS opportunities

Right-size
the BPS
Footprint

Special
education

Transport

Food
Services

Maintenance

Capturable

Activity

Savings opportunity

▪ Consolidate ~30-50 schools

$50-85M /yr

▪ Sell 30-50 closed school buildings

$120-205M one-time

▪ Phase in of inclusion

$63M /yr after full phase-in
(currently FY26)

▪ External paraprofessionals

$9-11M /yr

▪ External related service providers

$8-10M /yr

▪ Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,

$6-19M /yr

▪ Target meal participation to improve

$5M /yr

▪ Centralize food preparation

$1-3M /yr

▪ Contract out for the 137 night

$1-3M /yr

▪ Contract out all maintenance to single

$1-3M /yr

FY16

FY17

FY18

Onetime

$1.7m savings per school

estimated value $4.1m per school

from current 0.16 mile

revenues

custodian work
contractor

▪▪ Immediate
Immediate opportunities
opportunities to
to save
save ~$20-40m
~$20-40m in
in FY16
FY16 ifif intense
intense focus
focus and
and execution
execution placed
placed on
on activities
activities
▪▪ With
With bold
bold decisions
decisions and
and focus,
focus, annual
annual savings
savings could
could total
total ~$200M
~$200M /yr,
/yr, and
and additional
additional $120-200m
$120-200m one-time
one-time
benefit
benefit

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 7|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
BPS’ per pupil spend is higher than peer averages, while just 36% of spend
gets to all students in the classroom
Per pupil spending
$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552
2

4/27/16

1 14% of per pupil
dollars are going to
central office
functions and
support

4/27/
16
1

4/27/1
6

3

20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students

4/27/16 Trans- 4/27/16
portation

▪▪

Central
Central office
office
support
functions
support functions
capture
capture aa lot
lot of
of
spend,
with
spend, with
subpar
subpar systems
systems
for
managing
for managing
towards
towards
improved
improved operatoperations
outcomes
ions outcomes

▪▪

An
An overextended
overextended
BPS
BPS footprint
footprint
stretches
stretches limited
limited
funds
over
funds over aa
large
large number
number of
of
schools
schools

▪▪

Special
Special education
education
drives
drives per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures but
but
only
reaches
only reaches
20%
20% of
of students
students

$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%
is the “foundation” of each school
These funds are spread across all 128
schools

4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 Adminis- General
trators
education
classrooms

1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 8|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BPS Potential Opportunities
Opportunity to
reorganize
central office
Up to ~$27M
ongoing reduction

Opportunity to
consolidate ~3050 schools
~$51-85m/yr plus
~$120-200m
one-time

Opportunity to
speed SPED
reforms
~$17-21M in FY16
and ~$63M longerterm annually
Opportunities to
improve
operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr

DRAFT

Key facts
▪ Superintendent has 18 direct reports, making system goal-setting, alignment and focus difficult
▪ System goals are not tracked systematically, with a deep need for performance management systems to align central
metrics that matter (e.g., students eating lunch, buses on time) with student outcomes and manage staff and system
performance better
▪ If system moves towards right-sizing, up to $27M may be possible through ongoing reductions in support to smaller
footprint

▪ BPS enrollment down 17% over last 20 years and 50% since 1970s
▪ BPS currently has ~93K total physical seats with only ~54K seats filled
▪ The system is overextended with declining dollars stretched over, same number of buildings and declining student


count
Consolidating 30-50 schools could reduce annual spend by ~$51-85M
Building sales could bring additional one-time ~$120-200M, while avoiding additional, unneeded CapEx
Right-sized system would concentrate more dollars in fewer schools, improving quality and breadth of student
resources

▪ Moving Boston in-line with state and national averages is better for students and translates to ~$5M saved for every %
point decline

▪ Outsourcing paras and specialists can reap immediate savings of $15-$20M,but requires discussions with

stakeholders
The move to inclusion, already underway, can serve BPS students significantly better, but comes with substantial
upfront investments whose financial benefits will not begin coming until 4 years out
There is an opportunity to think about inclusion sequencing to get benefits faster and reduce net investments

▪ BPS bus riders average a 0.16 mile walk to their bus stop, 59% of students walk less than a 0.25 mile
▪ Moving the target walk to a 0.25 miles walk would reduce bus stops and could save $6-20M
▪ Moving to district-wide maintenance contract would align incentives with contractor and could save ~$5M in annual
maintenance costs

▪ BPS is currently spending more per pupil on contracted meals, which student taste tests view as lower quality, and can
improve participation, changes in delivery and participation could capture ~$2-8M

▪▪ Immediate
Immediate opportunities
opportunities for
for savings
savings in
in FY16
FY16 total
total ~$20-40m
~$20-40m ifif real
real focus
focus is
is brought
brought to
to opportunity
opportunity areas
areas
▪▪ With
With bold
bold decisions
decisions and
and focus,
focus, savings
savings over
over the
the next
next 2-3
2-3 years
years can
can total
total ~$200M
~$200M // yr,
yr, with
with additional
additional one-time
one-time benefits
benefits
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 9|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability
and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
3. Accountability (15)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)

Most desired values
1. Being collaborative (39)
2. Accountability (33)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)

Least experienced values
1. Efficiency (28)
2. Equity (27)
3. Accountability (25);
Employee focus (25)
4. Fear (12);
Trust (12)

Least desired values
1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)

DRAFT

4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)

Therefore,
Therefore, BPS
BPS could
could consider
consider
▪▪ Defining
Defining what
what accountability
accountability looks
looks like
like for
for its
its Central
Central Office
Office
▪▪ Reducing
Reducing the
the internal
internal politics
politics and
and bureaucracy
bureaucracy currently
currently experienced
experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 10
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but the
number of schools has remained relatively constant

DRAFT

Schools vs. student population
# of school programs, # BPS students
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

BPS
BPS can
can reduce
reduce
its
its footprint
footprint
based
based on
on the
the
large
difference
large difference
between
between its
its
enrollment
enrollment and
and
its
its capacity
capacity
Projections
Projections
suggest
suggest no
no
additional
additional space
space
will
will be
be needed
needed
in
in the
the future
future

4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/27
/16 27 27 27 27 27 /16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 /16
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
With
With6students
students
decreasing,
the
funding
each
student
must
continue
6 6 6 decreasing,
6
6 6 the
6 6funding
6 6 for
6for6each
6 6student
6 6 must
6
6 continue

to
to cover
cover the
the system’s
system’s “fixed
“fixed costs”
costs” including
including the
the buildings
buildings but
but also
also the
the
principals
principals and
and school
school staff
staff which
which are
are present
present at
at each
each location
location
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 11
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect
~$1.7M before property sales
Description

Prior cost

▪ With fewer staff, BPS could commensurately
Consolidate
classroom staff

“Foundation”
for school staff

▪ The “foundation” money is no longer needed

$3.8m

$2.3-2.8m

$1.0-1.5m

$200k

$0

$200k

$166k

$50k

$116k

$191k

$57k

$134k

$260k

$0

$260k

by the school

▪ Custodial support is no longer required at

Average
building
maintenance

▪ Maintenance is no longer required but may

the building but may increase by 30% at
receiving schools
1

increase by 30% at receiving schools
1

▪ The closed buildings no longer needs to
spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)

Total
1 Assumed

Savings after
closing

reduce teaching staff
The average teacher – student ratio goes
from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162

Average
custodial
support

Average
utilities

Cost after
closing

DRAFT

$1.7- 2.2m

2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1

Source: Team analysis; BPS Office of Finance

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 12
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2 While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS

DRAFT

▪▪ Expanded
Expanded beforebefore- and
and after-school
after-school
programming
programming for
for students
students in
in all
all
schools
schools

▪▪ ~$51-85M
~$51-85M in
in run-rate
run-rate savings
savings

garnered
garnered from
from closing
closing 30
30 –– 50
50
schools
schools

▪▪ Guaranteed
Guaranteed set
set of
of electives
electives or
or
specials
specials at
at all
all schools
schools (e.g.,
(e.g.,
Physical
Physical Education,
Education, Art)
Art)

▪▪ Greater
Greater portfolio
portfolio of
of teacher
teacher supports
supports
and
and resources
resources (e.g.,
(e.g., instructional
instructional
coaches,
coaches, first-year
first-year mentors,
mentors,
counselors)
counselors)

▪▪ ~$120M
~$120M in
in one-time
one-time cash
cash from
from

property
property sales
sales of
of 30
30 –– 50
50 schools
schools

▪▪ Funds
Funds to
to build
build 11 state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art

high
high school
school (~$30M)
(~$30M) and
and 99 state-ofstate-ofthe-art
the-art lower
lower schools
schools (~$10M
(~$10M each)
each)

While
While these
these are
are possibilities,
possibilities, the
the school
school district
district will
will have
have the
the ability
ability to
to choose
choose
how
how itit reinvests
reinvests the
the money,
money, taking
taking into
into account
account the
the tradeoffs
tradeoffs between
between
consistency
consistency across
across schools
schools and
and school
school autonomy
autonomy
Source: BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 13
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 SPED is ~25% of the BPS spend and 73% of its costs are in 3
areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m

24% of BPS budget

School
level

Central $ 136m (51%)

As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget

Transportation Private placement tuition

$ 49m

$ 37m

Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m

Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses

Sub/sep
teacher

Sub/sep
aides

$ 64m

$ 23m

Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m

DRAFT

Resource
teacher

Compliance
program
support

$ 21m

$ 12m

$ 129m (49%)

Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and
ministrators, supports
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m

$ 3m

Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m

$ 2m

$ 2m

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 14
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 BPS schools are classifying students at widely variable rates

DRAFT

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD, by school
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16





There are 14 schools who
classified 100% of the students
referred and 35 who referred 0%
Variable rates reflect differing
school cultures around
classification
A centralized auditing process
can narrow the band of
variability
The variable classification rates
imply that some students are
receiving services they do not
need, while others are missing
students who do need extra
supports

Deeper data dives, at the level of IEP are needed to understand whether students
in these programs are being classified, when they may be over classified
Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification is
systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

* Schools with less than 200 student enrollments
Source: Office of Special Education data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 15
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
State classification rates, 2011

DRAFT

Massachusetts district classification rates, 2015

% of students classified students with disabilities (SWD)

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

SWD vs. Free and Reduced Meal (FARM) rates by Mass.
District, 2015

There are districts with similar challenges and
lower SPED %

% of students SWD, % of students FARM

% FARM
4/27/16

Districts with equal or greater FARM, but lower SWD:
– Revere
– Everett
– Brockton
– Lynn
– Chelsea
– Springfield

4/27/16
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts” in MA, many of
which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 16
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 BPS is increasing special education inclusion, a strong
research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities

DRAFT

Inclusion is good for both special
education and general education students

BPS will move to full inclusion as a
district by 2019

BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD
into inclusion classrooms, leaving just
those with disabilities that make
inclusion inappropriate in substantially
separate classrooms, movement of
roughly 2,500 students

The BPS plan is to create more inclusion
classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
zone at a time, at the rate of one zone a
year, over five years

A 2014 state of Massachusetts report
found that across the state, “students with
disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.”1

A 2013 BPS study found that general
education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2

BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion
classrooms in 2013

1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 Office of Special Education City Council presentation, June 2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 17
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3 SPED plan for roll-out currently spreads $326M in additional costs DRAFT
over 10 years, with eventual, annual savings reaching $63M, annually
Additional classrooms will add inclusion capacity
# inclusion classrooms added annually

Special education annual budget for classroom teaching will grow by ~$6M
annually at peak of 10 of roll out, with eventual budget shrinking by $65M / yr
$M, SPED classroom budget

▪▪

The
The Special
Special Education
Education
department’s
department’s plan
plan for
for inclusion
inclusion
is
phased
in
fully
over
is phased in fully over 13
13
years,
years, calling
calling for
for gradual
gradual
adoption,
adoption, with
with two
two networks
networks (A(AG)
G) beginning
beginning the
the process
process every
every
year
year for
for the
the first
first five
five years
years

▪▪

By
By the
the final
final year
year of
of the
the roll-out
roll-out
additional
costs
for
inclusion
additional costs for inclusion
will
will grow
grow to
to ~$43M
~$43M annually
annually

▪▪

As
As critical
critical mass
mass of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
grow,
a
classrooms grow, a tipping
tipping point
point
will
occur
allowing
elimination
will occur allowing elimination
of
of sub/separate
sub/separate classrooms
classrooms
at
an
increasing
rate,
at an increasing rate, beginning
beginning
in
in SY16-17
SY16-17

▪▪

The
The annual
annual SPED
SPED budget
budget
should
should drop
drop below
below historical
historical
spends
beginning
in
spends beginning in SY17-18
SY17-18

▪▪

The
The total
total $326M
$326M cost
cost of
of moving
moving
to
to inclusion
inclusion will
will be
be fully
fully paid
paid
for
for by
by the
the final
final year
year (SY26-27)
(SY26-27)

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16

4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16

Source: Interviews with Office of Special Education

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 18
|

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Potential action items

DRAFT

Decisions / actions
Opportunity to
reorganize central
office
Up to ~$27M ongoing
reduction
Opportunity to consolidate 30-50 schools

▪ Decisions around central office alignment with new schools footprint will need to
happen with school closings to immediately align support as befits new district

▪ Given calendar constraints, strategic decision to address district overextension and
consolidate 30-50 schools in next ~2 years needs to happen immediately for
planning to begin

~$51-85m/yr plus ~$120200m one-time

▪ Given the calendar and union restrictions, a decision on outsourcing
Opportunity to speed
SPED reforms
~$17-21M in FY16 and
~$63M longer-term
annually


paraprofessionals and specialists should be made immediately, with potential
blowback weighed
Reassess pace and transition plans for SPED inclusion strategy to shorten time to
benefits and reduce financial investment to get there
Decisions to drive down SPED rates more in line with the state and nation will
require decision and cultural shifts

▪ Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthen
Opportunities to
improve operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr

Source: Team analysis


walks to bus stops and not guarantee busing on the current scale
Outsourcing custodial and maintenance services can capture savings immediately,
but may require a reduction in unionized employees
Moving toward in-housing all food services needs to be researched and aligned
with capital planning process
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 19
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

– System performance
– Human Capital
– Organization

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 20
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Overview of BPS
Overview

Key Insights


54K students, down 6% in 10 years
Highly diverse system
– 20% of students Sped
– 30% students ELL, and growing
– 78% qualify for free or reduced
meals, only 8 Mass. districts
higher

Solid performance vs. other US urban
Districts
Throughout the 1990s and early
2000s, Boston was closing gap with
MA performance, now just keeping
pace with MA growth

BPS performance, while continuing to track with the
state, consistently lags state performance by
significant margins across all populations


$1.1B total budget,
$18K per student vs. $16K in peer
districts and $14K in Mass. districts
– 45% spent on central functions
– ~25% SpEd
– ~10% Transportation

Of the $18K, only $4,051 gets directly to the typical
student, with the rest going to system supports
The number has grown by 25% since 2005
because of steady budgets and decreasing student
counts, with no additional increase in student
services due to an overstretched system

Current footprint puts significant
burden on the system that doesn’t
improve learning
Lack of central office strategy,
alignment, and efficient design
Inconsistent SpEd classification

Demographics


Student
Outcomes

Finances

Key Issues

DRAFT




Teacher population far more diverse than national
pool, but lags student and city populations
Only a handful of Mass. districts (Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea, Springfield) have higher
poverty rates, but lower % SpEd classification
Enrollment projected to continue to decline
modestly, but if the charter cap is lifted, would
accelerate rapidly

Current footprint could be 30-50 buildings smaller,
liberating ~$35M annually and $120M in one time
sales for more things that really help kids
Central office hunger for better culture and
operations keyed in on more accountability
Small improvements in SpEd classification and
delivery model would be better for kids and finances
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 21
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The BPS budget allocates 30% of spending to teacher salaries,
another 26% to benefits and teaching services

DRAFT

BPS budget break down
%, FY2013
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

Teacher
Teacher salaries,
salaries,
benefits
and
benefits and other
other
teaching
teaching services
services
comprised
comprised 56%
56% of
of the
the
FY13
FY13 annual
annual budget
budget

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

Instructional Materials,
Equipment and Technology 4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

Source: Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 22
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The FY15 budget has a number of large spending items

Spending item

DRAFT

Amount

% of FY15 budget

Personnel


Regular education teacher

$160M

14%

Employee benefits (all BPS)

$138M

12%

Transportation

$57M

5%

Operations




Food service

$36M

3%

Facilities management

$26M

2%

Custodial services

$22M

2%

Schools


School administration

$51M

5%

Bilingual education

$24M

2%

Special Education transportation

$45M

4%

SPED



Private placement tuition

$41M

4%

Special Education inclusion

$34M

3%

Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 23
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Over 50% of spending comes from instructional variable costs
Total spending

Fixed
costs

$ 232m (20%)

$ 1,178m

Variable costs

$ 947m

Non
$ 339m (29%)
instructional

Payments
to out-ofdistrict
schools1

Ops and
maintenance

Admin

$ 134m

$ 47m

$ 30m

Insurance, Pupil
Retirement services
and other

$ 196m

$ 125m

Guidance
,
counseling, etc.
$ 17m

DRAFT

Instructional

Classroom
and
specialist
teachers.

Other
teaching
services

Instructional
leadership

$ 352m

$ 105m

$ 65m

$ 608m (51%)

Profess- Instructional
ional
Develop- materials
ment

$ 53m

$ 33m

1 Includes private and charter schools
Source: BPS 2013 budget, Massachusetts Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 24
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

BPS provides 55% of general fund spending directly to schools

DRAFT

BPS budget break down
%, FY2015
Source of funds

Amount
4/27/16

Federal funds
(ARRA)

$2.1M

FY15 Lease
purchase

$11.2M

4/27/16
4/27/16

Grants

General funds

$134M

$975M

School
budgets

Total: $1,122M
ARRA
ARRA and
and grant
grant funding
funding generally
generally has
has little
little flexibility,
flexibility, and
and cannot
cannot
be
used
for
purposes
other
than
what
they
were
initially
identified
be used for purposes other than what they were initially identified

Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 25
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Nearly all spending is driven by personnel at schools and central office
DRAFT
BPS budget break down
%, FY2015

BPS budget break down, by central and school spending
$M, FY2015
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27
/16

Health
ins. &
pension

4/27/16

Choice
transport.

SPED
transport.

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/1
6

4/27/16

Custodians

4/27/16
4/27/1
6

4/27/16

4/27/16

Maintenance

Misc.
4/27/16
HQ
equipment

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

ComInsurance
puters &
equipment

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27
/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Regu- 4/27/16 BilinMisc.
SpeAdmin- 4/27/
lared.
gual
teach- cialist
istrators 16
Teachers
teacher ing per- teacher
sonnel
(coaches,
librarians,
substitute

Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report

4/27/16

SPED
resource

4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
SPED Pro4/27/1
itinerant gram
6
support

Counselor

Coor4/27/
dinators 16

4/27/16 Other
4/27/
support 16
personnel

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 26
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

It costs BPS $4.6M to run the average BPS school, excluding support
costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services

DRAFT

130 total schools
4/27/16

Custodial
support

36 teachers

1 principal,
1 secretary,
and others

418 students

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
Thousands

4/27/16

1 Does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers
2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 27
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

DRAFT

BPS has an above average per pupil expenditure, partly driven by region
Average per pupil expenditure
$, thousands per student in the state,
2010-2011
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

$, per student by Mass. district,
2012-20132

New England
states

Massachusetts/
Boston

Group
average

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Boston: $17,589

▪▪

MA Avg.: $14,544

▪▪

▪▪
▪▪

Massachusetts
Massachusetts and
and New
New
England
more
broadly
England more broadlyhave
have
significantly
significantlyhigher
higher per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures due
due to
to
historically
historically high
high investment
investment
in
education
in education
BPS’
BPS’higher
higher per
per pupil
pupil average
average
in
the
state
of
Massachusetts
in the state of Massachusetts
is
is driven
driven mostly
mostly by
by costs
costs of
of
living
in
Boston
living in Boston
The
The per
per pupil
pupil average
average of
of peer
peer
set
set of
of national
national districts
districts is
is
3
$15,755
$15,7553
When
When cost
cost of
of living
living
adjustments
adjustments are
are made
made to
to
national
national peer
peer set,
set, Boston’s
Boston’s
per
per pupil
pupil spending
spending declines
declines
to
to $12,472,
$12,472, below
below the
the peer
peer
average
average of
of $13,109
$13,109

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 NCES 2010-2011

2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds

3 Peer districts and methodology in the appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 28
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Of BPS’ per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom

DRAFT

Per pupil spending
$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552


14% of per pupil
dollars are going to
central office functions
and support

4/27/
16
1

4/27/1
6

20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students

4/27/16 Trans- 4/27/16
portation

▪▪

Central
Central office
office
support
support functions
functions
capture
a
capture a lot
lot of
of
spend,
and
needs
spend, and needs
updated
updated systems
systems
for
managing
for managing
towards
towards
improved
improved operatoperations
outcomes
ions outcomes

▪▪

An
An overextended
overextended
BPS
BPS footprint
footprint
stretches
stretches limited
limited
funds
funds over
over aa
large
large number
number of
of
schools
schools

▪▪

Special
Special education
education
drives
drives per
per pupil
pupil
expenditures
expenditures but
but
only
only reaches
reaches
20%
20% of
of students
students

$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%
is the “foundation” of each school
These funds are spread across all 128
schools

4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 Adminis- General
trators
education
classrooms

1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 29
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

SPED is ~25% of BPS annual spending and 73% of SPED costs are in
three areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m

24% of BPS budget

School
level

Central $ 136m (51%)

As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget

Transportation Private placement tuition

$ 49m

$ 37m

Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m

Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses

Sub/sep
teacher

Sub/sep
aides

$ 64m

$ 23m

Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m

DRAFT

Resource
teacher

Compliance
program
support

$ 21m

$ 12m

$ 129m (49%)

Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and
ministrators, supports
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m

$ 3m

Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m

$ 2m

$ 2m

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 30
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The BPS budget has not accounted for student declines…
BPS budgets and student population since 2005
$ BPS budget, millions; # of students
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

In
In 2005,
2005, BPS
BPS had
had aa per
per
pupil
pupil spending
spending rate
rate of
of
$15,915,
by
2015,
that
$15,915, by 2015, that
same
same rate
rate had
had grown
grown
to
to $20,568
$20,568

▪▪

Because
Because the
the BPS
BPS
footprint
footprint did
did not
not adjust
adjust
with
with population,
population, the
the per
per
pupil
spend
is
forced
pupil spend is forced up
up
to
cover
fixed
operating
to cover fixed operating
costs
costs

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained
its
its per
per pupil
pupil spending
spending
rate
rate in
in 2015,
2015, the
the budget
budget
should
have
fallen
should have fallen to
to
$864M,
23%
less
than
$864M, 23% less than
FY15’s
FY15’s budget
budget

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, includes
grant funds and other sources

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 31
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

…nor has FTE count

DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16

BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009
# of BPS FTE’s, # of students

Source: BPS Human Capital data and Enrollment data

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

(7-10%)

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to decrease
decrease
staff
staff with
with future
future enrollment
enrollment
trends
and
historical
trends and historical central
central
office
office FTE
FTE counts,
counts, BPS
BPS
would
would shrink
shrink by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%

▪▪

In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
2014-15, that
that ratio
ratio had
had
fallen
to
5.0
fallen to 5.0

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
student
to
FTE
2009-10 student to FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTE’s,
FTE’s, 902
902 fewer
fewer
than
than six
six years
years ago,
ago, at
at aa
savings
savings of
of ~$60-70M
~$60-70M

▪▪

By
By operating
operating its
its current
current
number
of
schools,
number of schools, BPS
BPS
cannot
cannot currently
currently bring
bring
school
school staff
staff down
down
commensurately
commensurately

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 32
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

The share of school-based employees has remained mostly constant

DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16

FTE break down
% of BPS employees
The change
in share is
representati
ve of smaller
school staff
numbers
with slightly
increased
central office
shares

SY 20092010

SY 20102011

SY 20112012

SY 20122013

SY 20132014

SY 20142015

The
The ratio
ratio of
of school-level
school-level to
to central
central office
office BPS
BPS
employees
employees constant
constant over
over the
the past
past 66 years,
years, with
with aa
slight
slight uptick
uptick in
in central
central to
to school
school ratios
ratios in
in recent
recent years
years

Source: BPS employee data, Office of Human Capital

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 33
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

BPS is a diverse system, whose demographics differ from
Boston overall
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Other/multiracial
Racial break down
% of total population, out of 100%
4/27/16

▪▪
4/27/16 4/27/16

▪▪
4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/161

4/27/162

4/27/16
4/27/166

4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/163

▪▪

Poverty indicators
% of population in poverty
Students at 185%
of federal poverty
line or below

