ERS presentation to Fort Worth ISD board April 2019
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•813 vues
Efficiency audit prepared by Education Resource Strategies for Forth Worth ISD in Texas; covers opportunities for resource reallocation as the district faces enrollment decline
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
Similaire à ERS presentation to Fort Worth ISD board April 2019
Similaire à ERS presentation to Fort Worth ISD board April 2019 (20)
Plus de Education Resource Strategies
Plus de Education Resource Strategies (16)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
ERS presentation to Fort Worth ISD board April 2019
- 1. © Education Resource Strategies, Inc. 2018 FWISD Board Presentation ERS Efficiency Audit April 23rd, 2019
- 2. Delivering the highest-quality education to all students while optimizing the use of scarce resources (people, time & money) EFFICIENCY
- 3. As FWISD pursues this vision, it must use its resources as efficiently as possible while facing an increasing “triple squeeze” A higher bar for student learning and greater needs Unsustainable cost structures Flat or decreasing revenue
- 4. Every School. Every Child. Ready for Tomorrow. ERS is a national nonprofit that partners with district, school and state leaders to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income. Mission: ERS is a national nonprofit that partners with district, school and state leaders to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income. We believe… • All students deserve a great education tailored to their needs. • One school-at-a-time reform is not enough; we must redesign school systems to create the conditions for all schools to succeed. • It’s not just about how much you have, but how well you use it: districts can restructure their resources to meet their strategic goals and schools’ unique needs.
- 5. We partner with districts across the country to transform resource use so that every school succeeds for every student. Current State Work Past State Work Current District Work Past District Work
- 6. Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr We took on the following work to understand how FWISD is currently using their resources 6 Central Office focus Groups Project Kick-Off Conducted analysis of budget to understand how much the district spends centrally on various spending categories, positions and position types and compared spending to ERS comparative districts and strategic practice DISTRICT FUNDING ANALYSIS District funding share-outConducted analysis of secondary course schedules and progression plans to understand how schools are using their resources to design their master schedules SECONDARY SCHEDULING DEEP DIVE School Funding/Design share-Out MAJORBUCKETSOFWORK Conducted analysis of budget and course schedule data to understand differences across and within schools in terms of spending, staffing, class size, teacher load, time, and teacher utilization SCHOOL FUNDING ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC SCHOOL DESIGN Conducted focus groups with stakeholders including Central Office, Executive Directors, Principals, Teachers and Students to test hypotheses around and learn more about efficient resource use in FWISD FOCUS GROUPS ED, Principal, student and (partial) teacher focus groups Secondary Scheduling Share-Out Board Share-Out Performed deep-dive analyses on non-personnel spending to understand contracts and software spend across the district and in schools to identify patterns or areas of inefficient or duplicative spending DUPLICATION OF SERVICES Duplication of Services share- out DERC Teacher Survey
- 7. 7 We asked Focus Group participants for 3 words to describe FWISD or their FWISD school….
- 8. 1. ALIGN AND INTEGRATE CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN ACADEMIC STRATEGY $11M WITHIN EACH OF THESE AREAS, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED $’S FOR FWISD ACTION TO PURSUE GREATER EFFICIENCY 8 4. MAXIMIZE AND MAKE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS 3. MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF SECONDARY SCHEDULES TO ENSURE ON TIME GRADUATION AND DEEPER LEARNING 2. OPTIMIZE SPEND ON THE SIGNATURE ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL/PROGRAM OF CHOICE 5. STREAMLINE CENTRAL RESOURCES PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS 6. CONTINUE TO PURSUE FULL EFFICIENCY IN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION $12M $22M $18M $6M
- 9. Areas of Investigation 9 ALIGN AND INTEGRATE CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN ACADEMIC STRATEGY Topic Resources for Consideration Investments in curriculum development that have not yet translated into a consistent, rigorous set of materials being used in all classrooms $2.9M more in this department than comparison districts Data analyst positions that play a variety of roles in schools at a high cost to the district $5.1M more in schools than comparison districts Spend on travel to conferences (75% school based) that research shows is not a form of professional development likely to improve performance $2.9M more than comparison districts spend Conditions for high-quality teacher teaming including cost effective ways to provide all teams with deep instructional expertise --
- 10. % of Operating Budget PL Activities FWISD Investments Typical FWISD Current Investment or Available Resources Strategic Curriculum and Assessments Curriculum development personnel, contracts, and supplies; Assessment Data Analysts; principal/AP time 1.5% 2.3% 2.1% PL Days/Workshops Teacher, principal, instructional coach, and central personnel time; PL contracts, consultants, and supplies; PL extra duty pay; teacher travel and substitute compensation 3.1% 4.2% 3.8% Collaborative Planning Time Teacher and instructional coach time 0.9% 1.7% 2.3% Observation & Debrief Instructional coach, teacher, and principal/AP time 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% Total Investment 7.4% 10.0% 9.8% Put together, these investments exceed “typical” spend and are on par with what strategic systems put towards their professional learning strategies 10 Academic Strategy Source: Igniting the Learning Engine, Education Resource Strategies, 2017; FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports; interviews with FWISD staff
