ERS Resource Mapping: •  April 2010

School Funding

Duval County Public Schools, January 27, 2011

Based on our experience working in districts, ERS believes that resources (people, time, and money) need to be aligned to support seven key transformation strategies
TRANSFORMATIONAL RESOURCE STRATEGIES
Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexible funding across schools Restructure the teaching Job Support schools in organizing people, time, and money to maximize learning Ensure access to aligned curriculum, instruction, assessment, PD Build school and district leader capacity Redesign central roles for empowerment, accountability and efficiency Partner with families and communities

These district strategies support and facilitate a system of high-performing schools

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

2

Preliminary – Do Not Cite or Distribute

ERS will present our findings, aligned to the transformational resource strategies, across 7 working sessions
Date Jan Feb Mar Apr May Topic School Funding Elementary School Middle School High School Central Roles (including Turnaround Strategy) Human Capital Wrap-Up & Action Implications DCPS Lead Mike Perrone Debbie Menard Lawrence Dennis Elaine Mann Jackie Byrd Tony Bellamy Vicki Reynolds TBD
Redesign central roles for empowerment, accountability and efficiency Restructure the teaching Job Recap findings from the previous 6 strategies Ensure access to aligned curriculum, instruction, assessment, PD Build school and district leader capacity Partner with families and communities
3

Transformational Resource Strategy
Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexible funding across schools

Support schools in organizing people, time, and money to maximize learning

May June

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Agenda
Setting the Context Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System •  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why? •  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why? Discussion

Objective: Team will identify priorities and next steps for improving school funding process and allocation levels

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

4

Overall, Duval spends less per pupil than almost any other urban district that ERS has examined
Cross District Comparison of Average K-12 Operating $/per pupil (fully allocated)*
$20 Average K-12 $/pp ($K) $15 $10 $5 $0
$18.1 $13.6

Charlotte
$13.2

Unadjusted $8.7/pp
$12.8 $12.3 $10.9 $10.0

$8.5

$9.1

$7.9

NCESComparative Wage-Index

1.19

1.20

1.43

1.55

1.30

1.31

1.33

1.55

1.39

1.31

*Dollars represent K-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using the National Center for Education Statistics 2005 School District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars adjusted to 2009-10 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

5

Methodology

To ensure comparability across districts in our analysis, ERS uses its own methodologies, definitions and coding structures – including “use” and “function”
Instruction •  Teacher Compensation •  Aides Compensation •  Substitute Compensation •  Librarian & Media Specialist •  Instructional Materials & Supplies •  Other Non-Compensation •  Other Compensation •  Extended Time & Tutoring Pupil Services & Enrichment •  Enrichment •  Social Emotional •  Physical Health Services & Therapies •  Career Academic Counseling •  Parent & Community Relations Instruction Support & Prof. Dev. •  Professional Development •  Curriculum Development •  Recruitment(of Instructional Staff) •  Special Population Program Management & Support
Source: ERS knowledge management

Use

Leadership •  Governance •  School Supervision •  School Administration •  Research & Accountability •  Communications •  Student Assignment Operations & Maintenance •  Facilities & Maintenance •  Security & Safety •  Food Services •  Student Transportation •  Utilities Business Services •  Human Resources •  Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution •  Data Processing & Information Services •  Facilities Planning •  Development & Fundraising •  Legal •  Insurance

Function

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

6

DCPS spends a higher % of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on Instruction and Operations & Maintenance than other districts
CROSS DISTRICT COMPARISON OF OPERATING EXPENSES BY USE
100% $ of operating budget/expenditures
8% 4% 3% 20% 8% 8% 6% 3% 20% 5% 9% 8% 5% 4% 23% 7% 7% 8% 17% 5% 7% 7% 2% 20% 9% 10% 7% 4% 20% 9%

80%

Leadership ISPD Business Services O&M Pupil Services

60%

40%
57% 58% 51% 55% 54% 50%

Instruction

20%

0%

Charlotte Low $/pp

Duval

PGCPS

Atlanta

Boston

Rochester

High $/pp

Note: Included districts reflect those with comparable ERS methodology and coding.
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