▪▪

Households at or below
185% of federal poverty
level for a family of four
BPS students4

City of Boston5

▪▪

DRAFT

White
White BPS
BPS teachers
teachers
represent
30%
represent 30% more
more of
of the
the
teaching
teaching force
force than
than of
of the
the
city
city of
of Boston
Boston and
and nearly
nearly 55
times
times that
that of
of the
the student
student
body
body
BPS
BPS Hispanic
Hispanic students
students
represent
double
represent double the
the
student
student body
body share
share to
to the
the
Hispanic
share
of
the
City
Hispanic share of the City of
of
Boston
and
four
times
the
Boston and four times the
share
share of
of the
the teaching
teaching force
force
The
The Black
Black share
share of
of the
the
BPS
student
body
is
BPS student body is >50%
>50%
greater
than
the
teaching
greater than the teaching
force
force and
and of
of the
the city
city as
as aa
whole
whole
BPS
BPS teaching
teaching force
force is
is
significantly
more
diverse
significantly more diverse
than
than teachers
teachers nationally
nationally
BPS
BPS students
students are
are in
in
greater
need
than
the
greater need than the
population
population of
of the
the City
City of
of
Boston
Boston

1 BPS at a Glance, SY 2013-2014;
2 BPS employee data, Jan 1, 2015;
3 US Census Bureau, 2010
4 BPS data, 2013, last time data collected on this measure
5 Estimate from CLR research, 2010
6 EdWeek, Profiles of teachers in the US, 2011
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 34
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free and
reduced meals than the state and nation

DRAFT

Free and reduced meal rate
% of students in state receiving free or reduced meals 1
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

% of students in district receiving free or reduced meals 2

New England
states

Boston: 78%

Massachusetts/
Boston

Group
average

▪▪

Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, by
locate and percentage of students in school eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (FRPL): Fall 2010
2012 MA Avg.: 25.7%

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

Locate
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

BPS
BPS outpaces
outpaces
the
the nation
nation and
and
Massachusett
Massachusett
ss districts
districts in
in the
the
percentage
percentage of
of
students
students
qualifying
qualifying for
for
free
free and
and
reduced
reduced meals
meals
BPS
is
more
BPS is more in
in
line
line with
with urban
urban
districts,
districts, where
where
38%
38% of
of these
these
districts
districts have
have
greater
greater than
than
75%
75% of
of
students
students
qualifying
qualifying for
for
free
free and
and
reduced
reduced meals
meals

Percentage of students in school eligible for FRPL

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

1 US Dept. of Education, 2011
2 Kidscount data, 2012
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 35
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

DRAFT

State classification rates
% of students in state classified SPED1
Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by State 2009-10
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Nebraska
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Iowa
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

% of students in district classified SPED2
Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by MA district 2013

Boston

2013 MA Avg.

New England
states

▪▪

▪▪

Massachusetts/
Boston

Group
average

Massachusetts
Massachusetts has
has historically
historically
higher
higher SPED
SPED numbers
numbers due
due to
to being
being
aa leader
leader in
in SPED
SPED beginning
beginning in
in the
the
1970s
1970s –– their
their being
being higher
higher than
than
national
national averages
averages is
is not
not aa
reflection
reflection of
of any
any state
state policies,
policies,
but
but of
of state
state culture
culture
Assuming
Assuming direct
direct labor
labor aligns
aligns with
with
the
number
of
students,
the number of students, BPS
BPS could
could
save
save roughly
roughly $5M
$5M for
for every
every one
one
percentage
percentage drop
drop in
in classification
classification
–– Aligning
Aligning with
with state
state average
average
could
could translate
translate to
to $10-15M
$10-15M in
in
savings
savings
–– Aligning
Aligning with
with New
New England
England
average
of
16.2%
average of 16.2% could
could
capture
capture $15-18M
$15-18M

1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011
2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409
“districts”
in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 36
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

SWD and FARM classification are correlated across MA districts

DRAFT

Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status 1
% of students in district, 2013-2014
4/27/16
% of district FARM students

▪▪

4/27/16

▪▪

▪▪

Districts
Districts with
with equal
equal or
or
greater
greater FARM,
FARM, but
but lower
lower
SWD:
SWD:
–– Revere,
Revere, Everett,
Everett,
Brockton,
Brockton, Lynn,
Lynn, Chelsea,
Chelsea,
Springfield
Springfield
Districts
Districts with
with equal
equal or
or
greater
FARM,
but
higher
greater FARM, but higher
SWD:
SWD:
–– Lawrence,
Lawrence, Fall
Fall River,
River,
Holyoke
Holyoke
AA 2014
2014 Massachusetts
Massachusetts study
study
found
that
low-income
found that low-income
students
students in
in the
the state
state were
were
identified
as
eligible
for
identified as eligible for
special
special education
education services
services
at
at substantially
substantially higher
higher
rates
rates than
than non-low-income
non-low-income
students
students

4/27/16
% students classified with disabilities

1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 37
|

SYSTEM OVERVIEW

BPS’ English Language Learners population continues to grow,
making it among the highest in national peer set

DRAFT

Percentage of ELL students
% of student body classified as ELL
This represented a raw
change of +7,656 students

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

▪▪

▪▪

4/27/
16
1

4/27/1
6

San 4/27/
Fran- 16
cisco1

4/27/1 4/27/
6
16
1

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/
16

4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27/16 4/2
6
7/1
6

41%
41% of
of BPS
BPS
students
students now
now
identify
identify as
as
Hispanic
Hispanic
BPS’
BPS’FY16
FY16
Weighted
Weighted
Student
Student Formula
Formula
allocates
allocates aa
blended
blended rate
rate of
of
$1,677
$1,677 per
per ELL
ELL
student
student
At
At FY16
FY16 rates,
rates,
this
this 10%
10% change
change
would
would add
add
$12.8M
$12.8M to
to
district
district needs
needs

4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27/1
6
6

1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 – 2011 school year
Source: NCES 2010-11, 2012 – 2013; adjusted MA DESE reporting

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 38
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

– System performance
– Human Capital
– Organization

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 39
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

System performance summary

BPS, beginning in the late1990s, began a transformation that brought it
national recognition as a high-performing, urban system. A 2010 report1
on the world’s most improved systems identified Boston as one of the
20 systems in the world – and one of just 3 in the US – to make
significant, systemic, and sustained improvements in student
achievement during the period from 1995-2009

Since 2009, BPS’ momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with
Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early
2000s, is annually persistent

While BPS’ ELL population performs almost exactly as well as the
BPS student average and performs nearly as well as Massachusetts’ ELL
population, BPS’ SPED population lags all BPS students dramatically
and continues to lag Massachusetts’ SPED population significantly

The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their
white peers has not narrowed much in recent years

1 McKinsey and Company, "How the world's most improved school systems keep
getting better," 2010

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 40
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Reading scores show frequent performance above Large City index
but below National average
Nation

Grade 4 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013

Boston

DRAFT

Large city

Grade 8 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013

4/27/161 4/27/161
4/27/16

1

4/27/161
4/27/16
4/27/163
4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/16

1

4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/163

4/27/161
4/27/161

4/27/161
4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/16

4/27/161

1

4/27/16 4/27/16
1

1

4/27/161

4/27/161
4/27
/16

05

07

09

11

2013

4/27
/16

05

07

09

11

2013

BPS reading is beginning to decline

▪ After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS’ performance

has stalled
Reading scores in particular are beginning to decline

Note: The NAEP Reading scale ranges from 0 to 500
1 Significantly different (P <.05) from 2013
2 Significantly different (P <.05) from Large City in 2013
3 Significantly different (P <.05) from Nation in 2013
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 41
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Math scores show frequent performance above Large City index
and only slightly below National average
Nation

Grade 4 mathematics
Average scale scores: 2003-2013

4/27/16

1

4/27/161

4/27/161 4/27/161

4/27/16

3

Large city

4/27/162

4/27/161

4/27/16

1
4/27/161 4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/161

4/27/161
1

1

1

4/27
/16

4/27/16

4/27/161

4/27/161

1

4/27/161

4/27/161

4/27/161

Boston

Grade 8 mathematics
Average scale scores: 2003-2013

4/27/161
4/27/161

DRAFT

4/27/161
1

4/27/161

4/27/161

05

07

09

11

2013

4/27
/16

05

07

09

11

2013

BPS math has leveled off

▪ After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS’ performance

has fallen in line with the national trajectory
Math scores were rising rapidly but have recently begun to
plateau

Note: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500
1 Significantly different (P <.05) from 2013
2 Significantly different (P <.05) from Large City in 2013
3 Significantly different (P <.05) from Nation in 2013
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 42
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS tracks with, but consistently lags state districts in
MCAS performance

DRAFT

BPS student performance
3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced

3rd grade Math1
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 05 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
10th grade
ELA
6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

4/ 4/27
27 /16
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: MA DESE

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27 4/
4/
4/
4/ 4/
4/
/16
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1
/1
/1
/1 /1
/1
10th grade
Math
6
6
6
6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16

4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1
/1 math
/1 /1in /1
/1
1 MA only started
testing
3rd /1
grade
2006
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

4/27/16

4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

4/27 4/
/16 27
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

▪▪ While
While BPS
BPS

tracks
tracks with
with the
the
state,
Boston
state, Boston
consistently
consistently
underperforms
underperforms
state
state
averages
averages

▪▪ BPS
BPS students
students

are
are narrowing
narrowing
the
the gap
gap by
by 10
10thth
grade,
grade, but
but are
are
starting
starting
significantly
significantly
behind
behind their
their
peers
peers in
in the
the
early
early grades
grades

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 43
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS SPED students lag state districts in MCAS performance
by even larger margins

DRAFT

BPS SPED student performance
3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced

3rd grade Math
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/164/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade ELA
6
6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/27/16

4/27
/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade 6Math 6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
27
/1
6

Source: MA DESE

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

BPS
BPS SPED
SPED
students
students are
are
tracking
tracking with
with
state
state
performance,
performance,
but
but with
with aa
significant
significant gap
gap
in
in perfor-mance
perfor-mance
from
from their
their
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
peers
peers

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/27
/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 44
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass state
averages in MCAS performance

DRAFT

BPS ELL student performance
3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced

3rd grade Math
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪ BPS
BPS ELL
ELL

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade ELA
6
6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/27/16

4/27
/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
/1
10th grade 6Math 6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
27
/1
6

Source: MA DESE

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

4/27/16

students
students rival
rival
the
the perforperformance
mance of
of MA
MA
ELL
ELL students
students

▪▪ BPS
BPS ELL
ELL

students’
students’
scores
scores are
are
consistently
consistently at
at
or
or near
near overall
overall
BPS
BPS perforperformance
mance

4/27/16

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/27
/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 45
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th
4/27/16
4/27/16
grade ELA being an exception
4/27/16

DRAFT

4/27/16

BPS non-white student performance
3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced

3rd grade Math1
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪ White
White BPS
BPS

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 05 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1
10th grade
6 6ELA
6
6 6 6 6 6 6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/27/16
4/27 4/
4/
4/
4/ 4/
4/
/16
27 27 27 27 27 27
/1
/1
/1
/1 /1
/1
10th grade
6 Math
6
6
6
6
6
% of students proficient or advanced

4/
27
/1
6

4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/ 4/
/16 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27 27
/1 /1 /1
/1 /1
/1 math
/1 /1in /1
/1
1 MA only started
testing
3rd /1
grade
2006
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Source: MA DESE

students
students
perform
perform at
at or
or
better
better than
than the
the
state
average
state average

4/ 4/27
27 /16
/1
6

▪▪ Students
Students of
of

color
color
consistently
consistently
achieve
achieve at
at aa
rate
nearly
rate nearly
half
half that
that of
of
white
white students
students
in
in the
the early
early
grades
grades

4/27/16
4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

4/27/16
4/27 4/
/16 27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/ 4/27
27/16
/1
6

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 46
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and its
population performs less well

DRAFT

Plot of MA district by SWD share and SWD 10th grade performance
% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % of students classified SWD
4/27/16
4/27/16
% of SWD scoring proficient or advanced % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced

▪▪ There
There is
is aa correlation
correlation
in
in the
the state
state between
between
share
share of
of students
students
classified
classified and
and overall
overall
SWD
SWD performance
performance

4/27/16

▪▪ Boston
Boston has
has aa higher
higher

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

share,
share, but
but its
its SWD
SWD
population
is
population is
performing
performing worse
worse
than
than would
would be
be
expected
expected

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 47
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS’ ELL
population performs better than correlations would predict

DRAFT

Plot of MA district by ELL performance and $ spent
% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % district ELL
4/27/16
% of ELL proficient or advanced

4/27/16
% of ELL proficient or advanced

▪▪ BPS
BPS has
has one
one of
of the
the

largest
largest shares
shares of
of ELL
ELL
students
students in
in the
the state
state
of
of Massachusetts
Massachusetts

4/27/16

▪▪ BPS
BPS ELL
ELL students
students
4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013

outperform
outperform the
the
expected
expected
performance
performance levels
levels

4/27/16
$ spent per SWD pupil

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 48
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

BPS lags, but tracks with state districts in graduation rates

DRAFT

Graduation rates
% of students graduating1
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

While
While on
on the
the
upswing,
upswing, BPS’
BPS’ 4-year
4-year
graduation
graduation rate
rate is
is
significantly
significantly below
below the
the
Massachusetts
Massachusetts
average
average

▪▪

BPS
BPS does
does track
track
generally
generally with
with
Massachusetts’
Massachusetts’
graduation
graduation rate
rate
improvement,
improvement, but
but is
is
not
closing
the
gap
not closing the gap

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/
4/
27
27
/1
/1
1 MA DESE 4-year graduation rate
6
6
Source: MA DESE

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/
27
/1
6

4/27
/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 49
|

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools, with some
specific concerns
“This school is a good place for my child to
learn”
% of parents responding

“My child's teacher challenges him/her to do
their best and works hard to meet the needs
of my child”
% of parents responding

DRAFT

Perspectives from parents focus groups
“Working parents can’t start at 9:30am and
so our school is losing enrollment because
of the late bell time” – Elementary school
parent

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/
16

4/27/16

The school is doing a good job at preventing
bullying and harassment based on race,
gender, sexual preference and disabilities”
% of parents responding

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/
16

4/27/16

Parents perception of…
Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)
4/27/16

“No one walks to school. Why are we
wasting resources on too many school
buses? – Elementary school parent

“When I first looked at BPS [years ago],
there were only 3 schools I would consider.
Now, I see many more options I’m
comfortable sending my child to.” – High
school parent

4/27/16
4/27/16

“BPS has given me an incredibly diverse
community for my child” – High School
parent

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/
16

4/27/16

Source: Annual BPS school climate survey, 2013-2014; 20% of
parents on average responded t osurvey at each school

“There are a lot of programmatic
inconsistencies, like having so many
different school models – K-1, 2-8, etc.” –
Middle School parent

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 50
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

– System performance
– Human Capital
– Organization

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 51
|

HUMAN CAPITAL

BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution, and have been
rated proficient

DRAFT

Year of birth
# of teachers by year of birth

4/27/
4/27/
16
16
Evaluation rating

The average
BPS
teacher is
42 years old

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

21% of the teaching
force does not have
an evaluation on file

Unsatisfactory

Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data

4/2
7/1
6

4/27/16

94%
94% of
of teachers
teachers are
are
licensed
licensed to
to teach
teach in
in
their
subject
are,
their subject are,
compared
compared to
to 98%
98% of
of
teachers
teachers state-wide
state-wide

▪▪

96%
96% of
of teachers
teachers
with
with evaluations
evaluations on
on
file
file are
are rated
rated
proficient
proficient or
or higher
higher

4/27/
16

# of teachers

No
evaluation

▪▪

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 52
|

HUMAN CAPITAL

BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachers,
and none in the system have received a rating lower than proficient

DRAFT

Age of principals
# of principals born in decade

4/27/
4/27/
16
16
Evaluation rating
# of teachers

No
evaluation

The average
BPS principal
is 46 years
old

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

Principals
Principals rated
rated
lower
lower than
than proficient
proficient
will
will almost
almost always
always
be
be moved
moved out
out of
of the
the
system
system

56% of principals do
not have evaluations on
file

Unsatisfactory

Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data

4/2
7/1
6

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 53
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

– System performance
– Human Capital
– Organization

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 54
|

ORGANIZATION

BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio

DRAFT

Average student-staff ratio
Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011

IfIf BPS
BPS were
were
at
at the
the peer
peer
average,
average, itit
could
could have
have
500
500 fewer
fewer
FTE’s
FTE’s

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 55
|

ORGANIZATION

The total number of FTE’s, across schools and central office has not
declined in line with student population
4/27/16

DRAFT
4/27/16

BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009
# of BPS FTE’s, # of students

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

(7-10%)

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to align
align staff
staff
with
future
enrollment
with future enrollment trends
trends
and
and historical
historical central
central office
office
FTE
FTE counts,
counts, BPS
BPS could
could
shrink
shrink by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%

▪▪

In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
that
ratio
had
2014-15, that ratio had
fallen
fallen to
to 5.0
5.0

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
2009-10 student
student to
to FTE
FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTE’s,
FTE’s, 902
902
fewer
than
six
years
fewer than six years ago
ago

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 56
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

– Cross-BPS themes
– Framework for RFP 25
– RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 57
|

APPROACH AND WORKPLAN

The operational review was conducted over a period of
~3 months, shifting from a broad scan to deep dives

DRAFT
Progress review

Phase 0:
Data collection and
interviews

Phase 1:
High-level diagnostic

Phase 2:
Deep-dive on priority areas

Phase 3:
Opportunity
development

Duration

Dec 8-19

Jan 5 -23

Jan 26 - Feb 13

Feb 16-27

Activities

Collect existing data
and reports based
on data request
Identify internal and
external
stakeholders for
interviews and focus
groups
Begin scheduling
and conducting
interviews and focus
groups
Start initial analysis
and benchmarking

Conduct high-level
quantitative and
qualitative analysis across
the 25 areas, including
benchmarking
Review previous reports,
studies, reviews, etc.
Analyze the BPS budget
Collect input on priority
operational areas from
internal and external
stakeholders through
interviews, focus groups,
and other forums

For the prioritized areas,
review diagnostic findings
and identify gaps vs. best
practice
Conduct additional deepdive analyses to assess
efficiency and
effectiveness
opportunities
Prioritize areas with
greatest opportunity to
explore further

Synthesis of initial
key themes and
learning

Overview of BPS’ fiscal
and operational health
across each of the 25
areas
Identification of priority
areas for deep-dives

Interim workshops as
requested by the City
Detailed diagnostic of
priority areas

Deliverables



Prioritize
improvement
opportunities based
on impact toward
BPS’ mission and
strategic goals
Identify short term
and long term
actions for
implementation
For priority opportunities, provide
rationale, estimates
of costs and cost
savings, and practical
implementation
guidance
Workshop to align
on next steps for
BPS in capturing
opportunities

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 58
|

Agenda

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

– Cross-BPS themes
– Framework for RFP 25
– RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 59
|

CROSS-BPS THEMES

BPS has a strong talent base, but does not have a long-term strategy DRAFT
Challenge
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
to align process and execution
Stable, with opportunity

Overall


Overall


Strengths

Positive inertia and a deep local talent pool sustains a comparatively good urban
system
Largely coasting for a number of years, modernizing and evolving has not been
deliberately and thoughtfully considered
Too large a physical footprint for the number of students currently being served




High caliber people in schools as teachers and principals and in central office roles
Dynamic (but siloed) visions in pockets of central office
Strong approaches to community engagement and technology support
Some key conditions for success put in place across the system (e.g., mutual
consent, weighted student funding)

Absence of overarching vision causes a focus on initiatives vs. system goals, drift
in how different areas move forward and causes an inability to execute/followthrough
Recurring budget shortages as available funds are spread thin across buildings
and programs, many of which are underutilized and under-enrolled
Data not used broadly for decision making
Org. structure reflects personalities, not functional needs or core goals
Lack of coordination and collaboration, as focus rests with where people want it

Challenges




DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 60
|

CROSS-BPS THEMES

BPS faces challenges that cut across the organization

Challenge

Stable, with opportunity

DRAFT

Area of strength

Overall assessment
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student
assignment, q. parent engagement, r.
ELL)

▪ Strong foundation, in need of more robust

Talent management
(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.
hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.
instructional staff, s. licensing, t.
CORI / SORI)

▪ Dissatisfaction with professional develop-

Non-academic student supports
(l. transportation, m. food service, p.
extracurriculars, u. security)

▪ Opportunities for cost capturing likely exist

Performance management
(v. performance objectives and
measurement tools)

focus on reaching all students where they
are

ment and advancement opportunities

▪ Innovation in school staffing areas (e.g.
mutual consent)

Emerging themes

▪ Data and technology not actively or

consistently used to support decision
making

▪ Budget development process has

in many areas

opportunities for efficiencies and
collaboration, is unaligned with strategy,
while not evaluating spending for
effectiveness at school level

▪ Organizational structure is not always

▪ No robust performance management

aligned with functional needs of students,
with inefficiencies that stymie crossorganizational collaboration

system

▪ Lack of follow-through and execution

▪ BPS is overextended physically and

Administrative services (f.
accounting systems, y. external
funds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing,
o. IT, n. building maintenance, x.
school construction and renovation)

▪ Many facilities in need of repair
▪ OIT effective at meeting customer needs
▪ Back office functions get done

Leadership and governance
(w. School Committee)

▪ Serves community well, may be tensions

budgetarily, supporting buildings and
schools that lead to subscale services in
some pockets

with supt. over strategy

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 61
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

– Cross-BPS themes
– Framework for RFP 25
– RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 62
|

RFP 25
DRAFT
Analysis of RFP areas and cross-cutting themes identified 12 for
potential deep dive consideration
Cross-cutting theme, not an identified RFP area

From data and interviews, the Steering Committee considered the size of the opportunity in
terms of benefits to students, cost savings, and efficiency

From this approach, 11 areas emerged in two groups as potential Phase 2 targets

Quick wins

Long-term goals

These are areas with
opportunities that may
be readily captured :
1. Food Services
2. Personnel
3. Finance and
accounting
(budgeting process)
4. Org. structure

These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time
and a good deal of effort, but are worth it:
5. District overextension
6. ELL
7. Data culture
8. Technology
9. Transportation
10. Special Education
11. Maintenance (of buildings)
12. Performance and quality objectives and measurement
tools
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 63
|

RFP 25

Framework for approaching RFP areas and crosscutting themes

Approach

Comparison of RFP areas
Opportunity ($, efficiency) v. ease ($, time, quality)
Opportunity
High

5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

District overextension
ELL
Data culture
Technology
Transportation

10. Special education
11. Maintenance
12. Performance
management tools

▪ External funds



▪ Purchasing






transparency
Instructional staffing
General staffing and
recruiting

Extracurriculars
Security
Licensure
Parent Engagement
School Committee
CORI / SORI

Quick wins and Long-term goals
comprise over 60% of BPS budget
Low

▪ Opportunity: This is the size of
1. Food Services
2. Personnel

the opportunity that exists for
improvement; it could be time
saved, money saved,
improvement in outputs, etc.

▪ Ease: This is how much effort on

BPS’ part it will take to capture the
opportunity; it could be in dollars
required, time required to execute,
etc.

▪ Construction and

renovation
Negotiation
Student assignment

FOR STEERCO DISCUSSION

3. Org. structure
4. Finance & accounting
(budget process)

Outputs

▪ Quick wins: Large opportunities
for savings and/or performance
improvement that are easily
implementable and should be
considered for immediate action

▪ Curriculum
▪ Timekeeping
▪ Role delineation

▪ Long-term goals: Large

opportunities for savings and/or
performance improvement that
require a good deal of effort/time
to implement

▪ Not a priority now: Opportunities
4/27/16
High

that are too small and/or too
difficult to be worth the effort and
attention required capture them

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 64
|

RFP 25

There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to
e Efficiency opportunity
pursue without further deep dive (1/2)
Area
CORI / SORI
FY14 budget: N/A
School Committee FY14 budget:
$0.3M
Licensure
FY14 budget: N/A

Parent engagement FY14
budget: $2.6M

Security
FY14 budget:
$3.9M
Instructional
staffing
FY14 budget: N/A

Current situation

PRELIMINARY
$ Financial opportunity

Rationale to not include

Key factors to consider

e▪ 5,000 CORI / SORI forms
processed annually by fax, even
though technology exists

▪ Secure process keeps people

▪ Have there been any lapses?
▪ Is this a high-risk area?