- 11. FWISD has an opportunity to improve the effectiveness of teacher professional growth while reducing spend on travel for conferences 11 $197 $248 $114 $40 $80 $31 $0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 $400 $450 FWISD Comparison Average Professional Growth $pp by Object Type Other Non-Compensation Contracted Services Compensation Current Investment $2.9M more in Travel & Conferences $1.0M more in Supplies & Materials Two significant challenges with traditional teacher PD are: • The cost of teacher and staff time – in systems studied, teachers spent a total of 13 school days in self-initiated PD* each year which has corresponding substitute costs • The lack of impact – “Most teachers seem to be marching in place when it comes to their development. While some do make meaningful improvement—it is too rare.” *150 hours per year cited for total PD days minus an average of 56.5 hours per year cited for district-led PD, or 93 hours per year on self-initiated PD, equivalent to 13 days per year at 7 hours per day Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports; TNTP, The Mirage. p. 13. Academic Strategy “…Lower performing schools have a lot of money and need to spend it by the end of year….so they will send 20-25 teachers [to conferences].” -ES Principal
- 12. ACTION SUMMARY Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Investments in curriculum development that have not yet translated into a consistent, rigorous set of materials being used in all classrooms $2.9M more in this department than comparison districts • Conduct a third-party audit of curricula to ensure all materials are TEKS-aligned, sufficiently complex and on grade level, instructional tasks are high-quality, and that it is easy to use for teachers • Identify and expand bright spots of effective use • Provide technical assistance to schools where implementation is low quality and/or supplemented with less rigorous materials Data analyst positions that play a variety of roles in schools at a high cost to the district $5.1M more in schools than comparison districts • Provide school leaders with option to hire test administrators at lower cost than data analysts with clear expectations & support for each position Spend on travel to conferences (75% school based) that research shows is not a form of professional development likely to improve performance $2.9M more than comparison districts spend • Improve the procurement process to allow principals to more easily spend funds • Disseminating research from the Mirage of ineffectiveness of traditional PD • Engage other systems to learn more about other ways to deliver professional development for common courses Conditions for high-quality teacher teaming including cost effective ways to provide all teams with deep instructional expertise -- • Create 90 consecutive minutes of collaborative planning time for tested core teaching teams each week • Leverage and scale internal best practices around professional learning communities 12 ALIGN AND INTEGRATE CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN ACADEMIC STRATEGY
- 13. Topic Resources for Consideration Investment in small secondary schools of choice, not tightly linked to instructional model $4M above comprehensive high- school average funding level Comprehensive high schools over-investing in non-core breadth of offerings relative to core instruction $10.8M more in staffing smaller class sizes than stated ratios + $4M in underutilized teacher time Investment in elementary programs of choice, not tightly linked to instructional model $3.0M more than expected funding level based on size Areas of Investigation 13 OPTIMIZE SPEND ON THE SIGNATURE ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL/PROGRAM OF CHOICE
- 14. YMLA, YWLA and WLI are the highest funded secondary schools, driven mostly by instructional costs of smaller class sizes 14 $5,400 $9,579 $8,810 $6,824 $3,410 $4,169 $2,576 $4,703 $8,809 $13,749 $11,386 $11,527 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Comprehensive Schools YMLA WLI YWLA Total Dollars per Weighted Pupil Instruction Other Note: Trimble Tech is excluded from this analysis due to its larger enrollment which makes its costs more in line with comprehensive schools of similar size. I.M. Terrell Academy has been excluded from this analysis as the current year funding does not represent funding in the future. Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget all funds merged with position control and vacancy reports, FWISD Oct 26th Student Enrollment Snapshot, FWISD School Database 2018 ELA Growth* *% of students meeting or exceeding target 60% 55% 67% 67% Avg. Class Size 22 11 13 16 School/Program of Choice Current Investment In total, there is $4M of additional funding going towards these small schools of choice relative to Comprehensive High Schools
- 15. In part, the additional funding may be due to the program model, in part, it may be due to a breadth of offerings unrelated to the program 15 School/Program of Choice Source: FWISD SY18-19 Course Schedule Data Core Subjects Non-Core Subjects ELA Math Science Social Studies Art/Music Foreign Language PE/Health Vocational/ Career Comprehensive High School Average 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.7 1.8 2.7 3.5 Small School of Choice Average 3.2 3.5 3.0 3.1 4.1 6.7 3.1 3.6 081-YWLA 2.5 3.0 2.2 2.6 4.0 5.3 2.5 3.3 083-YMLA 4.7 5.0 4.4 4.6 4.1 2.6 5.2 3.4 084-World Languages Institute 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.1 4.1 12.3 1.6 4.0 Unique Courses per 100 Students Part of the higher ratios at small schools are due to the minimum required courses schools must offer such as four English and four math classes; part of the higher ratios at small schools are due to additional courses offered beyond the minimum requirements.