7

Methodology

ERS also recodes expenses to identify how much the district spends at the following five “levels”:
DCPS: % of Expenses 0.1% System Leadership Central Mgmt Essential district governance costs Example: Superintendent, Board Costs Management and overhead of the support services provided to schools Example: Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation All FTEs, services, and materials that provide support across all schools but generally on as-needed or irregular basis Example: Transportation, Schulz Center All FTEs, services, and materials not reported on the school budget, but support schools on a regular and predictable basis Example: OT/PTs, SROs, Region ESE Staff All FTEs, services, and materials allocated directly to the school on the district budget Example: Teachers, Principals, Aides
This is what ERS uses to compare Central Overhead across districts

“Central Overhead”

6%

12%

Support Services

6%

Centrally Reported School Resources School Reported

“School-Attributed”

77%

This is what ERS uses to compare spending across schools
8

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Compared to other districts, Duval spends a much smaller % of its total Pre-K12 Operating Expenditures on central overhead ($63M or 6%)
% of K12 operating budget/expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEAD
% of expenditures/budget

15% 12% 10% 8% 6% 5% 8% 6% 6%

15% 11%

10%

7%

0%

Low $/pp

High $/pp

*Central overhead defined as system leadership and central operations mgmt.
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

9

Duval reports 77% of its PreK-Operating Expenditures at the school-level, which is one of the highest %s among the districts that we've studied
Cross District Comparison of the % of Resources Reported at SCHOOL LEVEL
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 77% 77% 77% 71% 58%

% of expenditures/budget

69%

66%

Low $/pp

High $/pp

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

10

In summary, Duval’s low overall funding creates important context and urgency to make sure the district is making the most of the resources it has
Let’s keep the following lenses in mind as we review the findings:

District Strategic Plan: Does the current resource use reflect the goals and priorities of the district?

Upcoming Budget Shortfall: How can we strategically change current resource use to address the anticipated $92+ million shortfall? Race to the Top $s: How can the district leverage RTT $s to correct existing resource misalignments and ease the impact of the fiscal crisis?

Florida gets RTT $S

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

11

Agenda
Setting the Context Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System •  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why? •  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why? Discussion Next Steps

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

12

When ERS thinks about what makes a district’s funding system effective, we use the following 7 funding principles:
Funding Principle Description •  The system and process for funding schools is easily understood by all stakeholders. •  Allocates resources equitably across students, based on student need. •  Allocates resources equitably across schools, based on student and school need. •  Schools have greater control over the right resources in their schools and the capacity to make decisions on effective resource use. •  Supports the district’s and school’s academic strategy. •  Integrates lessons learned from prior year process. •  School allocation processes are structured to minimize disruption of educational process from year to year.

Transparency Meets Student Needs Equitable Across Schools Flexibility Alignment with Strategy Reflective Predictability

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

13

Evolutions we explore in the funding system should build on the strength of a transparent budget process
For a transparent budget process, districts need to ensure that: School budgets include all funding sources and are easy to understand and compare Funding formulas for staff and school resources are widely shared and understood School principals clearly understand what resources they have and why School budget reports include benefits costs for each position
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 14

Before we dig into the section around “Equity” which is where try to understand how students and schools are being funded in the district and why … The three big questions that we have in mind are:
1

How much variation is there? What is driving this variation? What can/should Duval do about this?

2

3

 
This is a much harder question to answer… …which is why we have 3 sessions (ES, MS, HS) directly following this one that focus on resource use… …so that we can understand how changes in school funding may affect resource use.
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 15

In Duval, as in most districts that ERS has studied, we find that the spending per pupil varies significantly across schools
$35,000

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (UNADJUSTED)
M V RUTHERFORD ALT ED CTR $35,999

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

DUVAL VIRTUAL INST ACAD $4,636

$10,000

$5,000

Median $7,066 Hi-Lo Spread 7.8x

$0

Duval Schools
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

16

DCPS spends more on students with additional needs - almost 2x on students attending Alternative Schools; more than 3x on SWD Self-Contained students…
Fully-Allocated $s/pp by Student Type
School attributed $/ pp ($ 000s)

Additional $681/pupil is allocated for Poverty students of any type (Weight of 0.1)