▪ Small budget, narrow scope of

▪ $300K budget, any savings will be ▪ Will there be an expanded role?

activities

from being hired before clearing

tiny, no processes to improve

▪ Inconsistent staffing and attention, ▪ While frustrating, no great gains

but no deep problems exist
Licensing more compliance-driven

▪ The Engagement department is
considered one BPS’ strongest

relative to other options

▪ High-functioning department
▪ Small budget ($2.6M) with small
saving potential

▪ Focus on communities
▪ BPS perceived to be largely safe
by school-based staff
▪ Recent uptick in incidents, after 5year long decline

▪ Weighted student formula allots

school staffing by policy
Transparent system, with some
funding backstops necessary

▪ Are we planning a licensing

push of any kind that would
need this function bolstered?

▪ Are there concerns about

engagement that is not led by
the Engagement department?

▪ Is the recent uptick in events

significant enough to require a
deep dive?

▪ Determined by formula and policy, ▪ Does the WSF need analysis or
not by operations or budget usage
decisions

fresh thinking?

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 65
|

RFP 25

There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to
e Efficiency opportunity
pursue without further deep dive (2/2)
Area

$ Financial opportunity

Rationale to not include

Key factors to consider

$▪ Changes begun to evaluate
partners and manage better
e
▪ Limited transparency into
effectiveness of programs

▪ There are opportunities to

▪ How concerned are we that

Curriculum
FY14 budget: $7M

$▪ Recent leadership has begun
reassessment of curriculum, which
e
is outdated

▪ Opportunities for savings and

▪ How much of the rest of the

Timekeeping
FY14 budget: N/A

e▪ Paper systems utilized with
manual entry
▪ Supervisor process for checks on
this process

▪ Some opportunities in

▪ Are there ways we can leverage

▪ Some new thinking around

▪ Small department with

▪ Are we concerned about

▪ New rigor of analysis brought to

▪ Grantmaking bodies (including the ▪ Have there been historical

Extra curriculars
FY14 budget: N/A

General staffing
and recruiting
FY14 budget: N/A
External funds
transparency
FY14 budget: N/A

Role delineation
FY14 budget: N/A

Current situation

PRELIMINARY

conversion rates of applicants
doing more with less

funds and where they come from
Compliance requests handled
department by department

enhance services, but would
require a good deal of work to
capture smaller opportunities

better outcomes will come from
deep review of pedagogy and
curriculum
technological enhancements, but
not critical upgrade

opportunities that are largely cost
centers

feds) mostly require accounting,
building internal accountability

BEDF is not maximizing
potential?
Are principals concerned by a
lack of extracurricular options?
system does curriculum drive?
Should they be considered as
part of another deep dive?
the city here to move BPS more
automated process?

pipelines and the need for
further analysis and
identification?
audits that turned up issues?

▪ Roles and duties between central ▪ Better communication and thought ▪ Is there a need to understand,

office and schools unclear under
network model
Some overlap in roles (e.g., PD)

on roles can improve clarity
quickly, without needing to go very
deep

more deeply what is driving the
lack of clarity?

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 66
|

RFP 25

There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other, PRELIMINARY
e Efficiency opportunity
$ Financial opportunity
parallel process at this time
Area
Construction
FY14 budget:
$26M

Purchasing
FY14 budget: N/A

Negotiations
FY14 budget: N/A

Current situation
$▪ $3-$4B in current needs


▪e Procurement has conservative

culture and policies set by city
Some frustration about speed of
procurement turnarounds

▪ Negotiations planning (for

teachers) slated to begin in the fall
for next contract (2017)
New thinking around contracts at
BPS (e.g., open-hiring)

Key factors to consider

▪ With the capital planning process ▪ How will the future footprint be

e▪ Capital planning process running

Student assignment FY14
budget: $3.4M

Rationale to not include
underway, efforts would be
duplicative
Costs here driven by academic
decisions around future footprint

▪ Some process improvements

exist, but they would also involve
heavy coordination with the city

aligned to enable more
efficiently filled buildings and
classrooms even as enrollment
fluctuates?

▪ Is there a quick win here that
should be investigated?

▪ Timeline for major changes in this ▪ Are there analyses that we

area is set a ways off
Currently managing contract and
innovating effectively

should be considering that are
valuable now or valuable
enough to do now in preparation
for negotiations? (e.g., cost of
contractually required
class/support ratios, model for
pay for performance approach)

▪ Good process of collaboration with ▪ Student assignment opportunities ▪ How much of student

Engagement office to assign
students and communicate with
families
Forecasts largely accurate at
district level, vary widely at school
level

are tied up in capital planning
process and considerations about
the size of the district as well as
WSF

assignment issues are driven by
the department vs. other policies
and other departments?

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 67
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

– Cross-BPS themes
– Framework for RFP 25
– RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 68
|

RFP 25

Opportunity type

Food services

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $36M

Summary points



Food services currently runs a significant deficit, where most districts roughly break even
Carrying dual management structure of doing half internally and half through vendor, Whitsons
Delivers meals to students at a rate at the high end of peer comparisons

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Above benchmarks on breakfast and lunch participation rates, and
very high for those eligible for F/RM
▪ One of the lowest cost per meals against benchmark
▪ Participant in Provision II, but at low rates

Challenges
▪ Annual losses at 11% of revenues, district performs low among peers
on this measure, where the average district loses just 1.5% of revenues
▪ Managing internal food services preparation as well as a food services
contract, roughly splitting up the district
▪ Poor management of cafeteria workers between food services and
individual schools lead to failed pilots
▪ High direct labor costs
▪ Low levels of data tracking below the major data points used for
compliance

Opportunities and potential impacts
Coherence
▪ By managing a contract, while also providing services, BPS makes it structurally difficult to bring coherence to food services as well as have direct
accountability for specific areas; Whitsons’ current contract accounts for just a third of the food service budget, implying there could be real savings
to make this a more coherent area
▪ BPS is carrying employees and costs associated with them while also using contractors and contracted employees. If BPS employees were shifted
to contract employees, costs could be expected to go down by 20-30% in the employee area, a savings of $1-3M
Revenues
▪ BPS is delivering meals, but failing to cover costs in line with peers; an operational review and mapping can identify the areas that drive lost
revenues, while also developing a better system of accountability to capture available revenues

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 69
|

RFP 25

Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag
peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13

Food services costs
% of revenue, 2012-13

77
101
16
45
26
62
58
25
33
1
56
5
20
19
13
9
67
3
14
52
8
54
34
30
M
39
79
21
28
48
66
37
4
44
41
12
23
57
55
10
35
71
18
47
2
43
7
49
6

20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77

BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis

SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools

DRAFT
Boston

Districts

Median

BPS is not
getting the
data tracking
it needs to be
successful
and drive
revenues

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 70
|

RFP 25

Personnel policies and procedures
(and development)

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY13: $53M in PD

Summary points


Strong teacher performance rubrics, weak central office rubrics with inconsistent application, and little data-driven management
Professional development at the central office level is non-existent, while teachers and principals are deeply dissatisfied with it at school level

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ New open placement policies loved by principals
▪ Good implementation of teacher evaluations and use of data
systems has led to more transparency and more appropriate
quicker processes to remove poor performers
▪ Some of the best salaries in the country, with good benefits
▪ Have flexibility in management contractual terms

Challenges
▪ No regular, central office staff evaluation expectations and rubrics
that do not align with job duties
▪ Professional development is inconsistent and lacks any
coordination as it comes from nearly every central department,
leaving teachers and principals frustrated, but spent $53M1 in FY13
(4.5% of budget)
▪ Boilerplate and rarely updated job descriptions
▪ Outside of IT, no onboarding process for new employees and no
requirements for succession planning
▪ Data systems do not talk to each other (SIS, EDFS, PeopleSoft and
TalentED all exist independently)
▪ Of the 4,500 non-school based employees, only 1,185 have a
review on file; in 13-14, only 15 employees dismissed

Opportunities and potential impacts
Professional development
▪ Professional development needs coherence, either fully coordinated across all departments with an annual coordination and process by which a
department must clear trainings, or pushed to schools entirely with some oversight; in both situations, schools would get the PD they need, when
they need it; some potential cost savings if PD was pushed entirely to schools
Evaluations
▪ Standardized evaluation processes with consequences for managers would bring consistency to central office and provide a culture shift that would
model for schools effective management policy; research into performance management shows improved employee performance and satisfaction
when evaluations are implemented
▪ Consistent evaluations would also allow for a greater ability to manage out low performers
1 MA Dept. of ESE
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 71
|

RFP 25

Opportunity type

Finance and accounting systems
and policies

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $1.7M
Budget & Finance dept.

Summary points


Annual budgeting driven by previous budgets, not by actual, historical spends
Procurement office viewed as unimpeachable internally at BPS, culturally sets the tone

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ City and BPS budgeting systems collaborate and allow program
directors to view budget and budget spend
▪ Weighted Student Formula is generally transparent to principals and
the public and aligns with goals of fairness and equity within the
system

Challenges
▪ Budget process has no strategic plan on which to anchor and fund or
defund priorities
▪ Schools are under enrolled, requiring “soft landings” under WSF
▪ BPS has 193 cost centers, over half of the city’s, with policy changes
that affect coding and budget tracking, making parts of the budget
difficult to track
▪ Finance and Human Capital systems do not talk, requiring manual
connections and adjustments

Opportunities and potential impacts
Budgeting
▪ Budgets built from base of the previous year and historical needs, where zero-based budgeting is considered best-practice; a zero-based budgeting
process would allow for transparent weighting of priorities and alignment of budget with priorities
▪ While there are plans at department levels, and the School Committee is developing one, there is not currently a long-term strategic plan to guide
the district in budgeting decisions and identifying areas that need more or less investment to achieve the identified goals
Technology
▪ A fully integrated system between human capital and budget data will provide significantly greater visibility into cost centers and practices, while
giving budget managers greater control over budgets, which can be used to effectively monitor costs and drive towards hitting budgeting marks

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 72
|

RFP 25

English Language Learners

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $5.6M dept.
FY14: $62M schools

Summary points


Improved compliance monitoring in wake of DOJ finding, but the office remains compliance driven and struggles to focus on student outcomes
Not well integrated with general education and curriculum

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ After nearly 2 years without a report, have now submitted 40-50
reports, 85% on track
▪ MCAS data shows increase in ELL student performance in ELA
▪ Recent uptick of ELL students moving from ELL to general
education, 13% of ELL population

Challenges
▪ Views core work as “monitor and support…to meet federal, state and
local mandates,” with no clear vision of how to provide exceptional
services
▪ Number of ELL students have doubled since 2010, making it one of the
highest in peer set
▪ Not integrated into general education approach, academics department
has struggled to collaborate with ELL
▪ Teachers do not feel supported by OELL
▪ Data tracking not used to disaggregate factors in student performance

Opportunities and potential impacts
Organization
▪ ELL and Academics departments are not integrated and so develop PD, curriculum and student supports largely in isolation of the other; this creates
what principals and teachers feel like wasted time and no feeling that they are supported in ELL, only from a compliance standpoint
PD and data support
▪ There is a large appetite at schools for ELL support that uses WIDA data to move more students into general education population, but sense of a
lack of support in this area, including no visibility into or availability of data. A better data management system that gives teachers and schools
access and support would push the needle and potentially lower ELL costs in the long term

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 73
|

RFP 25

BPS now has double the number of English Language Learners
than in 2010, making it among the highest in peer set
Percentage of ELL students
% of student body classified as ELL

4/27/16

DRAFT

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27
/16
1

4/27/161 4/27/
16

4/27/1
6

4/27/1
6
1

4/27/
16

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/
16

4/27/1
6

4/27/1
6

4/27/16 4/2
7/1
6

4/27/16 4/27/1
6

4/27/1
6

1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 – 2011 school year
SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 74
|

RFP 25

Technology

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $11.6M

Summary points



OIT viewed as one of the best run departments by the customers they serve
Data-driven culture used to track customer service metrics and drive performance
Technology at schools are on regular upgrade cycles, leading to decent technological infrastructure in place at schools

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ OIT consistently named as teachers’ and principals’ best
performing department; recent roll out of laptops was described as
“flawless” by many
▪ Data dashboards provide transparency into performance of OIT on
customer service issues
▪ Recently launched MyBPS for teachers to connect to PD, early
success with getting 93% of teachers to log in and complete a
module
▪ 5 year network upgrade cycle keeps schools current, with fewer
costs in the future as a consequence

Challenges
▪ Boston has second lowest IT spend of peer districts, less than 1/4 of
the median, per pupil and per FTE spends1
▪ No process to align departments and schools on technology has led to
incompatible departmental purchases on software and forced OIT to
buy hardware for BPS departments to use, rather than departments
describing needs first and OIT purchasing

Opportunities and potential impacts
Align with city technology
▪ The City provides a great deal of systems support to agencies that BPS does not fully take advantage of; savings of $500K - $1M could be had by
allowing the City to run data centers and networks BPS currently maintains
Align with departments
▪ A process of technological procurement for schools and departments would provide better technology to end users and eliminate risks of purchasing
systems that cannot be used

1 Council of Great City Schools

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 75
|

RFP 25

IT spend and performance lags other districts
Bandwidth per student
Kilobytes per second (kbps)

Median

Boston

DRAFT

IT spend per student
$ / student

4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16

Districts

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

BPS
BPS approaches
approaches peer
peer
averages
for
kbps,
averages for kbps,
despite
despite having
having aa
comparatively
comparatively low
low IT
IT
spend
against
peer
spend against peer
districts
districts

▪▪

Interviews
Interviews with
with principals
principals
and
teachers
indicate
and teachers indicate very
very
high
high levels
levels of
of satisfaction
satisfaction
with
with the
the performance
performance of
of the
the
IT
department
IT department

1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 76
|

RFP 25

Opportunity type

Transportation

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $109M

Summary points


Transportation is a strength of BPS, leveraging data-driven decision making, with results to show for efforts
Opportunities for cost savings are possible with policy changes and efforts around Special Education

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Transportation moved bus ontime arrival from 65% to 90% in three
months in 2011 through data driven management
▪ Successfully moved all 8th graders to MBTA passes
▪ Refined distance metrics to move some students off mandatory bus
list
▪ Tiered start times maximize driver utilization
▪ BPS does CORI/SORI checks (not vendor), ensuring city process is
adhered to

Challenges
▪ In 2012-2013 spent $1,255 per student for transportation, 20% higher
than median for peers1; biggest line item in the budget, at $109M
annually, bringing in line with peers could save ~$20M
▪ Required to provide transport for charter schools and provide some
parochial transportation ($2M)
▪ SPED transport costs $51M2 a year – 5% of BPS’ budget
▪ High driver wages and occasional wildcat strikes can cost instructional
time and money
▪ Transition from zone transportation to “homebase” system has legacy
costs that will be stretched out of 8 year transitions

Opportunities and potential impacts
MBTA
▪ Can move all 7th graders to the T, and possibly even 6th graders, dropping per student costs from $1,500 to $260 a year, a $1-2M savings
Homebase
▪ Changing policy around “homebase” process, which grandfathers transportation can cut the number of students entitled to transportation
Special education
▪ Special Education transportation is $51M, a coordinated effort to move students in-district and correct classifications to appropriate levels could net a
modest drop in needs, leading to significant savings as the budget line is so large
Parochial and charter transportation
▪ Parochial and charter transportation could be looked at to save ~$5M, if policy changes can be agreed upon
1 Council of Great City Schools

2 This is in-district and private out of district transportation

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 77
|

RFP 25

Transportation department is more expensive than peers, despite
using data management to manage performance

Boston

Bus on time tracking
% of buses on time, weekly

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

12/22

12/15

12/8

12/1

11/24

11/17

11/10

11/3

10/27

10/20

10/13

10/6

9/29

9/22

9/15

4/27/16
9/8

Districts

Median

Peer school district transportation costs
$ cost per rider, 2012-2013

% Before Bell: Year-to-Year comparison

9/1

DRAFT

Week of

SY2013-2014

Current year

SY2012-2013

2011-2012 % Before Bell

By using data on bus leaving and arrival times, the transportation
department, drove on-time bus arrivals from 65% to 90% over
three months in 2011, where it has consistently stayed

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪ Boston’s transportation

is ~20% higher than
peer districts
With a budget of
$109M, further savings
could be expected to
net as much as $20M

4/27/16

SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 78
|

RFP 25

BPS spends more per student on transportation than other
“high choice” school districts as rated by CRPE

DRAFT

Comparative district size and cost per student in “choice” categories
$ per student, 2009
Los Angeles

Jefferson
Parish

Large

Size circle indicates
level of transportation
spending per student
FM = Franklin-McKinley, CA
SB = Spring Branch, TX

Nashville

Memphis
Size of
district
(sq. miles)

Indianapolis

Chicago

Medium

New
Orleans
RSD

Henry
County
Cleveland
Boston

Sacramento
Spokane

Oak-land

SB

Fullerton

Lawrence MA

FM

Small
Low

Medium

High

CRPE “Choice” Score
SOURCE: Choice dimension: Center for Reinventing Public
Education (CRPE); Spend dimension: NCES 2008-09

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 79
|

RFP 25

Special education

Opportunity type
$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $263M
Summary points



More than a quarter of the BPS budget, with many difficult regulations and scenarios, but with some real opportunities
Recent focus on moving Special Needs students to inclusive environments in year two of five year implementation, will improve services
Separation of SPED from general academics loosened accountability of general education teachers to keep students in general education

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Planning to move 30-50% of students from “substantially separate” to
inclusive environments over the next five years, enhancing services
▪ General education students in inclusionary environments at BPS perform up
to 3x better than schools without inclusion1

Challenges
▪ Currently 20% of BPS students are identified SWD, of which 43% are not in
inclusionary environments; nationally 15% of SWD are in inclusionary
environments, implying Boston may be over identifying students for SPED
services
▪ Special education funds are more than a quarter of BPS budget
▪ Private placements and transportation account for 15% and 17% of the SPED
budget

Opportunities and potential impacts
Over-identification
▪ A deeper audit of students in special education could align Boston with national norm of 15%, potentially freeing up $10-13M
Paraprofessionals and clerks
▪ BPS has a policy of 1:1 para/aide to teacher ratio in most settings, when research suggests lower ratios are equally appropriate and effective; pushing higher ratios
(which would require some alignment with the state) could reduce costs by 5-10%, or $1.4-2.8M
▪ Paraprofessionals can also be contracted out, which some districts have seen capture as much as 30% savings, equivalent to $8M at BPS
▪ SPED clerical services are required by contract, but are largely outdated positions, totaling $2.75M, annually, most of which could be cut
Private placement
▪ A deeper audit of students in special education private placement could identify students who can be effectively served in BPS; even bringing back 10% of students
could amount to savings of $4.1M, annually, while more aggressive efforts could net significantly more
▪ A deep dive on what the triggers are for private placement could identify the schools/coordinators/teachers who are more likely to end up with students privately
placed, building a preventative plan to lessen that burden over a longer time horizon
Transportation
▪ A deeper audit of student classification and SPED bus routes can allow for consolidation, where a 10% savings is $4.5M
Organization
▪ Integrate SPED with academics, driving better collaboration and more holistic focus on student experience and supports, as well as greater ownership by
academics for keeping students in a general education environment, not simply reacting to student poor performance
1 SPED City Council presentation on inclusion June 2014

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 80
|

RFP 25

Special education benchmarking shows BPS has 21% more special
education students than peer districts, with little change since 2010
Percentage of SPED students
% of student body classified as SPED

4/27/16

DRAFT

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/1 Bos6
ton

4/2
7/1
6

4/27/1 Om6
aha

SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013

4/27/1 4/27/ Tucson
6
16

New- Wich- 4/27/1 4/27/ Sacark
ita
6
16
ramento

4/27/
16

Oakland

4/27/1
6

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 81
|

RFP 25

Building maintenance

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $48M

Summary points


Facilities department has outdated information on state of buildings, with tracking that has not been updated in at least 5 years
As much as $600M in deferred maintenance and potentially as much as $4B in needed renovations across the system

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Despite tremendous budget shortfalls, much of day-to-day needs
are addressed

Challenges
▪ Lost system for tracking assets in 2009 and much of data with it, no
one in the department has a granular understanding of the current
needs and state of building stock
▪ All work orders are tracked by hand on paper and excel, no attempt to
use technology
▪ 2009 report estimated $600M in deferred maintenance, but department
gets only $52M annual budget
▪ $20M annually on custodians
▪ 12M square feet of city’s 16M are in schools
▪ 503 employees in facilities management and not a single evaluation on
file

Opportunities and potential impacts
Consolidation of contractors
▪ By moving maintenance to one contract (as opposed to many, small vendors called in on work orders) can capture economies of scale and align
incentives for upkeep of facilities; districts that have done this have seen modest decreases in costs with improved level of services
Outsource maintenance
▪ Outsourcing janitorial services can expect to see 20-30% savings on current facilities funds could net $10-$15M, as well as improve janitorial
management
Energy management
▪ BPS spends $20M on energy (electric, gas and oil); recent pilot energy audits identified massive opportunities in a few, specific schools, even a 10%
improvement in efficiency can net $2M annually; districts have seen successful lowering of bills through incentivizing principals as well as buying
energy cooperatively and using long-term contracts

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 82
|

RFP 25

Performance and quality objectives
and measurement tools

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points


BPS has developed adequate systems for tracking school-level data, but does not always use this data to manage for outcomes
BPS uses practically no data internally to manage central office and make strategic and operational decisions

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Focus on generating and delivering data to schools has
empowered schools to look at student performance and adjust
practice appropriately
▪ Most schools are focused on using the data they are given
▪ Centrally, data-driven management in transportation drove bus on
time rates from 65-90% over three months in 2011

Challenges
▪ Performance office started to begin tracking performance across the
organization, scaled back significantly, lives now only in ops and to date
has only been leveraged for transportation
▪ Non-existent data collection or creation in most central office
departments
▪ KPI’s are not developed for chiefs to track internal performance and
there is not regular reporting to the superintendent
▪ Very few, good IT systems for tracking and collecting operational data

Opportunities and potential impacts
Organization and business practices:
▪ Best management practices identify KPI’s that align with organizational goals and can be tracked on a regular (e.g., monthly) basis; By establishing
these KPI’s and tracking them regularly, performance on progress towards goals can be continually monitored, allowing managers to make
adjustments to personnel and approaches as necessary
▪ Municipalities have established “City Stat” types of tracking events, where managers have to present progress towards goals and are held
accountable; similarly districts have “school stats” to drive performance; BPS can leverage these types of management techniques to improve
operational and financial performance
Systems
▪ BPS can tap into the city’s OIT resources, or build their own systems and analytical tools to collect, manage and analyze data at a central office level;
better data collection and analysis will drive performance across BPS operations as well as

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 83
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

– Cross-BPS themes
– Framework for RFP 25
– RFP areas for possible deep dive
– Other RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 84
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (1/6)
Challenge
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student assignment,
q. parent engagement, r. ELL)
Overall

Strengths

Challenges

DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Stable, with opportunity

▪ Good bones in the schools and the system
▪ Struggles to meet all children where they are and move them



Strong principals and network superintendents drive good implementation
New vision for SPED moving towards inclusion model
Strong culture of parent and community engagement
Good implementation of student choice model

▪ High rates of SPED classification and lack of inclusion
▪ Gen. ed. does not own SPED or ELL classification, impeding coordinated


efforts
ELL focused on compliance, not on improving services and outcomes
Principals work to keep central office out their schools, rather than turn to for
supports
Curriculum is at times confusing and overlapping for principals and teachers
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 85
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (2/6)
Challenge
Talent management (a. personnel policies, b. contracts,
c. hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e. instructional
staff, s. licensing, t. CORI/SORI)
Overall

Strengths

Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Stable, with opportunity

▪ Little training or development centrally, quality of PD at schools highly




Challenges

DRAFT

variable
Undefined roles, responsibilities and hiring criteria
Innovation and modernization needed in support areas
(e.g. contracting, hiring)
High caliber people throughout the organization and schools
Recruiting shifting resource focus to smaller areas BPS has historically been
successful and leveraging technology to track recruits
Reliable (if not always efficient) processes for back office functions

▪ Most school PD not coordinated across departments, viewed negatively by


teachers and principals who believe they can design better PD at their
schools
Outdated and restrictive contracts, requiring positions and duties
unnecessary for modern school district
Unclear responsibilities between networks, schools and central departments
under new network structure
Organizational chart designed around personalities
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 86
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (3/6)
Challenge
Non-academic student supports
(l. transportation, m. food service, p. extracurriculars,
u. security)
Overall

DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Challenge

▪ New thinking and momentum in operations leading to savings and efficiency

improvements
Rigor of data and evaluation not applied across all operations

Strengths

▪ Arrests and incidences in schools on downward trajectory
▪ Transportation routes and operations drastically improved
▪ Partnerships beginning to add rigor to annual evaluations of partners