- 16. ACTION SUMMARY 16 OPTIMIZE SPEND ON THE SIGNATURE ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL/PROGRAM OF CHOICE Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Investment in small secondary schools of choice, not tightly linked to instructional model $4M above comprehensive high- school average funding level • Conduct a deep review of the programs at each of the small schools of choice to understand and then focus resources on the most effective aspects of those programs moving forward Comprehensive high schools over-investing in non-core breadth of offerings relative to core instruction $10.8M more in staffing smaller class sizes than stated ratios + $4M in underutilized teacher time • Continue to consolidate courses and disciplines provided within school pathways based on student demand through course requests, job market demands, relevant certifications, available sources of teacher expertise, and available curriculum • Review list of "under-utilized" secondary teachers at each school as part of the staffing & schedule development process so principals and EDs can explore options for capturing greater efficiency Investment in elementary programs of choice, not tightly linked to instructional model $3.0M more than expected funding level based on size • Review programs of choice at elementary to identify drivers of additional spend and determine whether the additional spend is core to the theory of action for improving student performance at those schools
- 17. Topic Resources for Consideration Comprehensive high schools over-investing in non-core breadth of offerings relative to core instruction $10.8M more in staffing smaller class sizes than stated ratios + $4M in underutilized teacher time Development of scheduling, staffing, and budgeting prototypes to support schools in planning -- The school planning process which requires cross-functional teams with ED leadership to enable strategic decision making -- Areas of Investigation 17 MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF SECONDARY SCHEDULES ENSURE ON TIME GRADUATION AND DEEPER LEARNING Source: ERS
- 18. Gap Non-Core - Core -3 0 -2 -2 -1 -2 +3 -2 +5 In comprehensive schools, non-core classes are smaller on average than core classes and smaller than in other systems 18 23 23 25 25 24 24 23 21 2120 23 23 23 23 22 26 19 26 FWISD Comprehensive HS Peer Average Aldine Charlotte Austin Tulsa Oakland Knox Lake Average Class Size in Grades 9-12 by Subject Area Core Non-Core Current Investment The non-core class sizes represent a $10.8M investment beyond stated staffing ratios Note: an average teacher compensation of $64k was used to convert the number of sections district wide [(gap in class size x # of sections)/intended ratio] into a dollar value Source: FWISD SY18-19 Course Schedule Data (includes only comprehensive secondary schools with analysis focusing on grades 9-12 only) Secondary Scheduling
- 19. One of the drivers of smaller class sizes is the number of choices students have within a subject area 19 0 5 10 15 20 25 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 AverageCTEClassSize Unique CTE Courses Offered per 100 Students Average CTE Class Size by Unique Courses Offered Source: FWISD SY18-19 Course Schedule Data Offering a greater breadth in programming also makes assigning teachers a reasonable number of courses to prepare for each day more challenging, potentially leading to creating more smaller sections of any one course or underutilizing some teachers. Secondary Scheduling
- 20. FWISD can help schools continue to narrow course offerings to better focus on the needs of students as they prepare for college and career Guiding Principles for Prioritizing CTE Course Offerings: 1. Student Interest: How much student demand is there for the course? 2. Job Market Demands: Will the skills learned in the course make the student attractive to the current job-market? 3. Number of Certificates: How many exit points does the course offer in terms of certificates and degrees? 4. Teacher Expertise: Does the district have a consistent source of teacher expertise to teach the course? 5. Current Curriculum: Is there existing curriculum for the course that is rigorous and prepares students for college and career? 20 Secondary Scheduling Source: David Saenz Interview; ERS.
- 21. ACTION SUMMARY Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Comprehensive high schools over-investing in non-core breadth of offerings relative to core instruction $10.8M more in staffing smaller class sizes than stated ratios + $4M in underutilized teacher time • Continue to consolidate courses and disciplines provided within school pathways based on student demand through course requests, job market demands, relevant certifications, available sources of teacher expertise, and available curriculum • Review list of "under-utilized" secondary teachers at each school as part of the staffing & schedule development process so principals and EDs can explore options for capturing greater efficiency Development of scheduling, staffing, and budgeting prototypes to support schools in planning -- • Define non-negotiables for each school that ensure all schools have a set of opportunities while allowing for student-focused variation • In advance of the planning year for SY20-21, develop teacher and student schedule templates that target time and attention on core subjects in highest leveraged ways along with staffing and budget implications of those models The school planning process which requires cross-functional teams with ED leadership to enable strategic decision making -- • In advance of the planning year for SY20-21, design an aligned, cross-function school planning process to ensure a coherent set of resources and supports for all principals 21 MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF SECONDARY SCHEDULES ENSURE ON TIME GRADUATION AND DEEPER LEARNING