$25 $20 $15 $10.8 $10 $5 $0 $6.8 $7.9 $7.4 $11.9 $7.3 $9.7 $12.3

$22.3

GenEd

PreK

Gifted

Alternative DPP

Alternative Schls

ELL- LF Monitored

ELL-LY Served

ESE-VE Inclusion

ESE SelfContained

# of Pupils ERSCalculated Weights

114,984 -

1,537 1.2

3,452 1.1

2,941 1.6

1,552 1.7

922 1.1

3,093 1.4

13,539 1.8

2,944 3.3

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

17

… Duval’s spending on student type appears to be in line with what we’ve seen in other districts
Cross District Comparison of Per Pupil Expense by Student Type (fully allocated) General Education Student ($K) $6.6   $6.8   $6.0   $7.9   $8.1   $7.8   $10.8   $11.0   $9.7   $14.1   Poverty Students 1.2   1.1   1.3   1.1   1.3   1.4   1.1   1.1   1.1   1.1   English Language Learners 1.3   1.4   1.1   1.2   1.3   1.1   1.4   1.3   1.3   1.5   ESE VE/ Inclusion Students 1.8   1.8   2.6   2.3   2.3   2.4   2.4   2.3   1.7   2.0   ESE SelfContained Students 3.0   3.3   4.2   3.7   3.4   4.4   3.4   3.9   3.7   2.4  
High Overall $/ pp

District

Charlotte   Duval   Chicago   PGCPS   Philadelphia   St. Paul   Atlanta   Wash. D.C.   Boston   Rochester  

Low Overall $/pp

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

18

Methodology

Comparing two Duval schools shows why we need to try to "adjust" a school’s per-pupil spending according to student needs
1
These two schools have the same per pupil amount but Crystal Springs serves a needier student population than Pine Forest …

2
… so ERS takes the student type weights that we calculated to adjust each school’s enrollment to create an “adjusted” per-pupil amount

$6,729/pp

$6,788/pp

$7,283/pp $6,838/pp

PINE FOREST % SPED % ELL % Pov 10% 1% 40%

CRYSTAL SPRINGS 15% 3% 56%

PINE FOREST Size Weighted Size* 492 566

CRYSTAL SPRINGS 1168 1444

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis PRELIMINARY: per pupil CITE OR * To make the dollar per pupil comparable, a gross-down factor is applied against weighted enrollment before calculating theDO NOT amount. DISTRIBUTE

19

We also know that part of the variation is due to the differences in spending across school levels where Elementary/K-8 schools have a higher average per pupil spending than Middle/High Schools
AVERAGE SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED)
$14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $-

$12,760

$7,711

$9,353 $6,853 $6,369

ES/K8

MS

HS/SS

Alternative Schls & Programs

ESE Schools

Avg. Size # of Schools

578 106

956 25

1686 19

166 19

158 3

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis Figures in bars represent the mean (average) $/pupil, weighted for differences in student need; Alternative Schls & Programs include Amikids Jacksonville, Drop Back In Academy, Duval Detention Center, Duval Halfway House, Duval Virtual Inst Acad, Gateway, Grand Park Career, Hospital & Homebound, Impact Halfway House, Jacksonville Youth Center, M V Rutherford, Marine Science Ed, Pace Center For Girls, Philip Randolph, Pre-K Disabilities, Pre-Trial Detention, Teen Parent Service Ctr, Tiger Success Center, Youth Development Center

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

20

Duval’s emphasis on Elementary Schools is slightly higher than what ERS has seen in other districts
Cross District Comparison of School Attributed Per Pupil Expense Weight by School Level* District Duval   St.Paul   Atlanta   PGCPS   Baltimore   Boston   Charlotte   Chicago   Wash. D.C.   Philadelphia   Elementary 1.11 1.09 1.06 1.05 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.01 1.01 0.93 Middle/K-8 0.99 0.97 0.96 1.01 0.91 1.05 0.96 0.97 0.91 1.04 High 0.92 0.86 0.89 0.88 0.97 0.9 1 1.04 1.06 1.01 •  ES has higher share of small schools •  Consequence of state class size policy •  Deliberate district strategy Possible explanations for why ES might be higher:

*Weights calculated as School Attributed $/pp by school level divided by district average $/pp Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

21

Within school levels, significant variation remains, even after adjusting for student need
SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)
$14,000

$12,000

John Love Butler

$10,000

N. Berlin

Ribault Twin Lakes Sandalwood

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

Median $7.3K Hi-Lo Spread 2.1X
$2,000

Median $6.5K Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X

Median $6.3K Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X

$0

ES/K-8
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis

MS

HS/SS
22

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

This level of variation in per pupil expense after adjusting for student needs is comparable to what we’ve seen in other districts
Cross District Comparison of school attributed Per Pupil Expense Variation Across Schools (school attributed, adjusted)
% of schools funded within +/-10% of the median % of schools funded within +/-20% of the median
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%