Challenges

▪ Continually running lossmaking food services department
▪ Transportation policies losing money due to legacy policies
▪ Partnerships driven by relationships, not proven outcomes

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 87
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (4/6)
Challenge
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and measurement tools)

Overall

DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Challenge

▪ No culture of central office data collection and management
▪ Few measurement tools are used with fidelity to drive outcomes across the
organization, beyond the school level

Strengths

▪ Good, reliable data on school-level, student performance, mostly accessible

Challenges

to teachers and principals
Operations department building and implementing data dashboards and
systems

▪ No BPS-wide KPI’s to align with goals and hold departments and individuals

accountable
Failure to report to the city certain data requests
Data not used to make decisions in majority of operational areas

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 88
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (5/6)
Challenge
Administrative services (f. accounting systems, y. external funds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing, o. IT, n. building maintenance, x. school construction and renovation)
Overall

DRAFT
Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Stable, with opportunity

▪ Systems are largely in place to get back office functions completed
▪ Many outdated and slow moving processes that have not been actively
updated to benefit from technology

Strengths

Challenges

▪ Autonomy and WSF allows schools to be more flexible with spending
▪ Purchasing is very conservative, culturally protecting from potential abuses
▪ Facilities funding is a fraction of reported needs and is used to upkeep


buildings that are frequently not being used efficiently
Budgeting process is reactive to financial pressures and historical practices,
rather than proactive about aligning with priorities and historical actual
spends
Fundraising aligned to initiatives, not to larger district goals
Paper timekeeping systems not well designed to ensure accuracy

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 89
|

In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths
and opportunities (6/6)
Challenge
Leadership and governance
(w. School Committee)

Overall

Challenges

Stable, with opportunity

Area of strength

Stable, with opportunity

▪ The School Committee has a limited budget, spent wisely
▪ Focus on community input and accountability has kept parts of BPS focused

Strengths

DRAFT

on execution
Tension between the role of a superintendent and the role of the committee in
setting strategy can be distracting

▪ Involved in oversight, but not meddlesome
▪ Small, transparent budget makes impropriety difficult
▪ School committee sees role as setting strategy for the district and hiring a

superintendent to execute it, may hamstring any future hires and has created
tension in the past

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 90
|

RFP 25

Curriculum

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $7M

Summary points


Curriculum languished until recently, with ELA update recently and process to update outdated Math is now underway, but different curriculums
across different grades and subjects still lacks coherence for principals and teachers
Because of autonomous schools designation, schools are accountable for outcomes, not for fidelity to curriculum

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ BPS has many recognized curriculum experts in the field
▪ Deliberate processes for curriculum testing and piloting, guards
against “flavor of the month” approaches
▪ Teachers empowered to raise concerns with curriculum to
improve it

Challenges
▪ Math curricula not updated since 2000
▪ Many different curricula at various grade spans difficult for principals to
align
▪ Teachers feel budget cuts that have eliminated coaches, fewer
resources available to help them implement curriculum
▪ Some schools found to still be teaching off old standards
▪ Difficulty collaborating and integrating general education curriculum with
ELL and SPED
▪ Autonomy practices among low performing schools unclear, causing
concerns about fidelity to curriculum in some pockets

Opportunities and potential impacts
Organizational structure
▪ Fully integrate and align SPED, ELL and Academics to ensure greater coherence of curriculum and approaches
▪ One office for all PD to ensure quality and coordinate goals for educators and leverage resources to maximum potential for supporting curriculum
implementation; will lead to better integration of resources, cost savings and better experiences for teachers
Long-term planning
▪ Develop policies and long-term plans to regularly review curriculum with principals and teachers on regular cycles, to keep curricula fresh, continually
competitively bid and negotiate for pricing (where applicable) and develop full K0-12 alignment

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 91
|

RFP 25

Student assignment

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $3.4M

Summary points



Student assignment is follows a rigorous assignment algorithm that is fair and protected from tampering
Student assignment process flows quickly, easily and transparently for families
New student assignment patterns were rolled out successfully, but at a cost in legacy transportation

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Welcome centers staffed with trained professionals, who help
families through a simple process, managed by Engagement office
▪ Schools assignments are protected from tampering through
computer system and randomized lottery
▪ Parents and families do not wait longer than 3 days for initial school
assignment
▪ New, “homebase” assignments have successfully ensured options
closer to home

Challenges
▪ As “homebase” is phased in, some confusion and overlapping zones
will persist
▪ All student files and registration still paper-based systems
▪ Legacy costs for students under old zone system are unquantified, but
are potentially contributing significantly to $40M Choice bussing plans
▪ Transition to SIS system has more than doubled processing time
▪ Enrollment projection process not sophisticated and thusly costs
between $0.1 and $2M annually in added school needs

Opportunities and potential impacts
Technology enhancements
▪ Better technology and moving away from paper-based systems would improve turnaround time and errors in data, while likely decreasing need for
manual roles in department
▪ Better software or process for creating enrollment projections can lead to better direction of student assignment and prevent the need to add
teachers at the beginning of every school year

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 92
|

RFP 25

Parent Engagement

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $2.6M

Summary points


Engagement department regarded by many stakeholders as strongest BPS department due to expectation setting and relentless focus on
engagement
Systems and culture in place that maximize engagement across the organization

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Engagement office is very clear with all stakeholders what the office
can and cannot do
▪ Superintendent circulars require three, representative parents on
principal screening committee, with quorum only achieved with at
least one parent or one teacher present
▪ Parent University has reached 6,000 parents
▪ School site councils require schools to actively engage with parents

Challenges
▪ Some principal hiring processes were done incorrectly and invited
lawsuits, when circulars were ignored
▪ Principals concerned over a lost connection to the mayor’s office and
the city with changing of administration

Opportunities and potential impacts
Expanded engagement
▪ Principals’ concerns over lost connection to city could be alleviated by an expanded portfolio of constituent relations for mayoral staff, or more formal
links through the Engagement office

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 93
|

RFP 25

Opportunity type

Union contract implementation, management
and negotiation

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $N/A

Summary points


Good working relationships with unions
Departments affected by union contracts not as fully involved as would like to be

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Strong working relationship with unions through regular meetings
and working sessions
▪ Innovative mindsets in Human Capital around better ways to
leverage contracts to drive value for kids and schools (e.g., openhiring,
▪ H.R. functions aligned with executing contractual obligations, with
few complaints from teachers

Challenges
▪ Teacher contract negotiation planning not yet underway, concerns
about timeline of previous negotiations (1-2 years of negotiations)
should expect negotiations to start soon
▪ Some departments frustrated by previously negotiated union rules
around duties and practices BPS must follow and have untapped
perspectives on new needs

Opportunities and potential impacts
BPS-wide contract communication / collaboration
▪ Many different functions in many different parts of the organization interact with union requirements and have thoughts on opportunities to adjust
duties and find cost savings; a formal process for soliciting areas of strength and opportunity BPS-wide with each contract negotiation could lead to
effective insights and more robust thinking around BPS’ students’ needs

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 94
|

RFP 25

Opportunity type

General staffing and recruiting policies
and procedures

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points

Improving processes and pipelines for school-level recruiting through use of historical data, however not a clear strategy for central office recruiting

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ New culture of using data on previous conversion rates being used
to target high likelihood teachers and principals – also using data to
target recruitment of diverse work force
▪ New system (TalentED) in place to engage, recruit, track and hire
teaching candidates
▪ Have some of the best compensation in the country for teachers,
makes BPS a destination
▪ Innovative uses and placement of unplaced teachers, using them
as subs, or co-teachers
▪ Created “recruitment fellows” to engage teachers in recruiting

Challenges
▪ Unpredictable staffing openings in schools with weak communication
around how staffing will change year-to-year
▪ Managerial step changes and pay grades have not been reviewed for
years, leading to inconsistencies in appropriate designations
▪ Under teacher’s union contracts, principals can make significantly less
than some teachers, lessening interest in principal pathways
▪ Union contracts limit what can and cannot be in job descriptions,
making unique hires difficult
▪ Data on hiring pools and performance not available

Opportunities and potential impacts
Central office recruiting
▪ While significantly less of a priority, pipelines and pathways for central office hiring could be attached to current teacher and principal efforts, to
leverage the BPS brand and resources currently already in the field

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 95
|

RFP 25

Delineation of duties between BPS
and schools

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points



Belief in varying levels of autonomy has created low-level confusion around who is responsible for what duties
New network structure has created vague structure of accountability with FTE’s shared between networks and central office
Central office departments do not collaborate often enough to identify opportunities for shared approaches

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ New network structure has pushed more resources and attention to
the schools
▪ Network superintendents believe they have far greater insights and
are able to bring more targeted PD and supports to the problems
they see

Challenges
▪ Principals and central office staff are often unclear about what certain
designations mean (e.g., pilot school) and improvise
▪ Networks now share FTE’s with central office, creating accountability
and management problems
▪ Principals unclear about when to reach out to network v. HQ
▪ Central office does not coordinate effectively across offices, missing
opportunities to leverage shared goals and resources (e.g., PD,
employee evaluations, integration of curriculum with SPED and ELL)

Opportunities and potential impacts
Organization
▪ BPS has a handful of successful cross departmental meetings and task forces (chiefs, deputy chiefs, directors, etc.), however regular crossdepartmental meetings and communications would increase collaboration and identify areas of overlap and opportunities for more efficiently
leveraging resources
Policy communication
▪ Lack of clarity among principals and central office staff about expected relationships and duties of each need specific policy clarification and
communication to all BPS employees

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 96
|

RFP 25

Instructional staffing

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $7M

Summary points



“Weighted student formula” used to build school budgets provides good framework, could use updating
New open posting policy has improved hiring process for principals as has mutual consent hiring
Wide spectrum of popularity among schools has student to teacher ratios varying across schools and the district

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Weighted student formula effective in providing both transparency
and equity in the system
▪ New open posting policy freed up principals greatly and they have
much higher degree of confidence in their hires
▪ Jump in teacher hiring by June from 7% to 87% year over year
through big central office push
▪ Student to teacher ratios are in line with research-backed
appropriate levels

Challenges
▪ WSF is not deeply evaluated for academic outcomes or alignment that
could inform principals about effective (and ineffective) ways to
leverage budget allocations
▪ Student to teacher ratios vary across schools as overall school
populations vary (e.g., K0-5 schools average 13.3, with a range of 10.4
to 17.9)

Opportunities and potential impacts


District population alignment:
– With some schools at maximum capacities and others well below these levels, student to teacher ratios will vary; a strategic direction for the
district’s footprint and a district right-sizing will narrow the spectrum between schools
WSF review:
– A deeper dive on how WSF allocation and decisions on usage affects student outcomes can provide additional insights into how the WSF might
be adjusted to better account for the needs of schools

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 97
|

RFP 25

License maintenance

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points


Human Capital systems tracks licenses and identifies areas of need, but poor PD and expectations that teachers will self-certify lead to occasional
delays
Viewed as a compliance function, is not fully aligned with producing better student outcomes

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Clear business processes in place for capturing licensure
▪ Recent hire will have a an FTE dedicated to keeping data current
and working with instructional leads to identify opportunities

Challenges
▪ Because much of this is considered compliance, there is difficulty
getting all teachers to self-certify as needed, resulting in a recent lag in
ELL certifications
▪ Frustrations around some licensure being more driven by compliance
than by what is good for kids
▪ PD is not always aligned and available to aid in getting licensure

Opportunities and potential impacts
Alignment with student outcomes
▪ A systematic review of licenses and outcomes of students could identify licensing pathways and specific licenses that correlate with strong student
performance and align policies as appropriate

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 98
|

RFP 25

CORI and SORI processes

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points


Attached to hiring process, applicants cannot be hired without satisfying requirement, keeping unapproved out of positions or work, extra vigilance
needed for volunteers
BPS is one of the few (if not the only) City department that still uses a paper-based system of faxing required

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Structurally, no one can be hired at BPS without completing CORI /
SORI checks
▪ Business process in place to reliably get to City, as needed

Challenges
▪ Any entirely manual, paper-based process, despite the rest of the City
executing these checks online arranged through previous work with the
state
▪ Forms required for volunteer adults in schools who are not employees,
leaving school with responsibility of verifying adult has received
clearance

Opportunities and potential impacts
Technology:
▪ Getting BPS system online and fully aligned with the city will improve time required for checks, decrease errors and provide better data tracking;
technology exists and city Human Capital can train and incorporate BPS into its systems

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 99
|

RFP 25

External funds transparency

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points


BPS does not have a unified strategy for securing external funds, leaving applications and efforts largely to the department and school level
While most grant funding is accounted for, a less formal process exists for providing transparency for private funds

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Secured $40M in outside funding in FY14, $30M from competitive
grants and $10M from private funds
▪ Recent trainings of program managers who manage grants have
been instituted by the Department of Institutional Advancement
▪ Most grants require disclosures and transparency into funds usage,
compelling grant managers to comply to continue funds

Challenges
▪ Funds are identified by offices as needed and are applied to on a
departmental or school level, without coordination across the
organization
▪ No unifying view of what BPS should be directing private funds
towards, without alignment to any strategy
▪ Funds accepted for programs or ideas without a formal evaluation
of whether the new programs align with BPS academic strategies
▪ No formal review of grant funding and impacts

Opportunities and potential impacts


Funder strategy:
– BPS is potentially leaving money on the table without a clear vision for fundraising and its uses; through aligning fundraising activities with
overall department strategy additional funders can be more easily identified and ultimately solicited
Organizational structure:
– BPS has an irregular structure from other districts in that its foundation is run in-house, a legacy structure. A further review of the pros and cons
for this structure may reveal that it is better run as an independent foundation, or should be more tightly interwoven into BPS; in either case the
resulting structure will be a more deliberate decision and will more effectively support BPS activities

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 100
|

RFP 25

BPS spends $10M annually on partnerships that are not regularly
reviewed for student impact

Schoolbased
partnerships

Non-school
based

Program

Outlay











Achievement Network
Alliance for inclusion and
prevention (AIP)
BELL
Blueprint
Boston debate league
Citizen Schools
City Connects
City Year
Communities in schools
Key steps
Talent development
Tenacity










American Student Assistance
BPE Boston Teacher Residency
Boston Partners in Education
Edvestors
Generations, Inc.
MassInsight
Teach For America
TeachPlus
PIC
UMASS TAG Alerta

Source: BPS Office of Partnerships









▪▪



▪▪





DRAFT

$500
K
$65K
$60K
$223
K
$482
K
$1.2M
$994
K
$2.4M
$50K
$55K
$265
K
$600
$100
K
K
$80K
$200
$100
K
K
$10K
$500
K
$78K
$122
K
$1.2M
$450

▪▪

Partnerships
Partnerships bring
bring in
in ~$28M
~$28M of
of funds
funds
from
from partners
partners to
to bear
bear on
on system
system

▪▪

Recently
Recently aa systematic
systematic review
review of
of
these
partnerships
has
begun,
but
these partnerships has begun, but
funding
funding continues
continues to
to be
be granted
granted
centrally
centrally on
on aa “relational”
“relational” basis
basis more
more
than
on
a
strategic
basis
than on a strategic basis

▪▪

At
At the
the school
school level
level there
there are
are
hundreds
hundreds of
of partners
partners (most
(most of
of whom
whom
are
not
receiving
BPS
funds)
who
are not receiving BPS funds) who are
are
also
not
evaluated
for
efficacy,
also not evaluated for efficacy,
process
process for
for central
central evaluation
evaluation should
should
be
mimicked
at
schools
be mimicked at schools

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 101
|

RFP 25

Timekeeping

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: N/A

Summary points


Timekeeping is a process that is still paper-based, requiring sign-in sheets followed by manual keying in of time later
Effective process controls require managers to approve time and department heads to review manager time approvals before time can be entered

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ While not efficient, process requires both manager and timekeeper
to approve employee time and principal or department heads to
sign off on payroll reports
▪ Errors are avoided as the electronic system into which time is keyed
is set to default hours that just have to be adjusted, rather than
entered anew
▪ Recent work at BPS to identify processes that lead to higher levels
of employees on leave identified process changes
▪ City of Boston payroll department regularly audits timekeeping at
BPS

Challenges
▪ Time entry is done by sign-in sheets, none of which is automated
▪ Leave of absences have historically not been tracked effectively,
leaving it open for abuse, although recent staff addition and policy
changes have begun to be instituted
▪ Certain types of leave (e.g., medical) have low standards of
verification

Opportunities and potential impacts


Technology:
– BPS can transition to a fully automated, electronic system, which would lessen paperwork and potential manual errors
Accountability:
– Continuing to implement recommendations for improving verification for various types of leave will likely drive down false leave (both purposeful
and inadvertent) , with a focus on data tracking of trends and building automated processes into technological systems to push accountability
and accuracy

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 102
|

RFP 25

Contracts and purchasing

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $N/A

Summary points



BPS performs roughly 50% of city’s procurement transactions
City purchasing requirements and regulations are observed and in place for all purchases
The large volume of procurement that BPS handles regularly leads to slower approvals and execution

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ BPS procurement policies set by city and followed consistently
▪ Stories of procurement officials not eating food at official functions
because they don’t believe money should go to food abound

Challenges
▪ School and central based staff complain that procurement process
frequently takes too long
▪ Responsible for 50% of city’s purchasing transactions, while
representing just over a third of the city’s budget

Opportunities and potential impacts

Process mapping:
– A fuller understanding of where procurement slows down, from an operations perspective, could unlock capacity and improve customer
satisfaction with procurement functions; the process mapping could identify areas for deeper collaboration with the city
– BPS as the largest city agency could drive different procurement practices for the city if opportunities are identified for improved processes

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 103
|

RFP 25

Building construction and renovation

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $26M

Summary points


Rough estimates that current schools stock requires between $3 and $4B in renovation
12M square feet of buildings in BPS system (3/4 of all city square footage), with little scaling back of footprint despite declining enrollment over
decades

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Master plan on track to select vendor; part of the contract will
encompass building audit and data system for tracking
▪ New plan will also look at BPS financing directly (as opposed to
through the city) for the first time, which could open up additional
financing streams

Challenges
▪ No facility renewal plan or cycle for buildings or long term vision for
the facilities needs for the academic program moving forward
▪ No data tracking on current state of the buildings at a comprehensive
level, which allows for consideration of usage and utilization of rooms,
buildings and system
▪ Back of the envelope estimates based on perceived state of the
buildings point towards as much as $4B in needed renovation across
nearly 75% of school buildings
▪ Building financing has historically been done through the city,
preventing schools from seeking independent financing for upgrades

Opportunities and potential impacts

District footprint:
– The district has lost ~10K students (1/6 of enrollment) in the last 20 years, but still operates the same number of buildings; the master facilities
plan process now underway, can incorporate a strategic academic plan and align on the actual needs of the district for educating the current
population now and into the future
– Master plan has to ensure that investments are not being made on buildings that will potentially no longer be part of the BPS portfolio

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 104
|

RFP 25

Extra-curricular activities

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $N/A

Summary points


Extra-curricular activities are largely managed at the school-level, leaving principals and communities with a great deal of autonomy around what
types of activities are made available to students
Limited accountability for partnerships at district and school levels

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Between 600 and 800 out of school time (OST) providers providing
extra-curricular activities at at least 80% of BPS schools 1
▪ Most OST are self-funded, bringing additional support dollars to
BPS students
▪ Recent attempt to capture panoply of providers has given principals
a better view to what is available to them, to structure partnerships
and school programming as they see necessary
▪ Increased oversight recently of partners that are centrally funded
and managed

Challenges
▪ Very thin data available on available programming – no
comprehensive audit of effectiveness and distribution across
schools has been undertaken
▪ Limited oversight on school spending on OST providers and
partners
▪ No policies or expectations around what extracurriculars are
expected to be available to all students

Opportunities and potential impacts

Accountability:
– The department of partnerships and the CAO can do a comprehensive audit of extracurriculars currently available and align on KPI’s and
metrics to evaluate year to year effectiveness for both partners as well as any programming offered internally at schools;
– A more robust accounting for funding of extracurricular activities at the school level would provide an opportunity to see where partners could be
leveraged to maximize multiplier effects of dollars invested at schools

1 Investing in success, 2007 report

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 105
|

RFP 25

Security

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $3.9M

Summary points


Schools are increasingly safe over a 6 year period, with a recent uptick in incidents in school year 2014-2015
Not all schools have been fully trained in active shooter scenarios, due to limits on principal time

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Incidents down 20% since 2008-2009
▪ Arrests down 67% since 2008-2009
▪ Security officers have training and approach to schools that involves
proactive culture building, not only reactive policing to incidents

Challenges
▪ Recent spike in activity in the 1st semester, incidents up 10% versus
2013-2014 year to date, with spikes in Assault with a Dangerous
Weapon (+83%), Disruption of School Assembly (32%), Possession
of controlled substance (+27%)
▪ Multiple attempts by school security to principals active shooter
trained have failed as principals have not attended workshops
▪ Some district policies are not clearly established or enforced (e.g.,
use of metal detectors)
▪ Assault and battery incidents 2012-2013 three times the rate of peer
average1

Opportunities and potential impacts

Facilities plan:
– As part of master facilities plan, school security should be considered and integrated into evaluations of buildings; under-enrolled facilities are
harder to secure and keep students safe, looking at incidents against building capacities and occupancies could reveal certain tipping points in
school security numbers

1 Council of Great City Schools

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 106
|

RFP 25

The number of school incidents and arrests have been on a
steady decline

DRAFT

Arrests and reported incidents at BPS schools
Count of arrests / incidents
Incidents

Arrests Year to date incidents in
2014-2015 are up 10%
Downward trajectory in
incidents provides
opportunities for police
officers to be more
proactively involved in
school communities,
putting further
downward pressure on
incidents

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

SOURCE: Operations department performance management;
Council of Great City Schools

4/27/
16

4/27/
16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 107
|

RFP 25

School committee

Opportunity type

$

e

DRAFT

FY14: $0.3M

Summary points


School Committee has a newer set of folks who are engaged and passionate about community engagement and oversight
In the process of developing a district strategy, which could complicate and discussions with future superintendents who were not involved in
developing the district strategy

Area strengths and challenges
Strengths
▪ Very small budget, run lean organization, supported by 1.8 FTE’s
▪ New blood on the School Committee is very involved and
passionate about its role as providing effective oversight

Challenges
▪ Lack of clarity around whether school committee sets strategy and
hires superintendent to implement, or whether superintendent sets
strategy and committee approves it

Opportunities and potential impacts

Strategy:
– School Committee is developing strategy through conversations with the community, but is not working closely with BPS leadership and without
a permanent superintendent in place, there could be eventual tensions with the new superintendent; School Committee could slow the process
some to involve candidates and not finalize the strategy until a permanent leader has been hired to put her or his final touches to the eventual
vision

Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 108
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 109
|

PHASE II: DEEP DIVES

Through an analysis of the RFP areas, the Steering Committee
identified four areas for further deep dives
Description

1

District
overextension

DRAFT

Deep dive

Many operational limitations that the district
A deep dive in this area is structured to
faces stem from stretching too few resources capture the magnitude of the situation and
too thin across too many schools
identify the opportunities for right-sizing the
district footprint

2 Organization

Interviews revealed a lack of goal alignment
across BPS as well as poor data tracking
and management

A survey of central offices employees and an
analysis of current structures is designed to
provide insights into opportunities for
organizational restructuring and alignment

Special
education

Special education comprises nearly 25% of
the BPS budget and does not deliver
improved services for students with
disabilities

A fuller understanding of where BPS stands
relative to peers in special education and an
accounting of current and future spends is
leveraged to identify opportunities for better
services and cost savings

Other operational
areas

While not systematic, BPS has a number of
operational areas that have large spends and
have potential opportunities for ensuring that
spend gets fully to the student

A “medium” dive investigation of large spend
areas including areas like maintenance, food
services, transportation and professional
development for further efficiencies

3

4

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 110
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 111
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

Warning on use of values in this section

DRAFT

Values have been used throughout this section to
estimate the potential costs and savings associated with
closing a BPS school

These numbers are based on averages that, while
helpful for estimation, do not take into account the full
complexity of the situation

These numbers should give a sense of the situation but
should not be used as expectations for future work
without taking into account a full analysis of the situation

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 112
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

Executive Summary

DRAFT

▪ BPS has a larger footprint than is required of its comparable peers. Since the early 1970s, the
total number of students enrolled in the district has declined by ~40,000, while the number of active
BPS buildings has remained relatively constant. In the next 15 years, student enrollment may
continue to change due in part to a changing population but could change drastically if the charter
cap is lifted, leaving BPS with up to 44,000 seats in excess capacity.