- 22. Areas of Investigation 22 MAXIMIZE AND MAKE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS Topic Resources for Consideration Investment in Leadership Academies that has seen early signs of growth and requires sustained support $8.8M more than average non-IR status ES funding level Additional funds for turnaround in IR status schools that support ongoing needs of students, but with non-recurring funds $1.5M of non-recurring grant funding supporting turnaround Dual enrollment opportunities that are seeing better student outcomes at the early college high schools at a lower investment level than other high schools $1.7M for every 1000 additional students enrolled in a dual- enrollment environment similar to the early college model
- 23. Opportunity Students at EC take 3-4 of their courses through dual enrollment at local colleges with free tuition. For every 1000 additional students served through this model, FWISD could potentially reallocate up to $1.7M*. Early College High Schools not only operate more efficiently on average, they also see higher growth scores than other high schools 23 $5,400 $5,341 $5,224 $4,121 $3,410 $3,670 $2,784 $2,555 $8,809 $9,011 $8,008 $6,676 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 $14,000 Comprehensive Schools TABS TCC MCC Total Dollars per Weighted Pupil Instruction Other Note: All MOU costs associated with early college schools considered PreK-12 Operating have been included. TABS has a contract with Tarrant County College to pay $3.75M in construction costs and $0.5M in rent that were not included in the PreK-12 Operating dollars for this analysis. Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget all funds merged with position control and vacancy reports, FWISD Oct 26th Student Enrollment Snapshot, FWISD School Database 2018 ELA Growth (% of students meeting or exceeding target) 60% 69% 67% 73% Enrollment 19,028 397 337 370 Community Partnerships
- 24. ACTION SUMMARY Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Investment in Leadership Academies that has seen early signs of growth and requires sustained support $8.8M more than average non-IR status ES funding level • Fully utilize resources made available through SB1882, while monitoring the returns of this partnership before scaling further Additional funds for turnaround in IR status schools that support ongoing needs of students, but with non-recurring funds $1.5M of non- recurring grant funding supporting turnaround • Ensure that student needs are met through recurring funds, and direct grant funding towards transitional costs to ensure sustainability Dual enrollment opportunities that are seeing better student outcomes at the early college high schools at a lower investment level than other high schools $1.7M for every 1000 additional students enrolled in a dual- enrollment environment similar to the early college model • Expand access in high schools to dual- enrollment opportunities for more students 24 MAXIMIZE AND MAKE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
- 25. Areas of Investigation 25 STREAMLINE CENTRAL RESOURCES PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS Topic Resources for Consideration Investment in three different counseling initiatives in schools $3.2M more than comparison districts spend Two departments organizing parent engagement for a total investment double that of comparisons $4.4M more than comparison districts spend Contracts and software purchased centrally that may not used by schools or may not be meeting school needs $10M in contracts and software with unfavorable principal feedback
- 26. FWISD invests twice as much in school-based parent and community relations than comparison districts 26 *FWISD spends 9.5% of its Title I funds (identified both by Fund = 211 and Program Intent = 30) on parent engagement, which exceeds the minimum federal requirement of 1% Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports, FWISD October 26th Student Enrollment Snapshot $70 $16 $25 $27 $0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120 $140 FWISD Comparison Average School-Attributed Parent and Community Relations $ per Pupil Title I Other Current Investment The total difference in spend is equivalent to $4.4M more than comparisons Central Resources
- 27. The additional spend may be driven by the overlap of two departments overseeing parent engagement activities 27Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports, FWISD October 26th Student Enrollment Snapshot Parent and Community Relations Total Personnel $’s by FWISD Department Early Learning Family Communications $1.3M107 part-time employees – Family Community Liaisons $0.5M $0.3M 50 FTE – Parent Educators 17 FTE – Family Community Specialists 4 FTE – Specialist IV – Family/Community $1.6M Central Resources
- 28. ACTION SUMMARY 28 STREAMLINE CENTRAL RESOURCES PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Investment in three different counseling initiatives in schools $3.2M more than comparison districts spend • Consolidate counseling services to leverage the higher number of counselors than peers so that strong student/adult relationships can be built Two departments organizing parent engagement for a total investment double that of comparisons $4.4M more than comparison districts spend • Consolidate parent engagement to be under one umbrella so that parents experience a seamless transition from pre-school to K-12 Contracts and software purchased centrally that may not be meeting school needs $10M in contracts and software with unfavorable principal feedback • Sunset underutilized and disliked software, expand the use of or devolve the purchase of high-impact but low-use software, improve the functionality of or training around high- impact, but disliked software
- 29. Areas of Investigation 29 CONTINUE TO PURSUE FULL EFFICIENCY IN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Topic Resources for Consideration Spend on true district overhead in central office administration $6.3M more than comparison districts in three specific departments
- 30. FWISD central admin spend is slightly lower than comparisons – suggesting efforts to reduce spending on central administration are unlikely to yield major savings 30 7.6% 8.6% 4.9% 6.8% 7.0% 8.3% 8.7% 10.0% 10.3% 12.7% FWISD Average Knox Charlotte Aldine Lake Austin Tulsa Denver Oakland % of Operating Budget on Leadership & Management Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports Central Administration