88% 66%

89% 76% 65% 63%

88% 61%

93% 81% 56% 55%

84%

81%

86%

80%

% of schools

53%

48%

47%

46%

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

23

What’s the Magnitude? If we brought outlier ES to 10% of the median, the district would eliminate $13.8 million; Bringing to 20% of median would eliminate $6.1 m

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)
$14,000 $12,000 $10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Bringing schls that are 10% above median to 10%à $13.8m Bringing schls that are 20% above median to 20% à $6.1m
20% above 10% above Median $7.3K

ELEMENTARY and K-8 SCHOOLS

Bringing 10% outliers to 10% of median …
Elementary/K-8 Schools Middle Schools High/Secondary Schools $13.8m $3.9m $3.3m

Bringing 20% outliers to 20% of median …
Elementary/K-8 Schools Middle Schools High/Secondary Schools $6.1m $2.3m $1.0m

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis * These are high-level estimates provided to help the district consider various potential actions. They are not ERS recommendations in any way.

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

24

But hold on! Having variation in per-pupil funding across schools is not necessarily a bad thing …
Good variation  Deliberate/ By Design  Aligned with district’s strategic goals  Gives “needier” schools add’l $s Bad variation  Unplanned/ Unintentional  Unstrategic  Resources not going to the “needier” schools

So before we can discuss whether the district would even want to reduce the variability in per-pupil funding across schools, we need to understand what is driving these funding differences across schools
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

25

So it’s time to play …

What else is driving the differences in per-pupil funding across schools?

To be uncovered in the next few slides …

DCPS EDITION
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

26

DCPS

Based on our experience in other districts, we know that there are 6 main suspects that tend to account for most of the variation in perpupil funding across schools

1 2 3 4 5 6

School Size School Status Teacher Compensation Building Utilization

Fixed positions across schools generate higher per pupil spending in smaller schools School status as Turnaround, Magnet, Title I- may have additional staff or resources associated with them. Schools with more experienced teachers get more $s ; district may reward teachers at low perf. schools. Schools that are at or over capacity may have lower per student operating costs than those that are significantly under-capacity Over-projecting enrollment can lead to overstaffing if leveling does not occur. Districts may be making ad-hoc decisions separate from the stated policy/guidelines.

Enrollment projections Ad-hoc exceptions

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

27

DCPS

Which 3 suspects do you think have the biggest impact on the variation in per-pupil funding across schools? CLICKER EXERCISE:
Everyone has 3 votes. Please press the number that corresponds to the “suspect” you wish to vote for.
1.  2.  3.  4.  5.  6.  School Size School Status Teacher Compensation Building Utilization Enrollment Projections Ad-Hoc Exceptions

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

28

#1. SCHOOL SIZE

In Duval, school size at the Elementary/K-8 Level correlates strongly with spending per pupil
Notes and observations

Elementary and K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment
•  Strong correlation between school size and cost per student •  Cost curve for ES gets much steeper below 400 students •  We see a similar but less pronounced trend (i.e., flatter curve) when we look at Middle and High Schools

$13,000

John Love MLK Jr.

School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)

$12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000
Bank of America

Chets Creek New Berlin

$4,000 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Enrollment

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

29

#1. SCHOOL SIZE

<>

Duval has significantly more small ES (<500) than Charlotte does, though its overall ES portfolio is comparable to other districts ERS has studied …
% OF SCHOOLS BY SIZE BUCKET – ELEMENTARY/K8
<200 200-349 350-499 500-999 1000+

DONE

% of elementary schools

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0%
Charlotte Duval PGCPS Philadelphia Baltimore Atlanta Boston Rochester

48% of ES are <500

Low $/pp

High $/pp

# Schools Average School Size

96 692

106 578

137 449

166 543

103 398

58 415

69 371

40 452

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

30

#1. SCHOOL SIZE

Duval’s smallest ES are spending almost $3,000/pp more than Duval’s largest ES altogether - primarily in Instruction, O&M, and Leadership
Elementary and K-8 Schools: Average SA $/pp by Size Bucket
$10,000 $8,000 $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $-