▪ Operating with extra capacity costs BPS. BPS incurs annual expenses of ~$4.6M per open
school in operating expenses, before considering the additional tolls of a large system including
a more dispersed focus for Central Office teams than is truly needed, smaller communities of
support and engagement due to less-than-capacity schools, and an overstretch on programming
budgets (e.g., Athletics or Wellness).

▪ BPS could consider saving money and improve the system by consolidating schools to fill

each school to capacity, theoretically allowing BPS to close ~30-50 schools. This could allow BPS
to capture ~$50-80M in annual opex savings, potential one-time revenue from ~$120-200M in
property sales or long-term leases, targeted Central Office support for a smaller portfolio of
schools, and more robust school communities with larger programming budgets from
reinvestment.

▪ Should BPS choose to proceed in addressing this overextension, deliberate planning will be

required to make the transition the most beneficial to students and least disruptive. Many
districts have experienced school consolidation from which BPS can learn in order to maintain or
improve the academic achievement of every seat while engaging the community productively.
With careful identification of schools and a thoughtful timeline for implementation, BPS can let the
academic vision drive its footprint

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 113
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

BPS has 15% fewer students than 20 years ago
and could lose up to another 13% if the charter
cap is lifted

4/27/16

DRAFT

4/27/16
4/27/16

Student population
# of students

▪▪ Since
Since 1994,
1994, BPS
BPS

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16

has
has lost
lost nearly
nearly
9,000
students
9,000 students
While
While the
the
population
population of
of
Boston
Boston is
is expected
expected
to
to grow
grow by
by over
over
20%
20% over
over the
the next
next
15
15 years,
years, BPS’
BPS’
current
trend
current trend
suggests
suggests very
very little
little
change
in
student
change in student
population
population
Lifting
Lifting the
the charter
charter
cap
cap can
can have
have
strongly
strongly negative
negative
impacts
impacts for
for BPS,
BPS,
losing
losing another
another
7,000
7,000 students
students

NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the
past

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; UMass Donohue Institute;

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 114
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

In the same period, the number of schools in the district has
remained relatively constant

DRAFT

School programs
# of school programs
4/27/16

▪▪ Today
Today BPS
BPS has
has

10
10 more
more
schools
schools than
than in
in
1994
1994

▪▪ Many
Many of
of the
the

2011
2011 school
school
closures
closures were
were
operationally
operationally
consolidations,
consolidations,
limiting
limiting the
the
change
change in
in
schools
schools to
to 99

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

4/27
/16

NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; Internal interviews; BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 115
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

The current 130 schools could hold over 90,000 students if
operating at full capacity without student-teacher ratio limits

DRAFT

School capacities
Number of physical “seats”
4/27/16

▪▪ This
This includes
includes

the
the total
total count
count
of
of classroom
classroom
seats,
seats, without
without
counting
counting
resource
resource rooms
rooms

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪ The
The average
average

4/27/16

school
school has
has 715
715
seats
seats

4/27/16

▪▪ The
The total
total

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

capacity
capacity is
is
92,950
92,950

4/27/16
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters
METHODOLOGY: Rooms were counted as “A” or “B” by the facilities team; “A” rooms could hold 21-30 students depending on the
school, “B” rooms can only hold 12 students
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 116
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

The extra seats are mostly well distributed across the district
with an average of 68% utilization

DRAFT

School facility capacity utilization
Percent of “seats” filled
4/27/16%

4/27/16%

4/27/16%

4/27/16%

4/27/16%

▪▪ Half
Half of
of the
the

▪▪

schools
schools are
are
under
under 2/3rds
2/3rds
utilized
utilized
Some
Some schools
schools
are
are being
being very
very
overutilized
overutilized
based
based on
on
Facilities’
Facilities’
assessment
assessment of
of
available
available seats
seats

4/27/16%
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters
METHODOLOGY: Based on building capacity data from prior analysis; does not take into account student teacher-ratio or use of resource classrooms
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 117
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

BPS may have as many as 38,000
seats beyond what is necessary

4/27/16

4/27/162

4/27/161

4/27/16

DRAFT

Student population
# of school programs, # of students

▪▪ BPS
BPS could
could

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪

reduce
reduce its
its
footprint
footprint
based
based on
on the
the
large
large
difference
difference
between
between its
its
enrollment
enrollment
and
and its
its
capacity
capacity
Projections
Projections
suggest
suggest no
no
additional
additional
space
space may
may
be
needed
be needed in
in
the
future
the future

With
With students
students decreasing,
decreasing, the
the funding
funding for
for each
each student
student must
must continue
continue
to
to cover
cover the
the system’s
system’s “fixed
“fixed costs”
costs” including
including the
the buildings
buildings but
but also
also the
the
principals
principals and
and school
school staff
staff which
which are
are present
present at
at each
each location
location
NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools; assumes an average building student capacity based on
BPS facilities analysis from 2009
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the past
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education; UMass Donohue Institute;

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 118
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

Declining enrollment coupled with a stable footprint drives a far
lower student-teacher ratio than intended

DRAFT

Average student-teacher ratio1
Ratio of total students to total teachers

 While
While BPS
BPS has
has set
set

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

limits
limits that
that would
would
allow
allow class
class sizes
sizes to
to
be
be 20
20 or
or more
more
students,
students, BPS
BPS
operates
operates with
with ~12
~12
students
students in
in aa classclassroom;
room; most
most peer
peer
districts
districts operate
operate
with
with more
more
 IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to meet
meet
peer
peer average,
average, they
they
would
would carry
carry ~1,300
~1,300
fewer
fewer teachers,
teachers, at
at
aa savings
savings of
of $90$90110M
110M
Peer avg. 4/27/16

1 These numbers include all students (e.g., SPED, ELL), so equally wrong, but comparable; method of choosing peer set in appendix
Source: Common Core of Data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 119
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

The average BPS school costs $4.6m to run, excluding support
costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services

DRAFT

130 total schools

4/27/16
Custodial
support

36 teachers

1 principal, 1
secretary, and
others

418 students

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
Thousands

1 Does not include benefits; does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers
2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 120
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

Consolidating schools could net the district ~$1.7M before
property sales
Prior
cost

Description

Class room
staff
reduction

DRAFT

Cost after Savings
closing
after closing

The average teacher – student ratio goes
from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
District adjusts teaching staff accordingly,
with impact on compensation and benefits

$3.8m $2.3-2.8m

$1.0-1.5m

“Foundation”
for school
staff

District adjusts staff where classrooms can
be consolidated in receiving buildings

$200k

$0

$200k

Average
custodial
support

Custodial support is no longer required at
the building but may increase by 30% 1 at
receiving schools

$166k

$50k

$116k

Average
building
maintenance

Maintenance is no longer required but may
increase by 30%1 at receiving schools

$191k

$57k

$134k

The closing school no longer needs to
spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)

$260k

$0

$260k

Average
utilities

Total
1 Assumed

$1.7- 2.2m

2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1

Source: Team analysis and Office of Finance data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 121
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

The non-staff savings are consistent with what other systems
have experienced

DRAFT

Four other school districted that consoidated schools
saw an average saving of $580K per school per
year
Other
districts

Milwaukee: $330K per school per year with 20
closures

Washington D.C.: $726K per school per year with
23 closures

Pittsburgh: $668K per school per year with 22
closures

Detroit: $593K per school per year with 59 closures
Research
Research into
into savings
savings has
has found,
found, “How
“How much
much
money
money is
is saved
saved by
by closing
closing schools
schools depends
depends
in
in part
part on
on the
the degree
degree to
to which
which closings
closings
are
are accompanied
accompanied by
by job
job reductions.”
reductions.”

Source: Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia - Lessons from Six Urban Districts, the
Philadelphia Research Initiative, PEW Charitable Trusts, October 19, 2011

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 122
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

Additionally, BPS could recognize many positive gains beyond
a reduction in operating costs from consolidating schools
Potential gain
True neighborhood
schools
Closure of lowestperforming schools
Better targeting for
Central Office support
Reduction in
transportation complexity
Avoidance of building
maintenance expenditures

Revenues from property
sales

DRAFT

Description





Parents, as evidenced in focus groups, highly value
students remaining with the same neighborhood-based
class throughout years of schooling
The district can move students from Level 4 and Level 5
to higher performing schools, raising academic
achievement in the district
By closing schools, the Central Office will have fewer
schools to cover with supports, helping prevent its
resources from being stretched too thin
If school consolidations follow the neighborhood
scheme, it further reduces the need for transportation
services in the district
With up to $600M in deferred maintenance on the books,
closing schools can avoid this costly expenditure, while
also halting altogether potential investments that would
otherwise be planned for existing buildings
Many closed school buildings could go towards City
needs or be sold in areas where value is high
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 123
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

BPS has many opportunities that could be pursued to free up funding
and improve the student experience through school consolidations
Projected run-rate value
$ Millions per year
ILLUSTRATIVE

~10
~15

~35

~10
4/27/
16

4/27/
16

Bottom ~10
schools in
academics could
be identified in
the first set of
schools

~10 closures
could focus on
the costliest
schools in
maintenance

4/27/
16
Additional ~10
closures could
include schools
that are in lowdemand

4/27/16

In all, BPS could
choose to close
many schools
based on a
combination of
factors

The
The buildings
buildings chosen
chosen should
should be
be based
based on
on aa detailed
detailed
analysis,
including
factors
such
as
demand
for
analysis, including factors such as demand for seats,
seats,
academic
academic achievement,
achievement, academic
academic progress,
progress, deferred
deferred
maintenance
maintenance and
and operation
operation costs,
costs, and
and others
others
Numbers are illustrative and kept simple (but within range) as they will vary by school

DRAFT

In
In addition
addition to
to the
the
monetary
monetary value,
value, BPS
BPS will
will
also
gain:
also gain:
▪▪ AA better-focused
better-focused Central
Central
Office
Office to
to serve
serve students
students
with
with aa path
path forward
forward on
on
direction
direction of
of district
district and
and
the
size
of
the
Central
the size of the Central
Office
Office needed
needed to
to support
support
itit
▪▪ AA smarter
smarter allocation
allocation of
of
resources
resources with
with wider
wider and
and
deeper
deeper resources
resources
allocated
allocated
to
to narrower
narrower set
set of
of
individual
individual schools
schools to
to
support
support students
students and
and
improve
improve district-wide
district-wide
academics
academics
▪▪ Schools
Schools reflecting
reflecting the
the
local
local communities
communities with
with
more
more neighborhood
neighborhood
schools
schools and
and reduced
reduced
transportation
transportation complexity
complexity

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 124
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

BPS may unlock one-time revenues from property sales
that could be reinvested in the capital facilities plan

▪▪

The
The average
average BPS
BPS
elementary
elementary school
school property
property
is
is worth
worth $4.1M
$4.1M

▪▪

Altogether,
Altogether, ~30
~30 school
school
properties
properties may
may be
be worth
worth
~$120M
~$120M

▪▪

BPS
BPS also
also has
has two
two properties
properties
which
which have
have exceedingly
exceedingly high
high
land
land value
value (in
(in Fenway
Fenway and
and in
in
Copley)
Copley) which
which could
could also
also be
be
examined
examined for
for aa capital
capital
infusion
infusion

Source: Based on a random sampling (n=10) of property values using
City of Boston assessment values

DRAFT

▪▪ This
This infusion
infusion of
of capital
capital can
can

be
be reinvested
reinvested into
into the
the
system
system to:
to:
–– Improve
Improve existing
existing schools
schools
in
in need
need of
of maintenance
maintenance
projects
projects
–– Special-build
Special-build capital
capital
projects
projects to
to improve
improve the
the
programming
programming capabilities
capabilities
of
of existing
existing schools
schools
–– Build
Build new
new state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art
schools
schools

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 125
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS

DRAFT

▪▪ Expanded
Expanded beforebefore- and
and after-school
after-school
programming
programming for
for students
students in
in all
all
schools
schools

▪▪ ~$51-85M
~$51-85M in
in run-rate
run-rate savings
savings

garnered
garnered from
from closing
closing 30
30 –– 50
50
schools
schools

▪▪ Guaranteed
Guaranteed set
set of
of electives
electives or
or
specials
specials at
at all
all schools
schools (e.g.,
(e.g.,
Physical
Physical Education,
Education, Art)
Art)

▪▪ Greater
Greater portfolio
portfolio of
of teacher
teacher supports
supports
and
and resources
resources (e.g.,
(e.g., instructional
instructional
coaches,
coaches, first-year
first-year mentors,
mentors,
counselors)
counselors)

▪▪ ~$120-200M
~$120-200M in
in one-time
one-time cash
cash

from
from property
property sales
sales of
of 30
30 –– 50
50
schools
schools

▪▪ Funds
Funds to
to build
build 11 state-of-the-art
state-of-the-art

high
high school
school (~$30M)
(~$30M) and
and 99 state-ofstate-ofthe-art
the-art lower
lower schools
schools (~$10M
(~$10M each)
each)

While
While these
these are
are possibilities,
possibilities, the
the school
school district
district will
will have
have the
the ability
ability to
to choose
choose
how
how itit reinvests
reinvests the
the money,
money, taking
taking into
into account
account the
the tradeoffs
tradeoffs between
between
consistency
consistency across
across schools
schools and
and school
school autonomy
autonomy
Source: BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 126
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
DRAFT
A handful of big-city districts have successfully confronted over-extension
problems to concentrate resources on students

Situation

Resolution

The number of students in
CPS had shrunk and the
district was operating at a
large deficit

Decline in student population
by 50% with a growing budget
deficit

Consolidated 59 schools in
2010 and 70 schools in 2011
to arrive at a district of just 72
schools

Greater use of charters,
deteriorating facilities, and the
need for NCLB-mandated
restructuring at some schools

Aggressive school
consolidations from the
superintendent and mayor
created savings but process
fostered distrust

Lots of unused district space
in school buildings and a
demand for more space from
charters

Passed an ordinance allowing
unused space to be rented to
charters

1 Chicago

2 Detroit

3 DC

4

Los
Angeles

Consolidated 53 schools over
3 years, redirecting all
students to a school
academically equal to or better
than their current

While
While these
these
school
school
consolidations
consolidations
were
were tough
tough in
in
the
the short-term,
short-term,
many
many systems
systems
have
gone
have gone on
on to
to
see
see positive
positive
long-run
long-run
academically
academically
and
and fiscal
fiscal
benefits
benefits11

1 Full case study examples in the appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 127
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

When considering which schools, BPS could
consider a few factors

Academic
performance

Description

Key analyses


BPS currently has many Level 4 and 5 schools
An increase in numbers of these schools could
downgrade the district’s overall rating
BPS could factor in academic performance of
schools to improve the overall average rating of
the district

BPS can factor in the schools most in need of
maintenance
This would help avoid those costs and free up
significant funding for investing in other schools
The capital saved may be enough to build
entirely new, state-of-the-art flagship schools in
the coming years

Despite having more seats available in many
schools, BPS places an artificial “market cap” on
the number of students admitted to each school
Many students are turned away from schools that
are in-demand yet not allowed to maximize their
student-teacher ratios or classroom spaces
Students could benefit from filling the highest
demanded schools to the fullest capacity
BPS would then factor in the least demanded
schools, thereby displacing the fewest number of
students; these students could still be
guaranteed an improved seat


Maintenance
costs




School
demand

DRAFT



Programmatic
offerings aligned with
student needs
Academic
performance data
ranking schools in
multiple dimensions
Ranked list of average
on-going maintenance
needs in all schools
Ranked list of deferred
maintenance needs in
all schools
Ranked list of number
of applications for
spots in every school
in the district
Ranked list of current
school occupancy
levels
Ranked list of potential
school capacities

Combining
Combining
all
all of
of these
these
factors
factors
could
could help
help
the
district
the district
make
make
informed
informed
decisions
decisions
about
about
which
which
schools
schools
might
might be
be
targeted
targeted

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 128
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
▫ Classroom based drivers
▫ Transportation
▫ Private placement
▫ Inclusion view
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 129
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Executive Summary

DRAFT

▪▪ Classrooms,
Classrooms, transportation
transportation and
and private
private tuitions
tuitions account
account for
for 73%
73% of
of SPED
SPED

budget.
budget. SPED
SPED accounts
accounts for
for ~25%
~25% of
of the
the BPS
BPS budget,
budget, meaning
meaning these
these costs
costs together
together
account
account for
for ~20%
~20% of
of the
the overall
overall BPS
BPS budget
budget

▪▪ Classroom
Classroom costs
costs are
are driven
driven by
by variability
variability in
in classification
classification and
and non-inclusion
non-inclusion

models.
models. Investigating
Investigating this
this variation
variation will
will give
give BPS
BPS aa few
few levers
levers to
to focus
focus on
on programs
programs
that
that may
may be
be over-classifying
over-classifying students
students as
as ways
ways to
to both
both improve
improve services
services and
and limit
limit
unnecessary
unnecessary costs.
costs.

▪▪ SPED
SPED placement
placement and
and transportation
transportation decisions
decisions are
are driving
driving BPS
BPS transportation
transportation

costs.
costs. Decisions
Decisions around
around tracking
tracking students
students to
to current
current zone
zone patterns
patterns and
and which
which
students
students are
are getting
getting transportation
transportation as
as part
part of
of their
their IEP’s
IEP’s are
are contributing
contributing to
to an
an already
already
large
large transportation
transportation line
line item.
item.

▪▪ Private
Private placement
placement decisions
decisions are
are driving
driving both
both transportation
transportation and
and tuition
tuition costs.
costs.

BPS
BPS has
has an
an opportunity
opportunity to
to direct
direct private
private placement
placement students
students to
to better
better programs
programs while
while
also
also decreasing
decreasing costs
costs associated
associated with
with these
these placements.
placements.

▪▪ BPS
BPS has
has begun
begun an
an ambitious,
ambitious, 12-year
12-year plan
plan to
to move
move almost
almost all
all SPED
SPED students
students to
to

inclusion
inclusion classrooms.
classrooms. In
In SY13-14
SY13-14 BPS
BPS began
began aa phasing
phasing in
in of
of inclusion
inclusion classrooms.
classrooms.
The
The gradual
gradual phasing
phasing in
in will
will grow
grow SPED
SPED costs
costs by
by up
up to
to $8m
$8m aa year
year at
at the
the roll-out
roll-out peak,
peak,
but
but an
an aggressive
aggressive adherence
adherence to
to phasing
phasing out
out sub
sub // separate
separate classrooms
classrooms can
can capture
capture
~$63m
~$63m annually
annually and
and provide
provide significantly
significantly better
better education
education by
by year
year 12.
12.

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 130
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Special education costs have been rising nationally for
years, but BPS’ budget is more heavily weighted towards SPED

DRAFT

Special education as % of total per pupil spending1
SPED as % of total PPS

▪▪ Special
Special education
education

4/27/16
4/27/16

costs
costs have
have been
been
rising
rising nationally
nationally since
since
the
the 60’s,
60’s, capturing
capturing aa
continually
continually larger
larger
share
share of
of per
per pupil
pupil
spending,
spending, annually
annually

4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪ By
By 2005,
2005, special
special

education
education made
made up
up
21%
21% of
of budgets
budgets

4/27/16

▪▪ In
In 2014,
2014, actual
actual BPS
BPS

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16

1975: passage of
IDEA

4/27
/16

1 “Where has the money been going?”, Economic Policy Institute, 2010

19
4/27
/16

20
20
4/27 4/27
/16 /16

expenditures
expenditures on
on
special
special education
education
were
were 24%
24% of
of the
the
BPS
BPS budget
budget

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 131
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

73% of special education costs are in three areas:
classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m

Central

Transportation Private placement tuition
$ 49m

24% of BPS
budget
School
level

$ 136m (51%)

As the biggest three
areas in the biggest
part of the BPS
budget, these areas
are 18% of total
BPS budget

$ 37m

Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m

Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses

Sub/sep
teacher

Sub/sep
aides

$ 64m

$ 23m

DRAFT

Resource
teacher

Compliance
program
support

$ 21m

$ 12m

$ 129m (49%)

Misc. equipOther labor
supports (ad- ment and
ministrators, supports
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m

$ 3m

Misc. expenses
Admin. &
Compliance Insurance
(e.g., equipment,
superadvisory inclusion, itinerant
support)
$ 13m

$ 9m

$ 2m

$ 2m

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 132
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

In the largest areas of SPED spending, BPS has a few
levers that can be used to control costs
Budget areas and spend

DRAFT
Classroom-based

Key drivers
Classification Ratios

Inclusion Location IEP’s

Staffing model

Sub/separate teachers
$64M
$4/27/16M

Transportation
$4/27/16M

Private placement tuition
$37 $4/27/16M

Sub/separate aides
$23M
$4/27/16M

Resource teachers
$21
$4/27/16M

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 133
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
▫ Classroom based drivers
▫ Transportation
▫ Private placement
▫ Inclusion view
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 134
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
New England
states

State classification rates
% of students in state classified SPED1
Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Nebraska
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
Iowa
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

DRAFT
Massachusetts/
Boston

Group
average

% of students in district classified SPED2
Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by MA district 2013

▪▪ AA2011
2011 Fordham
Fordham Institute
Institute report
report found
found

Boston

▪▪

2013 MA Avg.

▪▪

▪▪

4/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/164/27/16

that
that Massachusetts
Massachusetts has
has historically
historically
higher
SPED
numbers
due
higher SPED numbers due to
to being
being aa
leader
in
SPED
beginning
in
the
leader in SPED beginning in the 1970s
1970s
–– their
their being
being higher
higher than
than national
national
averages
averages is
is not
not aa reflection
reflection of
of any
any
state
policies,
but
of
state
culture
state policies, but of state culture
Boston
Boston has
has 19.5%
19.5% of
of students
students in
in special
special
education,
education, slightly
slightly above
above the
the
Massachusetts
Massachusetts district
district average
average of
of
16.5%
and
significantly
16.5% and significantly above
above the
the
national
national average
average of
of 13.1%
13.1%
AAreassessment
reassessment of
of SPED
SPED classification
classification
standards
could
more
accurately
standards could more accurately
classify
classify students
students and
and align
align the
the district
district
with
with peer
peer aveages
aveages
Assuming
Assuming direct
direct labor
labor aligns
aligns with
with the
the
number
of
students,
BPS
could
number of students, BPS could save
save
roughly
roughly $5M
$5M for
for every
every one
one
percentage
drop
in
classification
percentage drop in classification
–– Aligning
Aligning with
with state
state average
average could
could
translate
translate to
to $10-15M
$10-15M in
in savings
savings
–– Aligning
Aligning with
with New
New England
England average
average
of
16.2%
could
capture
$15-18M
of 16.2% could capture $15-18M
–– IfIf we
we believe
believe MA
MAhas
has moved
moved to
to far
far
from
from proper
proper classification,
classification, moving
moving
even
even closer
closer to
to the
the national
national average
average
can
bring
greater
savings
can bring greater savings and
and more
more
accurate
accurate classifications
classifications

1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011
2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes
all 409 “districts” in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 135
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
SWD designation varies little by income statuses of MA districts,
however low income students have a higher likelihood to be classified

Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status 1
% of students in district, 2013-2014
4/27/16
% of district FARM students

A
A 2014
2014 Massachusetts
Massachusetts
study
study found
found that
that lowlowincome
income students
students in
in the
the
state
were
identified
state were identified as
as
eligible
eligible for
for special
special
education
education services
services at
at
substantially
substantially higher
higher
rates
rates than
than non-lownon-lowincome
students
income students

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
% students classified with disabilities
1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 “districts” in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state
average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 136
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

27 schools are referring students to SPED at rates more than double
the district average, and are classifying students 39% more frequently

DRAFT

Rates of SPED referrals, by school, SY 14-15
% of student population referred for SPED evaluation
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

HS avg.: 1.2% of students
referred for testing

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

MS avg.: 2.3% of students
referred for testing

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

▪▪

▪▪

ES avg.: 3.7% of students
referred for testing

▪▪
BPS avg.: 2.8% of
students referred for
testing

▪▪

The
The top
top 20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS
schools
are
referring
schools are referring
an
an average
average of
of 5.8%
5.8%
of
their
students
of their students ––
twice
twice the
the district
district
average
average
This
This 20%
20% of
of schools
schools
is
is classifying
classifying 39%
39%
more
more of
of those
those
referred
referred as
as special
special
education
education than
than the
the
BPS
BPS average
average
Moving
Moving the
the top
top 20%
20%
of
referring
schools
of referring schools
into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district could
could
save
save $80-90K
$80-90K
annually
annually across
across
those
those 27
27 schools
schools
Investigation
Investigation and
and
training
training at
at these
these
schools
schools could
could move
move
schools
into
schools into
alignment
alignment with
with the
the
district
district
83%
83% of
of referrals
referrals are
are
coming
coming from
from parents
parents

2.8%

Source: BPS Office of Special Education data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 137
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Wide variation of classification means over classification could be
costing ~$500K annually, while 34 schools may be under classifying