- 31. There are still a few functional areas where FWISD’s spend and staffing levels are higher than comparison districts 31 Source: FWISD SY18-19 Budget, All Funds merged with SY18-19 Position Control and Vacancy Reports, FWISD October 26th Student Enrollment Snapshot $31 $28 $16 $10 $10 $6 $4 $3 $2 $0 ($3) ($3) ($5) ($8) ($9) ($11) ($12) ($13) ($24) ($26) ($28) CurriculumDevelopment Parent&CommunityRelations Career&AcademicCounseling Insurance ProfessionalGrowth Security&Safety Enrichment Development&Fundraising Communications Legal Social&Emotional StudentAssignment Recruitment SchoolSupervision SpecialPopulationProgram Management&Support Governance Finance,Budget,Purchasing& Distribution Research&Accountability DataProcessing &InformationServices HumanResources Facilities&Maintenance Leadership & Management $pp Difference from Comparison Average Lower spending may be strategic if services operate efficiently without loss of service quality; district leaders should reflect on this by asking: • Are school-based facilities & maintenance staff performing effectively with current level of central office support? • Is the recruitment, hiring, and assignment of teachers effective for all schools? Central Administration # FTE diff. from peers 29 10 17 -5 2 2 3 0 2 -2 -3 -3 2 -8 -20 -12 -13 -3 5 -19 -40 Higher spending may be strategic if service quality and outcomes are exceptional; district leaders should reflect on this by asking: • Are teachers & school leaders satisfied with curricula & curricular supports? • Are parent engagement investments generating high-impact outcomes? Current Investment These three departments are equivalent to $6.3M more than comparisons
- 32. ACTION SUMMARY 32 CONTINUE TO PURSUE FULL EFFICIENCY IN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION Topic Resources for Consideration Potential Actions Spend on true district overhead in central office administration $6.3M more than comparison districts in three specific departments • Review service quality of departments where spending is significantly higher or lower than comparisons to determine if the current investment is aligned with strategy
- 33. 1. ALIGN AND INTEGRATE CURRENT INVESTMENTS IN ACADEMIC STRATEGY $11M WITHIN EACH OF THESE AREAS, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED $’S FOR FWISD ACTION TO PURSUE GREATER EFFICIENCY 33 4. MAXIMIZE AND MAKE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS 3. MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF SECONDARY SCHEDULES TO ENSURE ON TIME GRADUATION AND DEEPER LEARNING 2. OPTIMIZE SPEND ON THE SIGNATURE ASPECTS OF THE SCHOOL/PROGRAM OF CHOICE 5. STREAMLINE CENTRAL RESOURCES PROVIDED TO SCHOOLS 6. CONTINUE TO PURSUE FULL EFFICIENCY IN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION $12M $22M $18M $6M
- 34. 34 We asked Focus Group participants for 3 words to describe FWISD or their FWISD school….
- 35. Questions 35
Notes de l'éditeur
- For the last 8 months, ERS has partnered with district leadership to identify opportunities to more efficiently use the limited resources we have to better achieve our goals for our students. In so doing, we’ve identified 6 big ideas for greater efficiency and effectiveness – representing more than $50 million in potential resources – that we think leadership can take on to improve its stewardship of public funds and to improve outcomes for kids. Today I’m excited to be able to share with you a summary of our analysis and offer some insight into the types of actions – reallocations, changes in process, changes in structure and/deeper inquiry that we think FWISD should explore to better use its resources in service of outcomes. To do so, I’d like to very briefly speak to project design and our approach to the work, then spend most of our time today going through the 6 big ideas – describing what we saw in our analysis and what actions we think FWISD can now pursue. I also look forward to being able to engage with you directly and to go over our full report with you tomorrow.
- So first – what do we mean by efficiency? It may be an obvious point to those who are in the trenches of the work everyday, but it’s really important to start with the end in mind. The goal of this work is ultimately about delivering the highest quality education to all students while optimizing the use of scare resources. The goal is not to get the same results we’ve always gotten just at a lower price point. It’s to actually improve teaching and learning and student experience in our schools.
- It’s prescient, then, that the Board and district leadership engage in this effort now – FW, like many districts across the country is facing what we call a triple squeeze -We’ve got a higher bar/greater urgency around improving outcomes than we’ve had before… -Our cost structures, in the absence of intervention, are upward sloping – meaning it costs us more money each year to do exactly what we did the year before And we’ve got flat or maybe even decreasing revenue – so the slope of our revenue line doesn’t match our expenses So if resources matter like we know they do, then the only way we’re going to meet our responsibilities for student learning is by looking deeply at what we’re doing with our resources, not assuming that just because we’ve always done it a certain way we need to keep doing it that way and figuring out ways to re-invest our resources where they’re most likely to impact outcomes for all students.
- The purpose of this project very much aligns with ERS’s mission. We are a non-profit that works with large urban systems across the country to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child, no matter their race or income. Through supporting districts like FW in this kind of work over the last 15 years, we’ve learned a lot about how schools and systems need to use their limited resources to most effectively serve all students. [Success at scale means organizing resources in schools to provide students experiences that are tailored to their needs, that while schools are the unit of change, we must also be intentional about the design and use of resources of the system…and ultimately – and really importantly – it’s not just how much or how many resources you have, it’s about how well those resources are used…and we see dramatic differences in outcomes across schools and systems between those that are more and less effective with the resources they have.