Schoolattributed $/ pupil

$9.6 $8.1 $7.0 $6.7
ISPD Pupil Services Leadership O&M

<349
# of Schools # of Students 17 4.8k

350-499
34 14.3k

500-999
44 29.4k

1,000+
11 12.9k

Instruction

Instruction O&M Leadership Pupil Services ISPD

6,393 1,285 746 491 657

5,667 1,032 587 417 414

5,057 831 444 344 260

5,042 697 374 351 216

Avg. Student- toTchr Ratio <349 350-499 500-999 1,000+ 12 13 15 15
31

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

#1. SCHOOL SIZE

Instruction Drill-down: The smallest schools have more teachers because they are more likely to have under-filled classes AND because they don’t have enough students to combine strands when class size max rises Grades K-3 State Max: 18 Grades 4-5 State Max: 22

Has roughly 50 kids per grade which translates to 3 strands … Size: 350
16 kids 17 kids 17 kids

… but when class size max increases, a small school can’t combine classes so it must keep 3 strands

25 kids

25 kids

Has roughly 140 kids per grade which translates to 8 strands … Size: 1,000

… and can combine to 7 strands when the class size max increases

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

22 kids

22 18 kids

22 kids

21 kids

18 kids

18 kids

16 kids

16 kids

21 kids

21 18 kids

21 kids

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 32

#2. SCHOOL STATUS

TURNAROUND SCHOOLS: Elementary & MS TAs tend to be small and have a higher per-pupil spending than non-TAs; Less of a trend at HS
Middle Schools
$10,000

Elementary and K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment
$13,000

Butler Northwestern

Non-Turnaround Schools Turnaround Schools
Justina Road $10,377 W. J’ville $10,320
$8,000

School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)

$12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

$6,000

Mayport
$4,000

Twin Lakes
1,000 1,500 2,000

Northshore K-8 $7,387

-

500

High Schools
$10,000

Ribault
$8,000

Enrollment
The three schools highlighted are all Title I, with similar % Pov and % SWD, but with dramatically different performance.
0809 0919 WEST J’VILLE JUSTINA ROAD NORTH SHORE A D F C B F

Sandalwood
$6,000

Baldwin
$4,000 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

33

#2. SCHOOL STATUS

SCHOOL GRADES We also see variation among schools that received the same grade in the prior year though C-D-F schools do have higher funding overall
ELEMENTARY & K-8 SCHOOLS ONLY: 2009-10 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)

$14,000

Northshore & Livingston

Turnaround Schools
$12,000

Pearson

MLK Jr Jville Heights

Non-Turnaround Schools

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

Median $7.0k Hi-Lo Spread 1.9X

Median $7.3k Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X

Median $8.5K Hi-Lo Spread 1.8x

Median $8.8K Hi-Lo Spread 1.4X

$0

0809 (Prior Year) School Grade

A

B

C

D

F

We see similar variation in per pupil spending both across and within school grade-levels at the MS and HS

Median $9.2K Hi-Lo Spread 1.2X

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis PRELIMINARY: DO Excludes MERRILL ROAD , R. V. DANIELS, WESTVIEW K-8, and BARTRAM SPRINGS because we did not have their 0809 School Grades NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

34

#2. SCHOOL STATUS

TITLE I SCHOOLS: Elementary Title I Schools also tend to be small and have a higher per-pupil spending than non-Title Is
Notes and observations

Elementary/K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment
•  ES Title I’s mostly small
Non-Title I Schools Title I Schools

$13,000

School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)

$12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 200 400 600 800

•  Similar but less pronounced trend at MS/HS

Magnet Status: No trend observed
1,000 1,200 1,400

Enrollment

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 35

#3. TCHR COMP.

There is significant variation in average teacher salary both across and within school-levels
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY

$60,000 $55,000 $50,000 $45,000 $40,000 $35,000 $30,000 $25,000 $20,000

TA Schools Non-TA Schools
Mayport Fletcher

Fletcher

Jackson Northshore K-8 Northwestern

Median Hi-Low

$44.5k 1.5x

Median Hi-Low

$42.1k 1.5x

Median $43.3k Hi-Low 1.5x

ES/K-8
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

MS

HS/SS
36

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

#3. TCHR COMP.

When we add in benefits, stipends, and other pay (including TA school bonuses), we see that there is still variation in total compensation across schools… AVERAGE TEACHER COMPENSATION

$80,000

Fletcher

TA Schools Non-TA Schools

Mayport Highlands

Fletcher Jackson

$70,000
Sadie Tillis

$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

Median Overall: TA: Non-TA:

$60.7k $57.8k $60.7k

Median Overall: TA: Non-TA:

$59.0k $56.3k $59.2k

Median Overall: TA: Non-TA:

$61.3k $61.2k $63.0k

$20,000

ES/K-8
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

MS

HS/SS
37

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

#3. TCHR COMP.