DRAFT

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪
HS avg.: 25% of students referred
for testing are classified

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

MS avg.: 25% of students referred
for testing are classified

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

ES avg.: 50% of students referred
for testing are classified

▪▪
“We feel subtle pressure
sometimes to avoid classifying
students” – BPS teacher

41%

Source: BPS Office of Special Education data

20%
20% of
of BPS
BPS schools
schools
classified
classified 87%
87% of
of
referred
referred students
students ––
120
120 students
students
The
The schools
schools with
with high
high
classification
classification rates
rates
also
also are
are referring
referring
3.5%
3.5% of
of their
their
students,
students, 21%
21%
above
above the
the district
district
average
average
Moving
Moving the
the top
top 20%
20%
of
classifying
of classifying schools
schools
into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district average
average
could
could save
save $400$400600K
annually
600K annually
across
across those
those 27
27
schools
schools
Between
Between Feb
Feb and
and
Sept,
Sept, the
the 34
34 schools
schools
with
with 0%
0% classified
classified
had
had 216
216 students
students
referred
referred –– some
some
schools
schools may
maybe
be
under
under classifying
classifying

BPS avg.
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 138
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

There is a signification correlation of higher referral rates and higher
classification rates

DRAFT

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD
4/27/16
% of referred students classified

▪▪

▪▪

Schools
Schools that
that refer
refer
higher
higher percentages
percentages
of
of their
their students
students are
are
also
likely
to
also likely to
classify
classify referred
referred
students
students at
at higher
higher
rates
rates as
as well
well
While
While the
the
correlation
correlation is
is not
not
overwhelming,
overwhelming, itit
indicates
indicates that
that there
there
could
could be
be cultures
cultures
of
overreliance
of overreliance on
on
special
special education
education
in
in some
some school
school
communities
communities

4/27/16
% of total student body referred for testing

Source: BPS Office of Special Education data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 139
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Communication is the leading single category of classification, a
frequently misused diagnosis and an opportunity for further study
Types of SPED classification, % of SPED students
with this classification, out of 100%

DRAFT

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

▪▪
▪▪

▪▪
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: BPS Office of Special Education

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

BPS’
BPS’ distribution
distribution is
is mostly
mostly aligned
aligned with
with the
the
state,
with
some
potential
opportunity
in
state, with some potential opportunity in
Intellectual
Intellectual classification
classification
Communication
Communication is
is the
the leading
leading single
single
classification
classification and
and is
is aa disorder
disorder frequently
frequently
applied
applied to
to students
students who
who are
are ELL
ELL or
or have
have
simply
not
received
quality
instruction
simply not received quality instruction
Looking
Looking at
at rates
rates of
of communication
communication
classification
classification at
at various
various schools
schools could
could present
present
opportunities
opportunities to
to reclassify
reclassify students
students or
or move
move
them
them into
into general
general education
education classrooms,
classrooms,
identifying
10%
of
communication
identifying 10% of communication
classifications
classifications as
as misidentified
misidentified cases
cases could
could
save
save $500-700K
$500-700K
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 140
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS policies around special education staffing are aligned with
higher costs and not the most effective outcomes for students
Area of
opportunity

Description

DRAFT

Potential opportunity

▪ Paraprofessional quality is highly ▪ As BPS phases in inclusion, phase out paras
variable and research suggests
▪ Outsourcing paraprofessional services can net $9-11M
Paraprofessionals

Resource
room teachers

they do not add quality to student
experience

▪ Resource room teachers are

▪ Resource room teachers can be staffed as “push-in”

currently used primarily as pullouts

▪ Special services like OTPT are
Related
services

currently very expensive and not
managed closely

teachers, providing additional resources in classrooms
and lessening the need for paras

▪ Employ assistants under supervision of specialists, can

Staff to avg.
daily
attendance

▪ Attendance for severely

handicapped students is very low,
but BPS staffs to full attendance

savings, with no diminished services1
Eliminating paras in favor of 3 teachers for every 2
classrooms can improve services and could save
money if implemented correctly

save 40-50% ($8-10M) at no diminishment of services
Outsourcing related services can save up to 50%
(~$10M), with no diminished services1
Better scheduling for specialists can identify efficiencies

▪ BPS has the ability to staff to average daily ratios, with
no diminishment of services in cases where teachers
are underutilized

1 "Something has to change: Rethinking Special Education," Levenson, 2011
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 141
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS has additional opportunities outside the classroom around
policy and contract negotiations to improve SPED services while
also lowering costs

DRAFT

Area of
opportunity Description


Clerks

SPED
Coordinators




SPED
zone
alignment

Bus
attendants


Union contracts require SPED clerks and typists, a position intended
for a world where IEP’s were not electronic
Currently 73 on the books, at a salary of $2.75M
By contract, SPED coordinators are not permitted to also be teachers,
they must be separate
Negotiating a split role can improve student services, while also
increasing the efficiency of SPED teams at schools
In an effort to mimic feeder patterns across the district, SPED patterns
have forced opening of a handful of programs that are subpar and
prevents steering students to the best SPED services available
Abandoning SPED zone alignment can potentially improve student
services, while closing a few poorly performing programs
Budgets are occasionally misused to get SPED bus attendants on
buses that need general education monitors; a review of attendants
could reveal bus routes that do not need them
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 142
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
▫ Classroom based drivers
▫ Transportation
▫ Private placement
▫ Inclusion view
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 143
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

A third of district IEPs require “door-to-door” transport, but wide
variations by school identify schools to research further

DRAFT

IEP’s with transportation
% of SPED students receiving “door-to-door” transportation as part of IEP, by school
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

While
While some
some schools
schools have
have
concentrated
concentrated programs
programs where
where
busing
busing is
is likely
likely aa part
part of
of all
all
IEPs,
IEPs, the
the distribution
distribution in
in
variation
variation by
byschool
school points
points to
to
opportunities
opportunities to
to revisit
revisit IEPs
IEPs
for
for needs
needs
Investigation
Investigation and
and training
training at
at
these
schools
could
these schools could move
move
schools
schools into
into alignment
alignment with
with
the
district
the district
At
At an
an average
average of
of $1,500
$1,500 aa
student
student for
for transportation,
transportation,
students
students receiving
receiving door-todoor-todoor
door transportation
transportation represent
represent
$4.5M
$4.5M annually
annually

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Source: BPS transportation data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 144
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while
~60% of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away

BPS bus routes

▪▪ 20%
20% of
of BPS’
BPS’ routes
routes have
have

fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 3%
3% of
of the
the students
students
BPS
BPS transports
transports

4/27/16

▪▪ The
The average
average student
student

receiving
receiving transportation
transportation
has
has 0.16
0.16 mile
mile walk
walk to
to their
their
bus
bus stop
stop

BPS students riding buses
4/27/16

▪▪ 59%
59% of
of students
students are
are

classified
classified as
as bus
bus stop
stop (i.e.,
(i.e.,
not
not door-to-door)
door-to-door) riders
riders and
and
have
have aa walk
walk of
of less
less than
than aa
quarter
quarter mile
mile

▪▪ 59%
59% of
of the
the transportation
transportation
4/27/16

Source: BPS data

4/27/16

4/27/16

budget
budget is
is $67M
$67M

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 145
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

78 of the 81 SPED private placement routes carry fewer
than 5 students

DRAFT

BPS private SPED bus routes

▪▪ 78
78 routes,
routes, or
or 96%
96% of
of BPS’
BPS’

private
private SPED
SPED routes
routes have
have
fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 140
140 students
students

BPS private SPED students riding buses

▪▪ There
There are
are aa number
number of
of

private
private placements
placements with
with poor
poor
reputations,
reputations, an
an effort
effort to
to
concentrate
concentrate private
private
placements
placements in
in quality
quality
programs
programs could
could improve
improve
student
student services
services and
and limit
limit
costs
costs

4/27/16

Source: BPS data

4/27/16

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 146
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
▫ Classroom based drivers
▫ Transportation
▫ Private placement
▫ Inclusion view
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 147
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS has 93 private placement sites, of which
13 sites account for 50% of tuition dollars

DRAFT

Private placements
$, millions, spent on tuition at each private placement site
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪
▪▪

▪▪

▪▪

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

$37M
$37M11 is
is spent
spent on
on private
private
placements
placements each
each year,
year, on
on 346
346
students,
$107K
per
student
students, $107K per student
Private
Private placement
placement spending
spending
has
a
long
tail,
with
has a long tail, with 89%
89% of
of
sites
accounting
for
50%
sites accounting for 50% of
of
spending
spending and
and 64%
64% of
of
students
students
Many
Many sites
sites require
require private
private
transportation,
a
cost
transportation, a cost of
of $9M
$9M aa
year,
year, with
with 78
78 routes
routes
transporting
transporting just
just 140
140
students
students
Consolidating
Consolidating students
students at
at high
high
quality
quality sites
sites can
can improve
improve
student
student outcomes
outcomes and
and save
save
transportation
costs
transportation costs

4/27/16

1 Includes transportation
Source: BPS data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 148
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

There are a few concentrated areas that are triggering private
placement, which present opportunities to adjust or drop placements

DRAFT

Private placement triggers, 2013-2015
# of private placements by cause

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

92%
92% of
of placements
placements
are
are from
from DCF
DCF
placements
placements and
and court
court
settlements
settlements
–– DCF
DCF adds
adds ~$2M
~$2M
annually
annually
–– Settlements
Settlements add
add
~$1.6M
~$1.6M
Better
Better coordination
coordination
with
with DCF
DCF could
could
improve
improve placements
placements
for
students
for students and
and limit
limit
transportation
transportation and
and
needless
needless tuition
tuition costs
costs

4/27/16
More
More tactical
tactical placements
placements can
can lessen
lessen the
the intensity
intensity of
of transportation
transportation needs
needs

Source: BPS Office of Private Placement data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 149
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
▫ Classroom based drivers
▫ Transportation
▫ Private placement
▫ Inclusion view
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 150
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS is moving to special education inclusion, a strong
research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities

DRAFT

Inclusion is good for both special
education and general education students

BPS will move to full inclusion as a
district by 2019

BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD
into inclusion classrooms, leaving just
those with disabilities that make inclusion
inappropriate in substantially separate
classrooms, movement of roughly
2,500 students

The BPS plan is to create more inclusion
classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
network at a time, at the rate of two
networks a year, over five years,
phasing in fully over twelve years

A 2014 state of Massachusetts report
found that across the state, “students with
disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.”1

A 2013 BPS study found that general
education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2

BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion
classrooms in 2013

1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 OESESS City Council presentation, June 2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 151
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

The move to full inclusion is being phased in over 12 years

The move towards inclusion at BPS is underway in the current school year

A phasing-in of inclusion by BPS network (e.g., A-G) begins next year with Network
A, with two more networks every year for the following three years

Each phase-in begins at K0 and grows in network every year, over 8 years, until
the network has full, K-8 inclusion; high schools will be phased in on a different
timetable that is still in the planning stages

Costs outlays in the initial years will be substantial, with substantial savings
coming in the out years that will offset and eventually pay for the entire
roll-out by the end of the roll-out

Savings will only be captured with aggressive adherence to inclusion model,
which involves closing down sub / separate classrooms

DRAFT

A
A note
note on
on this
this section:
section: The
The Office
Office of
of Special
Special Education
Education built
built costs
costs for
for
SY15-16,
SY15-16, but
but has
has not
not done
done long-term
long-term cost
cost // benefit
benefit analyses.
analyses. This
This
section
section is
is an
an early
early approximation
approximation of
of the
the adoption
adoption of
of inclusion,
inclusion,
performed
performed with
with broad
broad estimates
estimates from
from the
the Office
Office of
of Special
Special Education
Education and
and
other
other experts
experts and
and represents
represents only
only aa rough
rough estimation
estimation of
of outcomes
outcomes

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 152
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

BPS will phase-in inclusion by network, over a 12 year period,
adding as many as 140 classrooms per year at peak of roll-out

DRAFT

Additional classrooms1
# inclusion classrooms added annually
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/164/27/16

4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16

▪▪
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/ 4/27/
16
16

4/27/16

4/27/ 4/27/
16
16

4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
16

4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
16
16
16

4/27/ 4/27/
16
16

▪▪

BPS
BPS began
began moving
moving
towards
inclusion
towards inclusion in
in
SY
SY 14-15
14-15 with
with
“wave
“wave 1”,
1”, but
but
recast
recast plan
plan for
for rollrollout
to
network-byout to network-bynetwork
network process
process
beginning
beginning in
in SY15SY1516
16
In
In each
each network
network
the
roll-up
the roll-up will
will
begin
begin at
at K1
K1 and
and
th
th grade
roll
up
to
8
roll up to 8 grade
over
over 88 years
years

4/27/
16

Current
year
1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 153
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

There are significant short-term costs, with $1.4M budgeted for
SY15-16…

DRAFT

SY15-16 inclusion transition costs
Area
District-wide
grade 1
Network A,
grades 2-5

Additional resources
▪ 28 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals

Costs
▪ $30K each = $840K

10 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals

$30K each = $300K

3 1.0 FTE inclusion
specialists

$90K each = $270K

Total cost: $1.41M

▪▪
▪▪
▪▪

Network
Network A
A transition
transition will
will target
target 99 schools
schools for
for full
full inclusion,
inclusion, creating
creating 50
50
new
inclusion
seats,
in
addition
to
students
transitioned
new inclusion seats, in addition to students transitioned
Additionally,
Additionally, 11
11 schools
schools will
will get
get just
just aa grade
grade 11 inclusion
inclusion transition,
transition,
bringing
bringing 135
135 new
new inclusion
inclusion seats
seats on-line,
on-line, in
in addition
addition to
to those
those
transitioned
transitioned
The
The full
full costing
costing of
of inclusion
inclusion has
has not
not yet
yet been
been performed
performed by
by BPS
BPS
SPED
SPED offices,
offices, so
so granular
granular projections
projections of
of costs
costs are
are not
not yet
yet available
available

Source: BPS Office of Special Education budget presentation, 2014

▪▪

▪▪

SY
SY 15-16
15-16 will
will bring
bring
online
online 38
38 new
new
inclusion
inclusion
classrooms,
classrooms, each
each of
of
which
will
require
an
which will require an
additional
additional
paraprofessional
paraprofessional
In
In the
the first
first few
few years
years
of
of inclusion
inclusion
transition,
transition, there
there will
will
be
no
cost
savings,
be no cost savings,
as
as there
there will
will be
be aa
delay
delay in
in BPS’
BPS’ ability
ability
to
to take
take off-line
off-line
sub/separate
sub/separate
classrooms
classrooms

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 154
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

…and longer-term costs growing to $7M a year with total,
10-year investment of $42M…

DRAFT
4/27/16
Inclusion
specialists

Additional FTE’s
# FTE’s of each type added per year
1

▪▪

▪▪

4/27/16
4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/ 4/27/
$, thous.
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
Additional 1,140 2,190 3,210 4,230 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500
750
para cost
Additional
specialist
cost

270 3,060 3,060 3,060

-At peak- roll-out,
- BPS will
- be adding $7.3M in one year

-

-

-

▪▪

Additional
annual
spend

1,410 5,250 6,270 7,290 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500

750

Total
model
spend

1,410 6,660 12,93 20,22 24,39 28,44 32,43 35,28 37,83 40,08 41,58 42,33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

As
As the
the number
number
of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
classrooms
grow,
grow, the
the
annual
annual need
need to
to
support
them
support them
will
will as
as well
well
By
By the
the end
end of
of
the
the inclusion
inclusion
roll-out,
roll-out, BPS
BPS
will
will have
have
added
added ~1100
~1100
paras
paras and
and
~115
~115
specialists
specialists to
to
schools
schools
Annual
Annual cost
cost
additions
additions over
over
the
period
the period will
will
average
average ~$3M,
~$3M,
spiking
spiking to
to as
as
much
as
$6-7M
much as $6-7M
in
in SY18-19
SY18-19

1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 155
|

SPECIAL EDUCATION

…with annual savings that outstrip annual costs by SY18-19

DRAFT

SPED spend on substantially separate classroom support1
$, millions

▪▪ As
As critical
critical mass
mass

4/27/16

of
of inclusion
inclusion
classrooms
classrooms grow,
grow,
aa tipping
tipping point
point
will
will occur
occur
allowing
allowing
elimination
elimination of
of
sub/separate
sub/separate
classrooms
classrooms at
at an
an
increasing
increasing rate
rate

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16 4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
$, mil.
Annual
sub /
separate
costs
Annual
inclusion
costs
Total
SPED
budget
Impact of
inclusion

4/27/
16

4/
4/
4/
27
27
27
/1
/1
/1
122.0 122.0
122.0
109.8
6
6
6
1.71

1.41

4/
27
/1
98.8
6

4/
27
/1
79.1
6

4/
27
/1
63.2
6

4/
27
/1
50.6
6

4/
27
/1
40.5
6

4/
27
/1
32.4
6

4/
27
/1
25.9
6

4/
27
/1
20.7
6

4/
27
/1
16.6
6

▪▪ The
The $326M
$326M costs
costs
of
of inclusion
inclusion over
over
13
13 years
years will
will be
be
fully
covered
by
fully covered by
the
the final
final year
year
(SY26-27)
(SY26-27)

6.66 12.93 20.22 24.39 28.44 32.43 35.28 37.83 40.08 41.58 42.33

123.7 123.4 128.7 122.7 119.0 103.4

(1.71) (1.41) (6.66) (0.73)

91.7

83.0

75.8

70.2

66.0

62.3

58.9

By the end of the
roll out, BPS could
be saving ~$60M
annually

2.96 18.55 30.32 38.97 46.24 51.79 56.01 59.70 63.09

1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Decline in costs scaled to expected decline in classrooms,
determined by interviews with BPS staff and outside experts

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 156
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 157
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

Executive summary

DRAFT

▪ BPS has key organizational strengths. At the present, each department is internally wellaligned and works as a team to accomplish its goals; additionally, other than at the top level,
there is a standard manager-employee ratio and generally balanced organizational
structures.

▪ Among peer district BPS has a smaller student to staff ratio. When benchmarked against
other, large districts, BPS still supports a non-classroom teaching staff that is larger as a ratio
than its peers, hinting at further opportunities to streamline

▪ There are also potential areas for improvement that BPS can focus on to be more effective at
serving the students and the city at-large. For example, clear, focused goals could be set from
the top of the district with clarity so that the departments can rally around and support those
goals. Additionally, departments could be sure that KPIs track progress toward goals and are
useful for strategic departmental decision-making. With clearer goals and a KPI structure in
place, each department would be made aware of adjacent goals in other departments, and then
collaboration can be improved. Finally, the Central Office would benefit from a better human
capital system to help on-board, train, develop, meaningfully evaluate, and ultimately retain
its best people.

▪ Improving BPS’ organization would help to further unlock its Central Office’s potential.

The superintendent would have more clarity into the daily performance of the district against its
goals, leading to better accountability. Parents, students, and teachers would have clearer
points of contact for concerns or questions. Collaboration would help ensure that
programming occurs in a more integrated way to better support students.

Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72; One-on-one Cabinet Leader
interviews; Org chart analysis

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 158
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

The Central Office organization is well-structured pyramid with
the exception of the top layer of management
Total number of managers and individual
contributors in each organizational layer

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

1

DRAFT

Average number of direct reports for
managers in each organizational layer

4/27/16
4/27/16

13

4/27/16
4/27/16

40
4/27/16

4/27/16

52

4/27/16
4/27/16

13
119

4/27/16
4/27/16

Observations



BPS has an average of 4.0 direct reports per manager (2-15 across departments)
Departments vary in how many Assistant Directors they have (0-9 per department)
While the pyramid looks mostly standard, there may be too many direct-reports at top level

Source: Analysis of Org Charts from many departments; does not
represent Comp. Student Services Org Charts

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 159
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio

DRAFT

Average student-staff ratio
Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011

Moving
Moving BPS
BPS
to
to the
the peer
peer
set
set average
average
could
could reduce
reduce
~500
~500 FTE’s
FTE’s
of
of district
district
staff
staff

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 160
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability
and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
3. Accountability (15)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)

Most desired values
1. Being collaborative (39)
2. Accountability (33)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)

Least experienced values
1. Efficiency (28)
2. Equity (27)
3. Accountability (25);
Employee focus (25)
4. Fear (12);
Trust (12)

Least desired values
1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)

DRAFT

4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)

Therefore,
Therefore, BPS
BPS could
could consider
consider
▪▪ Defining
Defining what
what accountability
accountability looks
looks like
like for
for its
its Central
Central Office
Office
▪▪ Reducing
Reducing the
the internal
internal politics
politics and
and bureaucracy
bureaucracy currently
currently experienced
experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 161
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

Goal alignment within departments is strong, but there is not strong
consensus on what the district’s goals are
“When we set our goals as a department, we make
sure that we start with the district’s goals and then
determine what ours should be.” – Cabinet Department
leader

DRAFT

Results from BPS Central Office Survey
Departmental goals align with district’s top goals
and priorities, number of respondents

“I don’t even know what the district’s or
superintendent’s goals are […] it’s too unclear. Our
only mission … is to avoid lawsuits.” – Cabinet
Department leader
Strengths
▪ The employees in every department seem very well
aligned with their departmental goals
▪ A few departments ensure that their departmental
goals tie directly to the district’s goals
Areas for improvement
▪ There is no consensus across the departments about
what the district’s goals actually are
▪ Some goals are shared by multiple departments (e.g.,
adjusting the liaison structure to better serve the
schools) but there is little-to-no collaboration in
accomplishing these goals leading to poor returns
Great examples in departments:
▪ Academics – Ensures that initiatives and goals directly
support one of the district’s goals
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews

Direct-report employees well aligned with my top
goals and priorities, number of respondents

Strong accountability for reaching individual
goals, number of respondents

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/1
6

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 162
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

While every department collects data, few are collecting meaningful
data and using it to inform decision-making and strategy
Results from BPS Central Office Survey
Departmental KPIs are used to reflect department’s
progress and effectiveness, number of respondents

Departmental KPIs are actively used to make changes in
department’s strategy to better reach goals,
number of respondents

DRAFT

Strengths
▪ Every department has some form of metrics being tracked and
collected
▪ A few departments can draw a direct link from KPIs to
performance to strategy to diagnose how the department is
doing and make adjustments to better reach departmental goals
Areas for improvement
▪ Most departments, while collecting data, are not collecting data
that would help inform strategic decision-making; even more,
most departments don’t even attempt to use that data in their
decision-making
▪ Some departments rely on annual student performance data as
a KPI, despite the low frequency and the lack of defined
causality
▪ Many departments believe “avoiding lawsuits” is a meaningful
KPI, even though it doesn’t help make decisions
Great examples in departments:
▪ OIIT – uses dashboards that show real-time performance and
can help diagnose problems and adjust course as necessary
▪ SPED – team takes ownership for a collection of metrics and
sets goals based on those metrics
▪ Engagement – feedback is collected from constituencies at
every opportunity and used to dynamically improve strategy

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews

“We collect data, but we don’t use it for strategy; we know our
strategy is good because everyone on my team agrees and
knows it’s good.” – Cabinet Department leader
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 163
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

On-boarding is decentralized and inconsistent, and professional
development is addressed differently by each department
“I know Human Capital needs to focus on teachers, but
somebody needs to focus on training and retaining my people,
too!” – Cabinet Department leader
“Since I receive no support and I don’t know that it is worth my
time, an employee’s professional development is his/her own
responsibility […] with my oversight and support.” – Cabinet
Department leader
Strengths
▪ Every department offers some form of professional
development, even if it’s just ad-hoc (e.g., conference
attendance)
Areas for improvement
▪ There is no formal on-boarding and most departments use
mentorship and learn-as-you-go for all new employees
▪ Some departments have created robust orientation programs,
but lack of collaboration keeps these program from being shared
across the Central Office
▪ Professional development is not targeted nor actively
considered; department chairs feel they have no time to commit
to thinking about it
Great examples in departments:
▪ Engagement – Department has a robust on-boarding program
where new employees learn about all aspects of the Central
Office, learn essential skills, and work together to create
workplans for their first months
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews

DRAFT

Results from BPS Central Office Survey
Descriptions of departmental on-boarding,
Percent of Cabinet members

4/27/16
4/27/16

Decent,
Mostly mentorship
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
Employees in my department receive exceptional training
and professional development, number of respondents

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 164
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

While informal feedback is strong in departments, a strong culture of
feedback and evaluation is missing in the Central Office

DRAFT

Strengths

Results from BPS Central Office Survey
Regular informal evaluations and feedback that helps
in day-to-day work, number of respondents

▪ Every department has a strong culture of informal feedback from
superior to direct-report

▪ Some departments have excellent feedback loops including
upward feedback and peer feedback

▪ Every department conducts formal evaluations
4/27/16

Areas for improvement

▪ Very few department chairs feel they are receiving adequate
evaluation (formal or informal) and desire more

▪ Very few department chairs use data to support evaluations
▪ There is no consistency around formal evaluations: all

4/27/16
Regular formal evaluations that encourage or redirect
behaviors, number of respondents

departments use the evaluation from the Circular; most hate it
but some modify it; some believe it’s mandatory and others
believe it’s optional

Great examples in departments:

▪ OIIT – strong culture of 360 degree feedback; evaluations that
are data-driven and informed by performance

4/27/16
“I feel like I have never received meaningful feedback and I’ve
not once been evaluated since starting my job.” – Cabinet
Department leader

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews

“I use the evaluation because I have to but it does not make
sense for my people and is a worthless exercise […] I don’t use
any other tool either.” – Cabinet Department leader
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 165
|

DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE

An improved organization will benefit BPS staff and students

DRAFT

Long-term potential impact

Central Office Staff
– Clearer role descriptions, goals, and reporting
structures leading to more efficiency and faster
delivery of support to schools
and students
– Tighter alignment with and accountability for district
goals
– Stronger professional development and goal-oriented
evaluation and feedback

Students, Parents, and Teachers
– Clearer points of contact and sources for information
and support for parents and teachers
– No students falling through the cracks left by
misaligned support structures in the Central Office

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 166
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas
▫ Food services
▫ Professional development
▫ Transportation
▫ Maintenance

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 167
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS OF FOCUS

BPS has other areas where focus could amount to cost savings

Description
Food
A services

▪ 55% of FNS costs are food
▪ Cafeteria sites are more cost effective than

disorganized and misses opportunities for
coordination

▪ Students on average have a walk to their
Transport
C ation

bus stops of just 0.16 miles
3% of students are currently running 20% of
routes

▪ Custodial services are inconsistent and
MainD tenance

Source: BPS data

~$5-8M

satellite sites
Highly variable school participation offers
revenue opportunities

▪ Professional development is diffused,
B Personnel

Savings
opportunities
$ Millions per year

require a large FTE base
Incentives not aligned with contractors for
preventative maintenance

TBD

~$20-60M

~$1-4M

DRAFT

In
In addition
addition to
to cost
cost
savings,
a
review
savings, a review in
in
these
areas
could
these areas could yield:
yield:
▪▪ Better
Better food
food options
options
for
for kids.
kids. BPS
BPS
cafeterias
cafeterias perform
perform
better
better in
in taste
taste tests
tests
than
than contractors
contractors
Better
▪▪ Better PD
PD for
for
schools.
More
schools. More
coherence
coherence at
at less
less
expense.
expense.
▪▪ Fewer
Fewer BPS
BPS bus
bus lines.
lines.
Fewer
Fewer routes
routes makes
makes
for
for an
an easier
easier system
system to
to
manage.
manage.
▪▪ Improved
Improved building
building
maintenance.
maintenance. Aligned
Aligned
incentives
with
incentives with
contractors
contractors can
can
improve
preventative
improve preventative
work.
work.