- Engaging in this kind of work in multiple places across the country gives two benefits to this project that are worth noting upfront and that speak a little to our approach and methodology. First, we’ve assembled a pretty powerful database of comparative data – so can hold up for districts hoe their spending – their configurations of time people and money are similar are different to other systems of similar sizes or with like demographics. To be clear, differences to comparative data aren’t inherently good or bad – but if, for example, we are spending more on a certain function or activity than we see typically in comparable systems, we want to know that and be confident that the difference is part of a deliberate strategy – and not an unintended consequence of some other practice that we’re not aware of. So I’ll touch on a couple comparative analytics today and would be happy to talk more about the comparative districts and their data as part of our separate sessions tomorrow. Second point is that so many of the districts we’ve worked in have wrestled with the same kinds of challenges and resource misalignments that we identified through this work in FW – so we’re able to also share with leadership some of the lessons - good and bad - from what other districts have done.
- So let’s get into our approach & methodology. This slide lays out our major buckets of analysis and a rough timeline for the project. As you can see on the left – our methodology is a combination of qualitative and quantitative. We talked to people across the system – from cabinet members to focus groups of Exec Directors, school principals across all levels, teachers and students so we could hear from them how the current allocation and use of resources works for them (or not) and what ideas they have to improve the use of resources. We collected data through a survey of teachers and a separate survey of principals – both of which had strong response rates. We also analyzed lots of school and system data – from school and district spending to HR data to course schedule and student achievement data across all schools – to try to link resource use to what students experience and ultimately to outcomes. So we’ve assembled a pretty robust picture of SY1819 resource in FW and lots of different stakeholders’ perceptions of it. While one of this projects’ great strengths and one of ERS’s greatest assets is the quantitative sophistication, my favorite part of this project and frankly feedback that I’d to give you as Board members is the passion, urgency and commitment of the people we spoke to.
- Started each of our focus groups by asking each participate to use 3 words to describe FWISD or their school. Answers are represented here. Two observations: As system leaders, you should know that the words that were used most frequently – shown in the largest font – are words like dedicated, collaborative, committed that I think you can be proud of – that reflect the caring and commitment that students and staff have for their schools and system Second, as you can see from some of the smaller words – that were only cited once… words like “demotivating” “frantic” “Stagnant” that people were really candid with us about their feelings. And you’ll see throughout this report where we’ve incorporated specific anonymized quotes from the focus groups or surveys to let you hear directly from the people we spoke to. The last thing I’d say on this is just on a personal note – the high school students that Emily and I got to hear from in our focus groups were just so incredibly insightful and sophisticated in describing what they see in their schools, and reinforced for me that the system’s greatest assets – forget about your billion dollar budget – are the students you’re serving every day. Their contributions made this project substantially better – and I hope that this project can be used to make their experience substantially better as well.
- So let’s get into it… 6 Big Ideas – representing more than $50 million in annual operating spend - for greater efficiency to improve outcomes for all kids Our full report goes into each of these areas in detail – laying out for each area what we know from research and national experience what effective & efficient resource use can look like, insights on how current patterns in FWISD may diverge from best practice, and what actions or next steps we think FWISD should explore moving forward.
- So – Big Idea #1: FWISD has an opportunity to better align and integrate its current investments in academic strategy. There are a bunch of pieces to this – so let me first talk about what this means and then we’ll double-click into the red box – the piece of the PD investment that right now is focused on travel to external conferences.
- So what do we mean here and what do we know from research are the essential pieces? The core pieces of academic strategy that enable high-quality instruction and teacher professional learning are listed on the left: rigorous and aligned curricula and assessments, structures than support content-focused expert led collaboration and frequent, growth-oriented feedback. This comes out of research we did commissioned by the Gates foundation on what the most innovative systems in this space were doing. We then lay out the prof learning activities within each of these areas and the types of investments that FW is making in each. Now, you can see that if you compare the “typical” v. the “strategic” columns on the right – that typical systems just don’t invest enough in these areas to make a real difference. What was interesting to us about FWISD is that you are investing enough – across all three areas – so for you the question is not about how much but how well. We go into each of these items in our full report – but these are great examples of places where our focus groups and survey responses gave pretty clear signals that current investments aren’t aligned or being structured in ways that set up for success.
- One area of investment that stood out to us as being significantly different than we see in other systems – and in conflict with the research on effective practice is on PD-related spending on travel and conferences. Relative to comparative districts, FWISD spends 2.9 million more in this area. This runs counter to what we understand from research – chronicled most notably in TNTP’s The Mirage report. And remember, as summarized on the top right…when teachers travel for conferences, the cost isn’t just in the travel and registration fees, it’s in missed or lower quality instruction from subs – not to mention their incremental cost as well. When we talked to teachers and principals about this, they affirmed that this was pretty common practice and we heard from them a couple things that I think warrant a mention: first – that getting to go to these things is actually part of the value proposition of teaching at their school for a lot of teachers – so simply mandating “no more PD conferences” isn’t likely to go over well and may in fact push away some of our most effective teachers that we need to retain. Second – we heard that sometime schools spend money on conferences because they can – that there are such significant barriers to using funds in other ways that even though they’d like to use the money in other ways, procurement or staffing barriers get in the way…so conferences are sort of a purchase of last resort.