But you can see that there’s not a strong relationship between a school’s average teacher compensation and its per pupil spending
Middle Schools
$10,000

Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Avg. Teacher Comp.
Non-Turnaround Schools
J. Love

Northwestern

Butler

$13,000

School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)

Turnaround Schools

$8,000

$12,000
$6,000

$11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 $50,000 N.Berlin Jackson
$8,000 $4,000 $50 $55 $60 $65

Fletcher

$70

$75

Thousands
High Schools
Mayport
$10,000

Ribault Fletcher

$55,000

$60,000

$65,000

$70,000

$75,000

$6,000

Average Teacher Compensation

$4,000 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Thousands

38

#4. BLDG UTILIZ

Duval Schools that have low building utilization %s tend to be more expensive on a per-pupil basis across all school levels …
Middle Schools
$10,000

Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Building Utilization
Non-Turnaround Schools Turnaround Schools

Butler Northwestern

$13,000

$8,000

School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)

$12,000 $11,000 $10,000 $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 20% 40% 60% 80% Westview K-8 Mayport

$6,000

Ribault

$4,000 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

High Schools
Garden City
$10,000

Ribault
$8,000

100%

120%

140%

$6,000

Raines

Lee

Building Utilization (Enrollment/Building Capacity)
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

$4,000 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

39

#4. BLDG UTILIZ

…though, not surprisingly, under-utilized schools have smaller enrollments
Middle Schools
1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Elem./K-8 Schools: Building Utilization vs. School Size
Non-Turnaround Schools
1,400 1,200 1,000 800

Turnaround Schools

School Size

600 400 200 0 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

High Schools
3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500

Building Utilization (Enrollment/Building Capacity)
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

0 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

40

#5. Enrollment Projections

There does not appear to be a strong relationship between whether a school was over/under-projected and its $/pp
SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)

$15,000

$10,000

Schools where the ProjEnroll was UNDER 10% Schools where the ProjEnroll was OVER 10%

$5,000

ES/K8

MS

HS/SS

$0

This is because very few schools are significantly over or under-projected compared to actual enrollments …

% of Schools “Over Projected” >/= 10% ES MS HS Total 16% (17 schools) 11% (2 schools) 13%

% of Schools “Under Projected” >/ = 10% 8% (8 schools) 5%

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

41

#6. Ad-Hoc Exceptions

In FY0910, Cabinet Add-ons of $3.6 million were provided to 12 schools (11 Turnarounds, mostly High Schools); Range of add-ons was $61k to $820k or 0.6-9.0% of the school’s total spending
All Other Schools Schools that received Cabinet Add-Ons
Ribault $407k or 5%

High Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment
$10,000 School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp) $9,000 $8,000 $7,000 $6,000 $5,000 $4,000 500 1,000 1,500 Enrollment
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis 1 school: Randolph received cabinet-add-ons and are excluded from this analysis

Raines $476k or 6%

Parker $345k or 3% White $254k or 2%

•  Is this about supplementing Turnaround allocations based on individual school needs? •  Or is it about prolonging prior efficiencies in school resource use?

Jackson $662k or 9%

First Coast $820k or 7%

Englewood $66k or 0.6%

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 42

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Increases* in the following drivers had the greatest impact on per-pupil funding at Elementary Schools
Potential Driver of Difference School Size** (small schools) Turnaround Building Utilization*** Percent Poverty*** Enrollment projection*** Teacher Salary*** School Size** (large schools) Increase in Driver (1 standard deviation of increase) 300 à575 students Not TA à TA status 75% utilization à 95% utilization 30% poverty à 54% poverty 0 difference between spring FTE and fall FTE à fall 10% greater FTE than spring School average salary equals ES median ($44.5K)à school average salary 8% above ES average ($48.1K) 730 à 855 Change in $ Per Pupil

↓ $1,145 ↑ $950 ↓ $383 ↑ $305 ↓ $144 ↑ $120 ↓ $90

*The unit of increase for each variable is equal to the standard deviation, or the increase that would be required to surpass 1/3 of schools with higher values. **Enrollment on Survey 2 ***Change in per-pupil funding will remain the same for the same increment of change regardless of starting point Note: Explainable difference in model 80%; Alternative Education and ESE centers excluded from analysis; Full results in Appendix Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