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 168
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas
▫ Food services
▫ Professional development
▫ Transportation
▫ Maintenance

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 169
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag
peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13
77
101
16
45
26
62
58
25
33
1
56
5
20
19
13
9
67
3
14
52
8
54
34
30
M
39
79
21
28
48
66
37
4
44
41
12
23
57
55
10
35
71
18
47
2
43
7
49
6

DRAFT

Food services costs
% of revenue, 2012-13
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis

4/27/16

20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77

Source: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools

4/27/16
Boston
4/27/16
4/27/16
Districts
4/27/16
4/27/16
Median
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
BPS is not
4/27/16
4/27/16
getting the
4/27/16
data
4/27/16
tracking it
4/27/16
needs to be
4/27/16
successful
4/27/16
and drive
4/27/16
revenues
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 170
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

78% of FNS budget goes to food and direct labor at school sites

DRAFT
4/27/16

Food and direct labor are >3/4 of
FNS costs
% of FNS 2014-15 cost projections
($41M)

Direct labor and food costs of BPS
cafeteria sites and Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27
/16

4/27
/16

▪▪ The
The current
current total
total forecast
forecast for
for 2014-2015
2014-2015 is
is $41M,
$41M, $6M
$6M of
of which
which are
are fixed
fixed
▪▪
▪▪

Source: FNS data

costs
costs and
and so
so shared
shared across
across cafeterias
cafeterias and
and satellite
satellite sites
sites
Current
forecasts
project
$37M
in
revenue
this
year,
Current forecasts project $37M in revenue this year, aa shortfall
shortfall of
of $4M
$4M
Schools
also
pay
$2.6M
for
school-based
lunch
monitor
positions,
Schools also pay $2.6M for school-based lunch monitor positions, not
not
reflected
reflected in
in the
the overall
overall cost
cost

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 171
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

BPS’ food services are currently less expensive, than using a
contractor

DRAFT
4/27/16
4/27/16

Direct labor and food costs
of BPS cafeteria sites and
Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
4/27/16
4/27/16

Student
population, by
school type
#, thousands
4/27/16

Cost per
student
population
$
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

Source: FNS data

4/27/16

4/27/16

 Whitson
Whitson satellite
satellite
sites
are
sites are less
less
efficient
efficient than
than
cafeteria
cafeteria sites,
sites,
costing
costing 20%
20% more
more
per
student,
per
per student, per year
year
 IfIf facilities
facilities were
were
available,
moving
available, moving to
to
cafeteria
cafeteria sites
sites could
could
save
save $1-3M
$1-3M
 As
As part
part of
of the
the capital
capital
planning
planning process,
process, aa
cost/benefits
cost/benefits
analysis
analysis should
should be
be
conducted
to
see
conducted to see
how
how investing
investing in
in
new,
new, central
central
cafeterias
cafeterias could
could
save
costs
save costs

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 172
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

BPS has better participation rates than peers, but still leaves $5M
on the table
Overall meal participation1
% of students in state classified SPED
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Districts

Boston

DRAFT

Median
4/27/16

While in the top of peers, BPS
still trails best in class by
nearly 50%
▪ If BPS were able to get
participation up in both
categories by 10% (57% at
breakfast and 78% at lunch), it
would capture $5M in
revenues
Meal participation by site2
% of students purchasing on average

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
4/27/164/27/164/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/164/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
0.4/27/16
4/27/16

1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013

2 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 173
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

School participation is highly variable, targeting the low performers
would drive revenues

DRAFT

Lunch participation1
% of students buying lunch
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

Moving the bottom
half of lunch
performers, 48
programs, to the
BPS average would
net $2M in lunch
revenues
A similar move on
breakfast at the
same set of schools
would capture
$1.4M

Next
Next Steps:
Steps:
▪▪ Investigate
Investigate what
what is
is
driving
high
driving high
participation
participation sites
sites that
that
can
be
pushed
to
low
can be pushed to low
participation
participation sites
sites
▪▪ What
What are
are ways
ways to
to
incentivize
schools
incentivize schools to
to
get
get rates
rates up?
up?
▪▪ What
What leverage
leverage is
is
there
there with
with contractor
contractor
to
to drive
drive rates?
rates?

Ø 4/27/16
1 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 174
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas
▫ Food services
▫ Professional development
▫ Transportation
▫ Maintenance

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 175
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

BPS professional development is inconsistent and expensive

DRAFT

Professional development spending
$M, 2013-2014
“I want all the PD money pushed out
to the schools – I can do it better than
central office”
– BPS Principal

4/27/16

Over half of PD spending
goes to contractual days
and specific school
improvement schools

4/27/16

“I have never had a PD that was at all
valuable”
– BPS teacher

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27
/16

4/27/16 4/27/1 4/27
6
/16

4/27/16

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/
16

4/27/16

4/2
7/1
6

4/27/16
4/27/
16
1

4/27/16 4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/
16

4/27
/16

“We do our own PD, because we
know what we need to get out.”
– BPS administrator

4/27/
16

 9%
9% of
of PD
PD logged
logged in
in My
My Learning
Learning Plan
Plan in
in 2014-15
2014-15 had
had no
no category
category
of
of focus
focus (e.g.,
(e.g., Special
Special Education,
Education, Math,
Math, etc.)
etc.)
 27%
27% of
of PD
PD was
was registered
registered as
as having
having “other”
“other” as
as category
category of
of focus
focus
1 Miscellaneous areas include: Equity, Adult ed., Social Studies, Science, Health, Early ed.
Source: BPS Office of budget and finance

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 176
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

My Learning Plan data shows interest in PD, but not consistency
2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD usage
% teachers registered for >0 PD

DRAFT

2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD offerings
% of offering by category, 278 PD offerings
4/27/16


4/27/16

4/27/16

The average
teacher who used
My LP registered
for 1.5 courses
68% of teachers
registered for
just one class

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

 Only
Only ~30%
~30% of
of teachers
teachers who
who use
use My
My Learning
Learning Plan
Plan have
have returned
returned for
for further
further professional
professional development
development through
through
the
the portfolio
portfolio of
of options
options
 22%
22% of
of courses
courses offered
offered are
are outside
outside of
of the
the traditional
traditional cores
cores set
set of
of academic
academic subjects
subjects and
and training
training functions
functions
and
can
only
be
tracked
as
“other”
and can only be tracked as “other”

Source: Office of Human Capital, My Learning Plan data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 177
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas
▫ Food services
▫ Professional development
▫ Transportation
▫ Maintenance

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 178
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

BPS transportation is driven by special education and Choice
busing routes

PRELIMINARY

BPS transportation budget
$M, 2014

4/27/16

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16 4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪
4/27/16
4/27/16

▪▪

4/27/164/27/16
4/27/16

4/27/16

Special
Special education
education
drives
drives nearly
nearly 40%
40%
of
of the
the transportatransportation
tion budget
budget
Choice
Choice busing
busing
policies
policies drive
drive the
the
need
need for
for busing
busing as
as
itit is
is now
now

4/27/16
4/27/16
In
In 2014
2014 BPS
BPS operated
operated aa $113M
$113M transportation
transportation
system,
system, over
over one
one tenth
tenth of
of the
the budget
budget
Source: 2014 drill down

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 179
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while ~60%
of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away
PRELIMINARY

BPS bus routes

▪▪ 20%
20% of
of BPS’
BPS’ routes
routes have
have

fewer
fewer than
than 55 students
students and
and
those
those routes
routes collectively
collectively
transport
transport 3%
3% of
of the
the students
students
BPS
BPS transports
transports

▪▪ The
The average
average student
student receiving
receiving

BPS students riding buses

transportation
transportation has
has 0.16
0.16 mile
mile
walk
walk to
to their
their bus
bus stop
stop

4/27/16

▪▪ 59%
59% of
of students
students are
are classified
classified
as
as bus
bus stop
stop (i.e.,
(i.e., not
not door-todoor-todoor)
door) riders
riders and
and have
have aa walk
walk
of
of less
less than
than aa quarter
quarter mile
mile

▪▪ 59%
59% of
of the
the transportation
transportation
budget
budget is
is $67M
$67M

4/27/16

Source: BPS data

4/27/16

4/27/16

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 180
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

Other transportation opportunities

Area of
opportunity

Description


Parochial
schools


MBTA
passes

DRAFT

BPS spends $2M a year on parochial
student transportation
A review of this state policy could
potentially scale back this spending
A successful migration of 8th graders
to the MBTA netted savings1
A review of 7th and 6th grader policies
could move another 3,000 – 6,000
kids to the MBTA and cut the number
of routes and potentially $2-4M2

1 Due to a number of transportation policy changes this year, Transportation has not been able to isolate exactly how much of savings came from this
policy change
2 Assuming that enough routes are eliminated to capture half of the savings of going from $1,500 a year per student to $260
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 181
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

– District overextension
– Special education
– Organizational effectiveness
– Other operational areas
▫ Food services
▫ Professional development
▫ Transportation
▫ Maintenance

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 182
|

ADDITIONAL AREAS

Facility maintenance, while underfunded, can capture some savings
through outsourcing of functions

Area of
opportunity
FTE
structure

Maintenance

Description

Opportunity

Facilities has 550 employees,
but just 130 buildings under
their care

Outsourcing the 137 night
custodians’ work could net $1-3M

BPS has 100s of contractors
who are engaged to fix various
problems (e.g., broken toilets)
Contracts do not do
preventative work and are not
incentivized to perform good,
timely work

Contracting out all maintenance
work to a single contractor could
align incentives around preventative maintenance, could net
savings of $1-3M on $22M
maintenance budget
One blanket contract could allow
performance incentives around
timeliness and quality

Source: Interviews with BPS staff

DRAFT

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 183
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

– Taking action on overextension
– Taking action on SPED
– Taking action on organizational
effectiveness

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 185
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

Before you start the process, the solution space will be bounded by
answers to a few questions

▪▪

What
What pace
pace of
of change
change to
to the
the new
new footprint
footprint is
is most
most
appropriate?
appropriate?

▪▪

How
How will
will the
the future
future design
design be
be developed?
developed? Internally?
Internally?
Externally?
Externally? In
In collaboration?
collaboration?

▪▪

How
How will
will the
the system
system engage
engage the
the community
community
proactively
proactively in
in the
the path
path forward?
forward?

▪▪

Will
Will the
the overall
overall system
system be
be addressed
addressed all
all at
at once
once or
or will
will
change
change happen
happen neighborhood
neighborhood by
by neighborhood?
neighborhood?

▪▪

What
What other
other city
city services
services and
and benefits
benefits can
can be
be
brought
brought into
into communities
communities as
as support
support during
during
transition?
transition?

▪▪

How
How will
will student
student academic
academic progress
progress and
and safety
safety be
be
ensured
ensured through
through the
the process?
process?

DRAFT

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 186
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

If BPS wishes to reduce its footprint, it may want to consider focusing
its efforts in four ways going forward

DRAFT

•A Align on approach and vision for making school
closure decisions
•B Build a strong fact-base that supports data-driven
decisions
•C Engage the community at each step of the process
•D Make decisions transparently along a public timeline

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 187
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

A After determining the future state of BPS, the vision for the schools
will best require alignment on approach towards key educational
drivers, including school action guidelines and portfolio strategy


DRAFT

School type and autonomy
– Align on a BPS-wide perspective on possible school types (e.g., traditional, charter, SPED, exam,
pilot, innovation) and programs and determine optimal mix to ensure quality choices and access
system-wide
– Align on a BPS-wide guarantee of the services and programs that all schools will provide
School size
– Determine optimal school size ranges for elementary and high schools
– Develop BPS policy towards housing multiple schools on one campus and develop criteria for
determining when this action is required as part of building performance & space utilization
standards
Enrollment and choice approach
– Determine enrollment boundaries for elementary schools including flexibility of zone boundaries,
with exceptions for specific open enrollment school types (e.g., selective enrollment)
System-wide options
– Define overall strategy for system-wide open enrollment schools/programs and align with other
stakeholder plans
– Determine optimal location and facility requirements for existing and new programs
School action approach
– Incorporate new performance policy approach and finalize criteria to take school action
– Include updated biannual building assessments into footprint tool
– Align on BPS/city leadership’s threshold/approach towards action (e.g., large waves vs. small set
annually) and determine annual target/capacity for executing school actions
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 188
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

A Design choices will also need to take known constraints
into account
Example constraints

Potential policy changes


Safety concerns and
neighborhood
differences


Current enrollment
and mobility
approach
Human capital
challenges
Low levels of
support for receiving
students from lowperforming schools

DRAFT

Increase security and safety resources in school and
ensure safe passage during a 2-year transition period to
support students to travel to school
Historic and geographic boundaries between communities
have often impeded transfer or consolidation of students
Reclassify elementary school enrollment boundaries for
zones and encourage overlays for open enrollment
schools to meet demand where possible
Consider increasing enrollment for better performing
schools where feasible

Proactively support movement of high quality teachers
and school leaders from the consolidated low-performing
schools when students are transferred or consolidated

Provide “sweeteners” for schools receiving students
– Support performing schools with additional
programmatic and facility support
– Improve facility and fund turnaround efforts for
consolidated schools
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 189
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

B To lay the analytical foundation for determining the BPS footprint
reduction, several analyses could be integrated
Objective: to provide a tool to support data
driven decision-making in order to
determine BPS footprint through the
following:
▪ Comprehensive database of all schools
across a set of key variables
▪ School-level snapshot of current seat
supply and demand
▪ School level academic performance to
understand best place for students
▪ “Target” reduction or expansion of
seats in 10 years to meet demand
▪ Initial list of schools identified to
potentially achieve targets

DRAFT

Mobility and enrollment analyses

Demand projection by school

Master School List – Academics and Ops.

District level output

Data sources
▪ Operations (e.g., school based health
clinics)
▪ Demographics (e.g., enrollment)
▪ Academic performance
▪ Security
▪ ADA accessibility
▪ ESRI and US Census (external, for
population projection)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 190
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

B The cost-benefit model could provide a critical input and fact base
on financials for decision making

Typical input levers

Typical assumption variables

Model outputs







Facilities maintenance costs



Transportation costs

Communications costs

Open schools
Closed schools
Repurposed buildings
Timing and sequencing

Projected capital investments

DRAFT

Scenario savings
Scenario costs

School closure costs
Revenue from sale or rental
of unused buildings
Labor costs (teachers and
administrators)

The financial model will
illuminate where money is
being saved for potential
reinvestment

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 191
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

C Community buy-in will be the product of a thoughtful
and well-executed stakeholder engagement approach
▪ Gather feedback on progress

▪ Prepare to articulate a

and make required midcourse adjustments

▪ Execute plan
according
to agreed timetable

6▪ Monitor stakeholders and
take required
actions

1▪ Explicitly
detail the
nature of
the
change

4▪ Develop
an integrated
stakeholder
engagement
plan

tools/approaches to develop
overall stakeholder plan
Use results of stakeholder analysis
to carefully plan schedule and
agenda of stakeholder interactions

good understanding of the
proposed changes to be
implemented and of
change approach

▪ Identify any

5 Execute
Engagement plan

Mobilizing
stakeholders

▪ Use consensus building

DRAFT

2▪ Identify
stakeholders

▪ Analyze and
3
prioritize
stakeholders

individual or group
that impacts or is
impacted by
proposed changes
(e.g., unions, media,
political groups, local
communities, etc.)

▪ Analyze stakeholders
to determine key
needs and interests
and how change will
impact them

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 192
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

C The community engagement strategy will need to account
for a variety of communication channels (1 of 2)
1-way communication
Formal Channels

▪ Large, formal
meeting

▪ Presentation,
speech

▪ Memo

Channels

Descriptions

Address a relatively large group of people
with little opportunity for Q & A

▪ Press

Interview held for news reporters

conferences

▪ Face-to-face In-person meeting to discuss and
meetings

exchange ideas

A formal speech to persuade an audience
to commit to pursue a common a course of
action

▪ Workshops/

Educational seminar emphasizing
interaction and information exchange

A brief written record, proposal or reminder

▪ Small group

Series of meetings with people of similar
background or for a specific tailored
message
Usually internal debrief of recent
happening to hear employee reaction

seminars

meetings

▪ Email

Quick and easy dispersion of message

▪ Video/audio

Use pre-recorded video or audio tapes to a
target audience

▪ Town hall

Short messages to briefly and quickly
update the audience

▪ Question and Internal session intended to answer

tapes

▪ Voice mail
▪ Web

Informal

2-way communication

Descriptions

▪ Press release An announcement issued to the press

DRAFT

Posted on internets and intranets for public
viewing

▪ Brochure

Small booklet or pamphlet containing key
messages or promotional materials

▪ Bulletin

Board or poster displaying brief key
messages, usually to internal people

boards,
posters

meetings
answer
session

questions regarding a series of events

▪ Small group

Gathering of similar minded people to
build relationships and informally
exchange opinions

▪ Retreats

Off-site activities by a select group of
people to exchange ideas in an informal
setting

dinner

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 193
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

C The community engagement strategy will need to account
for a variety of communication channels (2 of 2)

Descriptions
Reach

Message

Frequency

Spectrum of options

Who and how many people
are actually reached using One single person
this channel?

Large group of people

Is it appropriate to deliver
tailored, urgent, effective
messages?

Suitable for prompt
delivery of tailored
messages

Is it effective and reliable in
Little differentiation
delivering desired
to various
message to targeted
audiences
audience?

Are there opportunities for
discussion or feedback
through this channel?

Audience response
not critical for
success

Immediate feedback
desired for ongoing
and future
interactions

How regular is it? How
convenient is it to
organize?

Takes a lot of effort
to organize,
happens irregularly

Easy to organize, can
happen frequently

Effectiveness

Responsivenes
s

DRAFT

Suitable for nonurgent generic
messages

Effective for target
audience

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 194
|

TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION

D BPS could follow a six month journey to align on the 10-year
vision for the schools

Data and
analytics

Policy
decisions

Month 1

Month 2

Month 3

Month 4

July
Data and analytics
▪ Project 10-year
neighborhood
baseline for
student
demographics
▪ Develop initial
financial model
that estimates
costs and
savings
associated with
actions

August
Data and analytics
▪ Refine financial
model and
cost/savings
estimates

September
Data and analytics
▪ Refine financial
model and
cost/savings
estimates

October
November
Data and analytics
▪ Refine 10-year
neighborhood
vision, based on
input to feedback
from BPS team
members and
other key stakeholders, and
build alignment
and ownership
across the team
▪ Finalize financial
model

Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
▪ Align on BPS/
▪ Identify critical
▪ Develop
city approach
participatory
decisions around
towards action
process that
issues such as
and determine
safety,
enables school
annual target
transportation,
actions endorsed
and capacity
budget, policy
by stakeholders
in affected
alignment
▪ Outline potential
policy options
communities
▪ Document set of
around key
req’s for and
issues
constraints to
school actions
▪ Facilitate crossfunctional
dialogue across
key departments/
groups

Month 5


Finalize list of
school actions
Share widely the
results of the
participatory
process

DRAFT

Month 6
December

Finalize 10-year
vision

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 195
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

– Taking action on overextension
– Taking action on SPED
▫ Data next steps
▫ 3-6 month plan
– Taking action on organizational
effectiveness

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 197
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

There are 14 schools who classified 100% of referred
students as having disabilities…

DRAFT

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD

▪▪
▪▪

There are 14 schools who classified
100% of the students referred:
– Henderson K-4
– Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)1
– Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad1
– Mendell Elementary
– Tobin K-8
– BTU K-8 Pilot
– Beethoven Elementary
– East Boston EEC1
– Kenny Elementary
– Mario Umana Academy
– Irving Middle
– Mission Hill K-8
– Margarita Muniz Academy
– Boston Day/Evening Acad

Deeper
Deeper data
data dives,
dives, at
at the
the level
level of
of IEP
IEP are
are needed
needed to
to understand
understand whether
whether students
students
in
in these
these programs
programs are
are being
being classified,
classified, when
when they
they may
may be
be over
over classified
classified
Cultural
shifts
in
the
district
may
be
necessary
to
identify
whether
Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification
classification is
is
systematically
too
high,
or
appropriate,
given
the
student
population
systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population

4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments
Source: Office of Special Education data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 198
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

…while there are 34 schools who classified 0% of its
student population

DRAFT

Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15
% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD
Deeper
Deeper data
data dives,
dives, at
at the
the level
level
of
IEP
are
needed
to
of IEP are needed to
understand
understand whether
whether students
students in
in
these
these programs
programs are
are not
not getting
getting
services
services they
they need
need
There are 35 schools who classified 0% of the students referred:
▪ Urban Science Academy ▪ Dorchester Academy
▪ Hale Elementary1
▪ Mozart Elementary1
▪ Alighieri Montessori1
▪ UP Academy Boston
▪ Boston Comm Lead Acad
▪ Lyon K-81
▪ West Roxbury Academy
▪ Haley Elementary
▪ Boston Latin Academy
▪ Shaw Pauline A Elem1
Timilty Middle

▪ Burke High
▪ Middle School Academy1
Excel High

▪ Another Course College
▪ Hernandez K-8
Boston Adult Tech Aca.1 ▪ Greater Egleston High

▪ Dudley St Neigh. Schl
▪ Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
▪ Quincy Upper School
▪ Mildred Avenue K-8
Newcomers Academy1

▪ Boston International
▪ Otis Elementary
Henderson 9-121

▪ Boston Green Academy
▪ Henderson 5-8
English High

▪ Community Academy1
▪ Mason Elementary
▪ Comm Acad Sci Health
▪ Edwards Middle
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
4/27/16
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments
Source: Office of Special Education data

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 199
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Further research into outlying programs may identify students who
are not receiving the services they need or are being over-classified
School type
Lowest
classifiers

Highest
classifiers

Standardization

DRAFT

Action

Outcome

Interview/observe special education
coordinators to understand methods

Interview general education teachers
to get a sense of school culture
around referrals

Identify best practices of leveraging
interventions to avoid
misclassification

Identify programs that have
opportunities to properly classify
overlooked students

Interview/observe students in
classrooms to verify proper
placement

Identify potential areas of frequent
misclassification for school and
district training

Interview coordinators and teachers
to capture school culture of special
education

Get IEP information to track trends in
classification

Capture school or coordinator
practices/cultures that are
misidentifying students and develop
correctional plans

Identify where BPS guidance does
and does not come into the
classification process

Bring clarity and transparency to
where the bar for classification lies

Be clearer on processes and train
those involved across multiple school
sites to maintain consistency

Identify influencers around culture
and intuition

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 200
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Further understanding variations can move misidentified
students into more appropriate settings and capture savings
Area for further
research

Coordinators

Description

Data needed

Analysis and next steps

▪ Closely analyzing special

▪ Data on IEP creation, by

▪ Identify high and low classifiers

education coordinator patterns
of classification can move
classification rates in to a more
specific band

▪ Tracking student
Student progress

progression/regression in
classification can identify
programs into which more
students should be encouraged
and bring focus to programs
that aren’t improving student
outcomes

▪ Correlate teacher evaluations
Teachers

with student progression/
regression to understand
where the strongest teachers
are and leverage BPS
strengths most effectively

▪ Looking at patterns in types of
Needs
identification

DRAFT

classifications can identify
specific types of classifications
that are happening at irregular
rates and can be shifted

coordinator

and provide appropriate
training and coaching

▪ Data on IEP maintenance, by
coordinator

▪ IEP level data on student
classifications

▪ Use the data to identify

▪ Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program

▪ IEP level data on student
classifications

▪ Through correlating student

▪ Longitudinal data on changes

in student classifications,
aligned with program
Identify teachers that have
serviced students and align
with their performance evals.