- So moving forward, what do we think FWISD should do? This slide lays out potential actions for all the pieces we describe in our full report. For now – let me just speak to the conference PD item. The principal feedback around procurement process is powerful – and we think there may be an opportunity simply to make other uses of funds more viable. Second, it may be that teachers and school leaders just don’t have a robust understanding of the research in this space – and engaging in this with them may lead them to make different decisions on their own. Lastly, we’d encourage FW team members to engage with other systems on this question – school in lots of other systems have similar needs of training large groups of teachers on common courses or a specific piece of curriculum or instructional strategy…how do these school in other systems do this? And with what implications for teacher practice and teacher satisfaction? What can we learn and apply to ourselves?
- Big Idea #2: Optimize spend on the signature aspects of the school/program of choice I wish you all could have heard the excitement in the voices of the high school students we spoke to when they were talking about what makes their school special…for almost all of them it had something to do with what we think of as the signature aspect of schools of choice or programs of choice within your comprehensives. These schools or programs of choice stand out to us as really being core to FWISD’s strategy – more than we see in other systems – and their comments just underscored for us the importance of really optimizing the investments the system is making in this kind of choice. Tonight, I’d just like to share one potential item within this big idea that’s focused on the School of Choice…
- Part of our process is to calculate the per pupil spend at each school in the district, overall and controlling for differences in student need across schools. To be clear, we know equitable is not equal – that’s not the point…rather we want to help leadership make sure that where we are spending more or less at individual schools or groups of schools that it’s a deliberate difference driven by equity or the unique program model of the school. FWISD has three schools of choice that stood out to us as having exceptionally high per pupil spends: Young Men’s, World Language, & Young Women’s. You can see these total per pupil amounts on the right, compared to the 8800 as the comprehensive school average on the left…these higher per pupil amounts translate to a total of $4million annually across the three schools. So to what extent is are these extra investments being directed to the core/signature aspects of the program? Our analysis showed all 3 schools operating significantly smaller class sizes on average as you can see going across the bottom – 11 on average at Young Men’s compared to an average of 22 – so roughly half. So to what extent are smaller classes a core part of the model?
- We think at least in part, it may be due to a breadth of offerings that may be unrelated to the signature program. This chart is complicated but shows a really important difference between the schools of choice and comprehensives: simply put, across every subject SOCs offer more courses than comprehensives do. Just so you understand how to read this: Compr offer 1.8 ELA courses per 100 students (so in a 1000 student school that would mean 18 ELA courses). In contrast, the SOCs offer just less than double that. YW is at 2.5 courses per 100 students – a little higher…YM is at 4.7. Part of that may be a function of the school’s program – like at WLI, I would hope that they have more languages offered per 100 students than the others…but we suspect from this analysis that some of the breadth of offerings in these schools may not be associated with the signature program…and having all these different courses results in fewer students in each class and lower average class sizes. Premise of choice strategy: typically choice for small schools of choice like this is to go to the school – students are choosing a specific program or instructional model, but then that choice stops at the schoolhouse door…once you’re there, students are largely enrolled in the same/similar program. In contrast, the large comprehensives are supposed to have the scale to offer a number of choices that in some ways begin when you get to the schoolhouse door.
- SO to move forward, we’re recommending a deeper review with the schools of choice that unpacks their course offerings more deeply and then ensures that the extra spend in these schools is really directed toward the true signature aspects of the program
- Sticking with High Schools for Idea #3: We think there’s an series of opportunities to better use resources to maximize the value of secondary schedules to ensure on time graduation and deeper learning. One really important reason for shifting to the 8 period day was to improve on-time graduation by giving students more opportunities to meet graduation requirements in 4 years. The challenge is how to do that AND ensure the kind of deeper learning experiences that are so important to begin career and college ready. In our full report we touch on some opportunities to evolve processes & supports to enable more strategic scheduling at the high school level. Here I’ll just touch one dynamic of scheduling that relates to non-course breadth of course offerings.
- To do this, I want to start by looking at class sizes – and specifically how class sizes in core subjects (ELA, Math Sci & SS) compare to class sizes in non-core subjects in your large comprehensive HS. In FW, as you can see all the way on the left, your average class size for core subjects is 23. For non-core it’s 20 – 3 students or 15% less. This difference is in contrast to what we see in other districts: where the core and non-core class size averages are the same – both 23. This means that relative to other districts, FW is spending 15% more on class size for non-core subjects relative to core. After looking closely at the data and hearing from focus groups and interviews, we suspect that this prioritization of spend isn’t in fact a deliberate CSR strategy, but instead the consequence of a proliferation of non-core subject course offerings.