43

While we can’t run a regression for middle schools (not enough schools), we see similar trends where the highest $/pp middle schools are high poverty, small, turnaround, and under-filled
Middle Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use
ISPD Pupil Services Leadership O&M Instruction $4,000 $2,000 $$8,000 $6,000

$7,927 $6,051 $6,446

AVERAGE … % Poverty % ELL % ESE Size Turnaround Status School 0809 Grades Teacher Salary % filled to capacity % Over/Under Projected

Lowest Spending Third 48% 3% 15% 1,204 0% are turnarounds 63% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs $43,071 98% 0%

Middle Spending Third 55% 4% 12% 1,017 0% are turnarounds 38% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs $41,988 92% -1%

Highest Spending Third 70% 2% 17% 680 56% are turnarounds 33% are As, 22% are Ds or Fs $42,092 68% 0%

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

44

In high schools, we see a similar but less pronounced trend where the highest $/pp schools are small, high poverty, and under-filled; Turnarounds are not concentrated in the highest spending third
High Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use
ISPD Pupil Services Leadership O&M Instruction $4,000 $2,000 $$8,000 $6,000

$7,290 $5,506 $6,158

AVERAGE … % Poverty % ELL % ESE Size Turnaround Status School 0809 Grades Teacher Salary % filled to capacity % Over/Under Projected

Lowest Spending Third 37% 4% 12% 2,172 17% are turnarounds 17% are As, 0% are Fs $45,343 109% -5%

Middle Spending Third 46% 6% 11% 1,792 83% are turnarounds 17% are As, 17% are Fs $43,582 97% 0%

Highest Spending Third 45% 1% 10% 1,178 57% are turnarounds 29% are As, 43% are Fs $42,601 84% -3%

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

45

DCPS

So now we know that each of the six suspects have some role in driving differences in per-pupil funding across schools and their relative contribution to the overall variation within school levels
Is there variation across schools within this driver? What is this driver’s impact on overall $/pp? Major across ES, MS., HS

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

What does this driver overlap with? Building utilization, Turnaround, Student needs Size, Student Needs, and Teacher Comp Turnaround

School Size

Yes, a lot of variation in school size across ES, MS, HS N/A

School Status

Major across ES, MS., HS

Teacher Compensation Building Utilization Enrollment projections Ad-hoc exceptions

Yes, a lot of variation in avg. teacher compensation Yes, a lot of variation in avg. building utilization No, most schools are projected close to actual Yes, but only targeted at 12 schools (mostly MS, HS)

Moderate at ES (suspect similar at MS, HS) Moderate at ES (suspect similar at MS, HS) Minor across ES (n/a at MS., HS) Minor at ES (bigger impact at MS, HS)

Size, Turnaround, Student Needs None – very few schools impacted N/A

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

46

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Summary of Today: Major Takeaways and Possible Implications
Summary of Major Takeaways Possible Implications for Duval •  Hard to make major cuts without touching Instruction & schools •  Urgency to make sure school level investments not in Instruction are highly leveraged •  Continue with current process •  ERS future ES, MS, HS presentations to investigate how schools are using their $s (across school levels and school sizes) to help Duval determine whether it might want to change: o School Funding (i.e., change small schl premium) o School Portfolio (i.e., rethink school sizes) •  ERS future TA session to investigate how TA schools are using these add’l $s and how needs vary across TAs •  ERS future Human Capital session to investigate distribution of teachers across schools to help Duval determine action implications •  Use as factor in decision-making on school closure/ consolidations •  Continue with current process •  Is this a TA supplement or prolonging prior inefficient resource use? •  ERS future HS session will investigate

1 2 3
Drivers of variation across schools

Low Overall Funding Level Transparency School Level

•  Smaller investment in central administration •  Larger investment in Instruction

•  School budget process highly transparent relative to others studied •  ES receive more than MS and HS •  Relative priority on ES greater than other districts studied •  Relatively larger share of small ES •  Biggest driver of differences in per pupil funding •  TA schools get $950/pp more than non-Tas •  TAs tend to be small, under-capacity, with lower tchr comp •  Substantial variation in avg. teacher comp across schools •  Not a major driver of $/pp differences •  Substantial variation in utilization •  Moderate driver of $/pp differences •  Overlap with school size & TA •  Most schools’ projections are +/- 10% of actual •  Minor driver of variation •  Mostly HS •  12 schools get between1-9% of their total allocation

School Size School Status

Teacher Comp. Building Utilization Enrollment projections Ad-hoc exceptions

47

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Agenda
Setting the Context Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System •  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why? •  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why? Discussion

48

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Discussion: Divide into groups of 2-3 to discuss: •  What would you want to preserve/ protect about school funding? -  Process -  Allocation -  Transparency •  What would you want to explore changing about school funding? •  What questions does this analysis raise?