▪ IEP level data on identified
student needs


▪ Aligned data with coordinators
and schools

programs that are moving
students into general education
faster
Figure out what these
programs are doing differently

achievement and progression
with teachers and
performance, develop a
detailed view of BPS strengths
and weaknesses
Use areas of strength to
capture best practices, and
focus resources on weak spots
Analyze where certain types of
needs are being identified and
interview to figure out drivers of
irregularity
Train highly variable areas in
better classification of needs

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 201
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

– Taking action on overextension
– Taking action on SPED
▫ Data next steps
▫ 3-6 month plan
– Taking action on organizational
effectiveness

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 202
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

SPED opportunities are both short-term and long-term
Time horizon

Short-term
3 months – 1 year

Opportunities

Time to realization

Potential to be captured

▪ Focus on high / low classifying

▪ Can begin immediately, with

▪ $300-500K

▪ Identify and leverage programs

▪ Identifying can begin

▪ TBD

▪ Evaluate para. approach

▪ Can evaluate immediately, with

▪ $9-11M

▪ Evaluate specialist approach

▪ Can evaluate immediately, with

▪ $8-10M

▪ Analyze bus attendant usage

▪ IEP analysis immediately, with

▪ $7.2M in attendants currently,

▪ Evaluate SPED zone alignment

▪ Zone policy changes would have

▪ TBD

▪ Contract changes around clerks,

▪ Negotiate around with expir-ation

▪ $3-8M

▪ Private placements and

▪ Begin coordination process

▪ $2-10M

▪ Inclusion

▪ Gains from full inclusion model

▪ ~$60M annually after final year of

schools to target district average

with excellent student
progression outcomes

Long-term
1-10 years

DRAFT

for SY 15-16

coordinators

transportation

Source: Team analysis

changes in school rates seen in
SY15-16
immediately, with best practices
and student placement by SY1415
changes in SY14-15
changes in SY14-15

any attendants removed over the
course of the next calendar year
to be communicated by end of
the year, with streamlined
patterns in SY15-16 and gains in
classroom consolidation over 4
years of inclusion roll-out
of contraction in 2016

today, with gains seen beginning
5 years out
expected to be seen in year 4,
with savings coming in out years

10% reduction saves $720K

implementation

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 203
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Short-term opportunities can be realized over the next 12 months

Classification
rates

Month 1 + 2

Month 3 + 4

Month 5 + 6

Month 7 + 8

Month 9 + 10

Month 11 + 12

Mar. + Apr.

May + Jun.

Jul. + Aug.

Sept. + Oct.

Nov. + Dec.

Jan. + Feb.

Interview high/
low classifiers
Create school
and student data
from IEP analyses

Develop picture of
drivers of variable
classifications
Identify students
for reevaluation

Develop and
deliver training for
high classifiers

Monitor high / low
classifiers closely
in beginning of
year to encourage
new approaches

Create peer set
dashboards for
schools to
understand where
rates are against
BPS and MA. set

Create school
regression/progre
ssion data from
IEP analyses
Interview
progressing /
regressing
schools

Identify high
regression /
progression sites
Begin to work with
IEP meetings to
move students
where appropriate

Develop and
deliver training
around best
practices

Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate

Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate

Evaluate para.
approach for
SY15-16 through
cost/benefit

Decide on best
approach for para
usage

Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16

Implement and
monitor new para
system at schools

Evaluate specialist approach
for SY15-16
through cost/
benefit

Decide on best
approach for
specialist usage

Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16

Implement and
monitor new
specialist system
at schools

Create data to
capture universe
of bus attendants
from IEP

Reevaluate
students for bus
attendant needs,
reclassifying
where needed

Monitor any
routes where
attendants have
been removed to
ensure safety


Student
progression

Para
approach

Specialist
approach

Bus
attendant

DRAFT

Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 204
|

TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION

Long-term opportunities have varying time horizons, but can capture
as much as $60M, annually by 2026
Year 1

Year 2

Year 3-4

Year 5-6

Do analysis of
enrollment #’s
in classrooms
Do analysis of
classroom
performance in
feeder
patterns
Identify new,
educationally
appropriate
feeder
Develop
patterns
preferred
feeder schools
Create
process with
DCF for better
placement

Begin closing
classrooms in
alignment with
inclusion
expansion

Continue
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout

Complete
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout

Begin to align
new bus
routes with
consolidated
placements

Continue to
consolidate
placements
Monitor
placemen
rates

Expand to
Zone A

Expand to
Zones B and C
Begin
identifying
sub/separate
classrooms
that can be
eliminated

Expand to
Zones F and G
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes


SPED zone
realignment



Private
placement
& transportation


Inclusion

Expand to
Zones D and E
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes

Years 7-8

Years 9-10

Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases

DRAFT

Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 205
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

– Taking action on overextension
– Taking action on SPED
– Taking action on organizational
effectiveness

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 206
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

BPS could pursue a few steps to improve organizational effectiveness
Step to take

DRAFT

Why it’s important

1 Consider reorganizing the top team so that
a pyramid structure is maintained
throughout the organization with increasing
numbers of direct reports at each layer

Smaller top organization increases accountability, focuses priorities, and allow for
more tradeoffs within departments,
rather than across 18 silos

2 Define the district’s top goals and define
superintendent-level metrics, committing as
a top team to prioritize all work around
these goals and metrics

Goals agreed to throughout (from top to
bottom) will help align the organization
and ensure everyone is working toward the
same ends

3 Set departmental goals that work toward the
district’s top goals with departmental KPIs
and metrics which inform superintendent’s
metrics, help track progress against
departmental goals, and inform strategic
decision-making throughout the
organization

Having well-aligned departmental goals and
metrics, supported by “KPI team” will allow
the superintendent to check-in on the wellbeing of every department while
understanding how successes and failures
will affect the district’s overall performance
on its goals

4 Identify departmental best-practices in onboarding, training, evaluation, and
professional development and share these
best-practices across departments

Retention and development of the best staff
members will improve the district’s ability
to meet its goals; this can only be done by
unlocking the staff’s potential
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 207
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

BPS’ largest gap is in having the right KPIs to track
departmental performance

DRAFT

Filter criteria
Relevance

Outcome
ultimately
affects
district
performance

Influencability

Positive feedback for a
BPS department does
not always correlate
with an effect on
district performance
Many
performance
measures

Process
owners can
influence
KPIs
Improvement
levers can be
assigned

Availability

Data can be
continuousl
y obtained

Student test
Many BPS departments
scores are not
cite “MCAS” as a KPI,
useful as an
despite unclear
always available
influenceabilitiy
KPI

KPIs
KPIs could
could be
be
defined
defined for
for all
all
BPS
BPS
departments
departments
along
along relevant
relevant
performance
performance
dimensions
dimensions
such
such as
as
▪▪ Student
Student
performance
performance
▪▪ Productivity
Productivity
▪▪ Quality
Quality
▪▪ Service
Service
▪▪ Safety
Safety

4-6 sets of
measures
Source: BPS district interviews

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 208
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

BPS should ensure that its departments’ KPIs are “SMART”

DRAFT

KPIs must be carefully designed using 'smart' guidelines and limited in number
Questions
Simple and
specific

Measurable

Achievable
and agreed

Resultsoriented

Timely




Does it have a clear definition?
Is it straightforward to understand?
Can it be easily generated without complex calculations?
Is it addressed to a specific BPS department or goal?



Is it easy to measure?
Can it be benchmarked against other teams/outside data?
Can the measurement be defined in an unambiguous way?




Can the BPS department responsible for it actually influence it?
Does the BPS department understand the drivers that are behind it?
Can the department take steps to mitigate the impact of drivers
beyond its control?
Does the BPS department have all it needs to reach the target?



Is it relevant to the district as a whole?
Does it support the high-level targets?
Is it aligned with the district’s strategy and objectives?

Can it be measured at a frequency that will allow the department to
solve problems in the reporting cycle?
When will the department measure it?

The
The number
number
of
KPIs
of KPIs must
must
be
limited
be limited to
to
help
help focus
focus
BPS
BPS
departments
departments

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 209
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
DRAFT
BPS may consider adding a “KPI Team” to address potential
deficiencies in metric alignment and help drive performance on initiatives

Boston Public Schools “KPI Team”
Purpose

Organization

Key activities

Small, highly capable,
responsive group of
people

Reports directly to the
superintendent and has
leader’s visible backing

Strong performancedriven, results-oriented
culture

Monitor progress toward
aspirations:
– Collect and analyze
relevant data
– Coordinate individuals
to make sure results
are on track

Report regularly to system
leader

Take corrective action as
necessary to achieve
aspirations

Implement the aspirations
defined by the
superintendent, school
committee, and/or mayor

Promote urgent and
visible action

Amplify superintendent’s
authority over others in
the system

Ensure forward
momentum toward
aspiration

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 210
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

Part of the KPI Team design will be determining which BPS
challenges it should address

Typical
challenges

Typical functions of transformation units
to overcome challenges

Huge,
complex tasks

1 Monitor overall program success

Many players

3 Facilitate coordination among players

Need for
fundamental
behavior
change

DRAFT

2 Detail and adjust overall planning as needed

4 Support owners with initiatives they cannot
(yet) perform alone
5 Take over tasks for which KPI Team itself is
better suited than other owners

"Minimum
role" of KPI
Team

Potential
additional
roles of KPI
Team

6 Facilitate sustainable behavior change

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 211
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

The KPI Team can take the form of any of the three
fundamental setups for a “transformation unit”

DRAFT
Driver of change

Potential organizational setups for KPI Team on the district level

Description

When
does it
work
best

"Existing leader"

“Delivery unit"

"Catalytic driver"

▪ KPI Team role is played by an
existing stakeholder (e.g., a
key division such as Data &
Accountability)
▪ KPI Team performs either
only monitoring/adjustment of
strategy or also does active
stakeholder supports, owns
initiatives and drives
behavioral change

▪ KPI Team reports to overall
"system leader" (i.e,
superintendent)
▪ KPI Team function is limited
to monitoring, detailing and
some coordination
▪ No actual project work

▪ KPI Team reports to overall
"system leader"
(i.e, superintendent)
▪ KPI Team performs all
possible functions
(monitoring, adjustment of
strategy, support of
stakeholders, owning select
own initiatives, driving
behavioral change)

▪ "Leading stakeholder" has
significant influence over
others
▪ "Leading stakeholder" has
sufficient will, capability and
capacity to drive
transformation

▪ All or most stakeholders in
the program have sufficient
will, capability and capacity,
and skill and will to drive
transformation

▪ Political will to create
powerful new entity given
▪ Stakeholders have
significant issues with skill
and or will for change
▪ Strong need for central
coordination among different
entities

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 212
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

A critical factor in the KPI Team’s success would be staffing
the right individuals
Attributes

Description

▪ Influencing and

▪ Demonstrates an understanding of the thoughts and

▪ Leading others and

▪ Inspires devoted followership; leads groups to accomplish

▪ Presence and

▪ Articulate, able to engage senior system leaders and

▪ Problem structuring

▪ Demonstrates ability to disaggregate a problem into a set

empathy for others

Leadership
and
presence

teamwork
listening

Problemsolving
skills

feelings of others; able to adopt personal style to
successfully influence others
high aspirations
stakeholders

of key elements to be resolved

▪ Analytical capabilities ▪ Able to conduct end-to-end analyses; and draw insights
and implications

▪ Creativity (able to

▪ Drawing from experience to bring new insight to solve a

▪ Passion for public

▪ Shows passion and is committed improving delivery for

▪ Goal orientation
▪ Ethics

▪ Sets and achieves challenging goals for responsible area
▪ Bound by strong ethics

bring new insight)

Personality
fit

DRAFT

service

different problem
citizens

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 213
|

TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

If BPS pursues overextension opportunity, BPS FTE count
would be expected to align with new district

DRAFT

BPS FTE’s and student population since 2009
4/27/16

Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

(7-10%)

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

4/27/16

# of BPS FTE’s, # of students

4/27/16

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS were
were to
to decrease
decrease
staff
staff in-line
in-line with
with future
future
enrollment
trends
enrollment trends and
and
historical
historical central
central office
office FTE
FTE
counts,
counts, BPS
BPS could
could shrink
shrink
by
by ~7-10%
~7-10%

▪▪

In
In 2009-10,
2009-10, BPS
BPS had
had aa ratio
ratio
of
of 5.5
5.5 students
students per
per FTE,
FTE, by
by
2014-15,
that
ratio
had
2014-15, that ratio had
fallen
fallen to
to 5.0
5.0

▪▪

IfIf BPS
BPS had
had maintained
maintained its
its
2009-10
2009-10 student
student to
to FTE
FTE
ratio,
ratio, in
in 2014-15,
2014-15, BPS
BPS would
would
have
have 9,875
9,875 FTE’s,
FTE’s, 902
902
fewer
than
six
years
fewer than six years ago
ago

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 214
|

Contents

Executive summary

System overview

Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas

Phase II: Area deep dives

Phase III: Capturing opportunities

Appendix

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 215
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

1 Case Study: Chicago Public Schools…
Context

Improving academic performance

▪ With one of the largest school footprints in the

Academic performance at closed and
welcoming schools in 2013
Percent of students

country, dozens of schools were closed in the
early 2000s under Arne Duncan

▪ CPS still had a footprint much larger than its

need, so it s school board voted in 2013 to close
50 more elementary schools

▪ Factors for school closings:
– Declining population of school-age children
– Greater impact of charters in the state
– Facilities with long-deferred maintenance
– Long-held system of choice leading to largely

Level 1
(excellent)

4/27/16

Level 2
(good)
Level 3
(probation)
4/27/16

4/27/16

under-demanded schools

▪ Many were concerned about the rounds of
school closings, even calling for a moratorium at
the state level, due to perceived disproportionate
effects on minorities and safety issues

▪ CPS took care to ensure that improved
academics and student safety were the primary
drivers of which schools to close

Source: Chicago Tribune; Chicago Public Schools; University of Chicago
report on academic impact

▪ Chicago designed its school closures so that
students would be designated to welcoming
schools where the academics were at least as
good as their former school

▪ Over a third of the students in closed schools

were welcomed at the top performing schools,
while only 21% remained in probationary schools

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 216
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

2 Case Study: Detroit Public Schools utilized a clear,
non-negotiable decision matrix for school closings
Context



Under the leadership of emergency financial managers, DPS closed schools due to:
– 50% decline in student population over the last decade
– Growing budget deficit
In 2009 – 2010, closed 59 schools in a compressed time frame:
▫ Announced first round of closure candidates in March 2009
▫ Final decisions made in April 2010
In 2011, announced plans to close an additional 70 schools by 2014, which will result in a district with only 72
schools

Approach
Approach highlights
highlights
Clear data-driven “decision
matrix” that included

Clear community
communications

Maintained focus on academics







Student performance data
(3-year trend)
Enrollment patterns (3-year
period)
Quality of school leadership team
Facility index
Safety
Cost analysis (e.g. transportation)
Special partnerships and
programs (e.g., invested
community groups)
Political considerations



Emergency financial manager
was the “face” of the campaign
Shared criteria for selecting
schools, but they were nonnegotiable
Externally facilitated community
discussions, which included
critical follow-up discussions
Communicated choices to
families whose schools were
closed

Source: Detroit Public Schools; The Pew Charitable Trusts; CNN

Leadership relentlessly worked
to maintain academic focus in
the midst of transitions
DPS made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP)

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 217
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

3 Case Study: DC Public Schools’ compressed timeline for
closing schools led to academic and fiscal returns
Context

How did they do it?



Factors for school closings:
– Declining population of school-age children
– Greater use of charters
– Deteriorating facilities
– No Child Left Behind requirements to
restructure 27 schools
In spring 2007, DCPS was placed under
mayoral control
In 2007, Superintendent Clifford B. Janey
proposed closing 19 schools with low
enrollment on a staggered schedule until 2019
However, in her first six months as Chancellor,
Michelle Rhee announced school closures as
part of a larger set of reforms involving teacher
performance and central office staff reductions
– In 2008, DC closed 23 schools. In 2009
and 2010, DC closed an additional two
schools and one school, respectively

Source: Literature search; DC Public Schools; Closing Schools in Philadelphia:
Lessons From Six Urban Districts (Pew Charitable Trusts)


DC law gave Rhee authority to close schools
with mayoral approval only
The compressed timeline gave little opportunity
for public input, which led to opposition from
public and city council
Annual cost savings were about $16.7
million, lower than projections of $23 million
– Maintenance and repair costs offset savings
▫ $10 million teacher buyout covered 700
teachers who were in 50 schools being
closed or overhauled for academics
▫ About $200 million was spent on 60
buildings in the summer and fall of 2008
for school upgrades, especially among
schools receiving new students
However, the district saw many gains as a result
of the closures including:
– Improved academic performance across the
system
– Saved money to reinvest in teachers

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 218
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

4 Co-locating charter schools and LAUSD schools increased utilization of
public school facilities but created tension between schools
In 2000

Resulting Co-location Pros

▪ Saw the passing of Los Angeles United

▪ Provide charter schools with much needed

School District’s (LAUSD) Proposition 39
(School Facilities Local Vote Act)
– Allowed charter schools to request
for unused space on public school
property
“…public school facilities should be shared
fairly among all public school pupils,
including those in charter schools”
Proposition 39

In 2012

▪ Judge ruled that LAUSD was not abiding by
proposition because it was not providing
facilities to charter schools in the same ratio as
it is to public schools
– LAUSD appealed because it believes it is
not feasible to do so without placing district
students at risk

Source: United Teachers Los Angeles; Highland Park-Mount
Washington Patch; The Argonaut; Southern California Public Radio.

facilities to operate in
– Schools applying for the temporary space do
not have a permanent home

▪ Charter schools pay rent to the city for the space
Resulting Co-location Concerns

▪ Actually utilized “unused” space (e.g. reading
labs, special programs)

▪ Hostile environment for charter school students
if district teachers, students, and family
members are not receptive

▪ Competition from charter schools’ recruiting new
students at district schools

▪ Equitable sharing of health, facility, and student
resources

▪ Communication breakdowns between charter
schools and district schools

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 219
|

DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION

BPS may be able to avoid backlash by closing schools in a predictable,
moderate way, learning from other districts’ examples
Timing of school closings

▪ Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap
▪ 22 schools out of 86 schools closed in 2006
– Eliminated 10,000 of 13,700 excess seats (88% capacity)
▪ Closed underutilized and low-achieving schools
– Leveraged Rand Corporation to measure school effectiveness
▪ Superintendent visited every community to pitch closures

Pittsburgh
6-7
2006

2007-12

▪ DC was averaging 300 kids per school
▪ In 2007, chancellor given power to close schools with mayoral approval
▪ Compressed timetable (6 months):
– September 2007: Announcement of school closures
– 2 months later: List of target school closures
– 2 months later: Final decision made on school closings
Negative
reaction from public because of the lack of community

Washington D.C.

2008

2009

Kansas City

2009

2012

2010




involvement
Officials believe they should have allocated extra time for feedback
Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap
Enrollment down 42% between 2000 and 2010 school years
Kansas City actively made case for closures
– Secured support of groups such as Civic Council, who paid for an
informational campaign for closings
– Residents had input criteria for closures
Local teachers’ union agreed that schools need to close

Boston Public Schools can benefit from the support of many parents and community leaders for working to
improve the academic situation of every child and trying to create community engagement for local, neighborhood
schools; BPS needs to create this community engagement and not be too aggressive in planning these moves
Source: Closing public schools in Philadelphia. The Pew Charitable Trusts;
New York Times, Local school districts.

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 220
|

BPS peer districts for benchmarking

HIGHLY
DRAFT PRELIMINARY

We looked at ~19,000 districts across the country and found 13 peers

Description of
files/metric

Initial
consideration set,
NCES 2010-111

BPS

Number of
peer districts

18,840

▪ Newark
▪ District of

Columbia
Cleveland

Total student
enrollment
between 40-70k

Location:
Large city

~56k

Large city

74%

428

91

34

28

13

▪ Columbus
▪ Atlanta2
▪ San Francisco

% of students
qualifying for free/
reduced lunch >50%

▪ Wichita2
▪ Oakland
▪ Tucson




Number of
students/ school
300 – 600

Sacramento
Tulsa2
Omaha2
Oklahoma City

1 Most recently available data
2 Indicates district is located in a Right to Work state, where unions have limited options
Source: NCES 2010-11

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 221
|

List of interviewees
Name

Area

Name

Area

Melissa Dodd
Eileen de los Reyes
Ross Wilson
Eileen Nash
Antonieta Bolomey
Tanisha Sullivan
Michele Brooks
Kamal Chavda
Sam DePina
Kim Rice
Lee McGuire
Mark Racine
Erika Giampietro
Chris Guilani
Linh Vuong
Elaine Ng
Jaime Racanelli
Barry Kaufman
Paul Sloan
Jon Sproul
Shakera Walker
Nate Kuder
Melissa Partridge
Mary Skipper
Margarita Ruiz
Ann Chan
Kavita Venkatesh
Khadijah Brooks
Jonathan Steketee
Jerry Burrell
Carleton Jones
Jon Barrows
Emily Qazilbash

Boston Public Schools
Amanda Present
Human Capital
Acadmics
Deb Pullin
Human Capital
Human Capital
Avery Esdaile
Comprehensive student support services
SPED and related services
Angela Rubenstein
Human Capital
ELL
John McDonough
Boston Public Schools
Equity
Al Taylor
Acadmics
Engagement
Dr. Hardin Coleman
School Committee
Data and accountability
Andy Horgan
Technology
Comprehensive student support services
Diane Hauser
Technology
Operations
Deborah Ventricelli
Comprehensive student support services
Communications
Joseph Larusso
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Technology
Todd Isherwood
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Finance
Matt Mayrl
City OIT
Finance
Paul Curran
Office of Labor Relations (City)
na
Julia Bott
Boston Public School
SPED and related services
Kelly Hung
Boston Public School
Operations
Lynne Teta
Boston Public School
Operations
Nicole Bahnam
Boston Public School
Operations
Stephanie Sibley
Boston Public School
CoS
Tanya Freeman-Wisdom
Boston Public School
Human Capital
Traci Walker
Boston Public School
CFO
William Thomas
Boston Public School
Acadmics
Cathy O'Flaherty
Boston Public School
Acadmics
Alice Laramore
Boston Public School
Acadmics
Marjie Crosby
Boston Public School
Human Capital
Casandra Wallace
Boston Public School
Acadmics
Kristen Davolio
Boston Public School
Operations
Paul Tritter
BTU
Operations
Vivian Leonard
Boston HR
Operations
Bernard Killarney
Boston HR
Operations
Rahn Dorsey
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
Shaun Blugh
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
▪ The Operational Review process conducted six focus groups:
– Two with principals (15 total participants)
– Two with parents (27 total participants)
– Two with teachers (20 total participants

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential 222
|