- Using CTE courses to illustrate, since this is the single biggest chunk of non-core offerings, we see that the more choices students have in CTE course offerings, the smaller the CTE class sizes are. Again: how to read the slide…Each of the dots represents one of your compr HS…you can see that the schools that offer the most different CTE courses per 100 students enrolled on the right, then also tend to have the smallest CTE classes. We know CTE pathways and offerings is a current focus of district leadership right now…so we suspect this may already be on track to look different for SY1920…
- But we think there’s a continued focus around helping schools narrow course offerings to better focus on the needs of students as they prepare for college and career. The list shown here we offer as a set of guiding principles that we think may be helpful to help schools prioritize course offerings that’ll have the greatest impact.
- JT talking points:
- One strength of the district is its ability to attract and engage with community partners to most effectively serve students. Big idea #4 is about how to maximize and make sustainable these community partnerships. The one I’d like to share with you today is engaging community college partners to provide dual-enrollment options for FWISD students.
- I said earlier that 3 of your smallest schools – schools of choice are your three most expensive per pupil. Your other 3 smallest schools – all with enrollments less than 400 are your dual enrollment high schools. This was an intriguing finding for us given that we see that nationally small high schools tend be 20-25% more expensive than large comprehensives…made even more intriguing the fact that perf in these schools is well above average. In these dual enrollment situations, the cost of class is less when the student takes the class through one of the CC partners than when FW provides is directly. If we’re feeling great about the outcomes an student experience from these offerings, then it only makes sense that FW should try to expand access to these offerigns to additional students
- So that’s really what we see as the action implication here – exploring how to expand access to dual-enrollment opportunities for more students
- Big Idea #5: Streamline central resources provided to schools Illustrate with parent engagement where there are 2 different departments placing centrally managed resources in schools that total roughly double what we see in comparative districts
- So first – a note on the overall spend – as I said it’s double on a per pupil basis what we typically see to the tune of over 4 million, with a much higher share of it coming from Title I. In fact – 10% of all Title I spend is invested in these centrally managed parent resources, which is almost 4X what we see in the comparative districts.
- So what does the higher spend buy us? There are two distinct efforts related to parent relations that we heard about – one is in the early learning department that engages with families with 0-3 aged children, those are the blue, and the other is the Family Communications department that engages PreK-12 families across the district in the green through the variety of positions shown here. Our watchout and potential action implication is to ensure that these resources are in fact aligned and that parents and schools receiving services experience them as a seamless and integrated resource.
- Moving forward, we’d recommend FW explore consolidating parent engagement to be under one umbrella so that parents have a seamless experience as their children come into and move through the system.
- SO 6th – and last – Big Idea; Full efficiency in central administration… Across lots of districts where we work we often hear a perception that there’s a bloated bureaucracy and that central admin spend has to come down… We think that focusing central admin spending consistent with the district’s vision for the role of central and benchmarking central admin spend are critical for districts to push toward full efficiency in this area. So what does the fact base for FW tell us? This is not looking at resources that are controlled centrally but that play out in schools that are covered in Big Idea #5, but rather the pure administrative or overhead cost that we’re looking at here.
- On an apples-apples basis, using our methodology across districts, we count 7.6% of the district’s operating spend as “central admin” or what we call Leadership & Management in our coding nomenclature. This is a full point lower than the comparative average – though certainly not the lowest. So while we encourage system leadership to look closely at central spending to ensure it’s efficient and focused on supporting schools, it’s worth noting that we don’t expect the district will be able to free up lots and lots of dollars in this area to invest back in schools.
- Going a little deeper, nevertheless, when we double-click into that 7.6% we can see for each central function that we code for, how the FW spend compares to the comparative average. And we see that in fact there are a few functional areas – as ERS defines them - where FWISD’s spend and staffing levels are higher than comparison districts. So if you look all the way on the left, you can see the three central functions that have the greatest extra spend in FW: Curric dev, Par & Com Relations and Career & Academic Counseling. The extra spend in these three areas works out to 6.3 million more than the comparative district average. I also should point out that in the Appendix of our full report, we’ve got lots more function-based analytics to compare FW spending to comparative districts that I’m happy to go through with you directly tomorrow if you’re interested. Now to be clear, we’re not saying being higher than comparison districts is inherently inefficient – in fact higher spending may be strategic if service quality and outcomes are exceptional. But in at least a couple cases here, it may be that management responsibility of school based resources is fragmented across departments and results in a slightly higher spend than we’d otherwise see.
- Moving forward, we think this spending in these targeted areas warrants deeper scrutiny – especially in the runup to the SY2021 budget development cycle to see if the current spend is efficiently aligned with district strategy.
- Resummarize 6 big ideas… We hope that this work creates a strong factbase from which district leadership can engage critical stakeholders for how to move forward. We think this has implications for how school and system leaders use resources in SY1920, but also want to encourage system leadership to engage in more longer term planning this summer to then make some more significant changes through the SY2021 school planning and district budget development cycle.
- Thank the Superintendent, Karen & Elsie for their direct engagement in partnering with us in this work, the district leadership team for their active participation with us along the way and to all the other staff and students who contributed as well. In closing: lots of hard work ahead to realize impact, but we’re confident and excited about the potential for the system to make the most of its limited resources in service of kids. Look forward to questions and being able to spend more time with each of you as you see fit tomorrow.