49

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Agenda
Setting the Context Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System •  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why? •  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why? Discussion Next Steps

50

PRELIMINARY – DODO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE PRELIMINARY: NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Winter/Spring Project Milestones
Working Session #1 School Funding Session #2 Elementary Schools Session #3 Middle Schools Session #4 High Schools

HS Visits

Session #5 Central Roles (Including turnaround Strategy)

1/27

1/251/28

2/10

3/10

4/14

4/28

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Project Team: Working Sessions ERS at the district for data gathering

51

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Appendix
•  ES and K-8 Regression Analysis Results: Detailed Breakdown •  ESE (not including Gifted) Weights by Setting Suffix

52

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

ES and K-8 Regression Analysis Results: Detailed Breakdown
Regression  Statistics Multiple  R R  Square Adjusted  R  Square Standard  Error Observations ANOVA df Regression Residual Total 13 92 105 SS MS F Significance  F 145643018.4 11203309 35.93746 2.3722E-­‐30 28680505.12 311744.6 174323523.5 t  Stat 18.67267 -­‐8.20684 7.199433 0.900159 0.584886 5.070206 3.250277 -­‐0.466 -­‐1.33411 -­‐1.51531 0.019743 1.941135 -­‐2.43789 -­‐4.81897 P-­‐value 4.72E-­‐33 1.34E-­‐12 1.61E-­‐10 0.370386 0.560056 2.05E-­‐06 0.001611 0.642314 0.185459 0.133123 0.984291 0.055303 0.016695 5.67E-­‐06 Lower  95% 10606.9528 -­‐10.887587 0.00366153 -­‐138.08638 -­‐517.80478 576.743599 4.97790934 -­‐23.58923 -­‐46.542099 -­‐80.275407 -­‐63.18114 -­‐0.3728707 -­‐27.4891 -­‐27.733086 Upper  95% 13131.8947 -­‐6.64470748 0.00645134 367.014562 950.08669 1319.55691 20.6188324 14.6232762 9.13923902 10.7934328 64.4498572 32.5763632 -­‐2.8073785 -­‐11.5450358 0.91404344 0.83547542 0.81222738 558.340954 106

Intercept Total  Enrollment Enrollment-­‐Squared Program_Magnet Dedicated_Magnet Turnaround %  Pov  (K-­‐12) %  ELL %  Self-­‐Contained %  VE  Inclusion %  alt-­‐DPP Average  teacher  salary  (%  diff  from  district  average  salary) Enrollment  Projection  (%  diff  from  spring  to  fall) Building  Utilization

Coefficients Standard  Error 11869.4237 635.6576539 -­‐8.7661474 1.06815093 0.00505644 0.000702338 114.464089 127.1598707 216.140957 369.543732 948.150257 187.0042924 12.7983709 3.937624285 -­‐4.4829771 9.620052058 -­‐18.70143 14.01785489 -­‐34.740987 22.92670808 0.63435881 32.13128217 16.1017462 8.29501577 -­‐15.148239 6.213657922 -­‐19.639061 4.075364239

53

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

ESE (not including Gifted) Weights by Setting Suffix
Setting Suffixes VE-Inclusion A-Communication Social Skills Class (CSS) B-VE Pre-Kindergarten C-Center School I-Sensory Self-Contained N-Participatory Level for Academics (PLA) P-Physical/Medical Needs Q -Day Treatment R-Transition Kindergarten S-Behavior Support Class (BSC) T-Support Level for Academics (SLA) School Attributed $/pp   $ 12,321 $ 24,592 $ 25,229 $ 19,032 $ 21,854 $ 43,213 $ 24,143 $ 21,731 $ 20,860 $ 24,474 $ 18,633 ERSCalculated Weights 1.8 3.6 3.7 2.8 3.2 6.4 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.6 2.7 # of Total Investment Students   13,539 692 190 520 130 59 213 285 47 183 625 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 74,941,731 14,991,981 4,237,265 8,374,212 2,460,366 2,376,816 4,518,969 5,358,901 842,832 3,942,927 9,815,643

Source: DCPS SY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis

54

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.