DBRAC MEETING8/20/15

Status of D-BRAC Charge• Charge divided into three areas:

• Values Framework (complete!)• Community Outreach Advice (ongoing)• Assessment of Scenarios (coming soon)

D-BRAC CHARGE: Values Framework• Recommend a boundary review values framework and

policy revisions to Superintendent by June 30• COMPLETED July 21• Superintendent expected to inform school board of her

recommendation in early September

D-BRAC CHARGE: Community outreach advice• Provide advice to staff regarding community involvement

and outreach plans• Influenced PPS 2025 survey design and outreach last Spring• Requested and attended boundary review workshops• Next phase of advice begins tonight

District Wide Boundary Review Community Input PlanThis plan will explain the following:• Charge of DBRAC in remaining boundary review process• Plan for gathering broad & equitable community feedback

to boundary & grade configuration change proposals.]• Communications Plan for District Wide Boundary Review

– “Great schools for every neighborhood”• Timeline for remaining boundary review process

District Wide Boundary Review Community Input PlanCharge of DBRAC in Boundary Review Process August 20th – December1. Collaborate with PPS staff to develop initial boundary & grade

configuration change proposals for community feedback2. Actively participate in community feedback process

• Attend community feedback meetings• Draft feedback survey• Participate in online town halls• Review and synthesize feedback as it comes in

3. Collaborate with PPS staff to develop up to two final boundary & grade configuration change proposals to forward to Superintendent Smith for consideration

District Wide Boundary Review Community Feedback PlanCommunity Feedback Plan Goals1. Equity & Access - Make information about proposals and

process clear , easy to understand, and widely & equitably available.

• Equity – Translate into all languages. Culturally specific feedback meetings. Accessible on mobile devices. Multiple avenues for feedback. Regionally available community meetings.

2. Transparency – clearly explain the reasons for making change, the decision making process, how feedback will be used, and rational for decisions. Keep stakeholders constantly informed.

3. Accountability – discipline to follow the process and stay on schedule.

District Wide Boundary Review Community Feedback PlanCommunity Feedback Plan Specifics:• August - September • Community Input plan approved.• Boundary Review website fully updated with clear information about the

decision making process, history, timeline, values, and goals• Launch updated website with informational video, detailed information

updated FAQ, process outline, and key dates. Hold first twitter town hall to answer questions. Hold informational town halls twice a month

• Launch informational video via online advertising campaign• Announce and advertise community feedback meetings• Brief internal and external stakeholders. Briefings will be held once a month• DBRAC and staff develop community survey• DBRAC and staff Finalize initial proposals and prepare for presentation to

community1.

District Wide Boundary Review Community Feedback PlanCommunity Feedback Plan Specifics:• October – November 15 • Initial Boundary/grade configuration change proposals approved by DBRAC by early

October. Televised live on channel 28 pending DBRAC approval• Boundary change proposals are announced to the community via all communication

channels. News media receives thorough briefings.• Online advertising campaign launched encouraging community members to watch

videos, review proposals, and participate in process. • Meeting with all editorial boards explaining boundary change proposals. • Launch community survey in conjunction with videos. • Hold community feedback meetings. All feedback posted and distributed back to

participants and notes distributed to DBRAC in a timely manner (72 hours). • Brief internal and external stakeholders• Hold two online town halls.• Respond to boundary review e-mail & update website weekly• DBRAC and staff make final plan option recommendations to Superintendent Smith

with full report.

1.

District Wide Boundary Review Community Feedback PlanCommunity Meetings:• At least two meetings in each region of the District (SE, NE, W, N). • Location of meetings will make them reasonably accessible for

schools facing possible change. • Culturally specific community feedback meetings will be held in each

translated language. Kimm Fox-Middleton lead staff dedicated to culturally specific meetings.

• Open hearing style meetings• 10 minute opening informational presentation• Detailed briefing documents & survey distributed at beginning of meeting• 15-20 minute informational question and answer• Up to 120 minutes of public comment – 3 minute maximum length = maximum of 40

comments per meeting• Professional notes taken on screen. Notes distributed to all participants in a timely

manner following meeting • Explanation e-mail sent to all participants once final recommendations are made

D-BRAC CHARGE: Assessment of boundary change options• Suggested revision: Provide assessment of enrollment

balancing options through application of the values framework

• Timeline shifts to November

Supporting Information• To prepare for assessment, staff will provide briefings in

August and September on foundational elements of enrollment balancing scenarios:• Preferred enrollment ranges (Aug 20)• Comparison of preferred enrollment ranges to available classrooms

(Sep 3)• Description of district-wide programs (Sep 17)

Supporting Information• Purpose of presentations:

• Test new materials with D-BRAC before releasing to general public• Prepare committee to participate in future community outreach

efforts, conduct assessment of enrollment balancing scenarios

From supporting information to scenarios• Modeling components:

• Forecast enrollment by planning areas• Preferred enrollment targets and available classrooms for each

school• Classroom set-asides and location preferences for district-wide

programs

• Computer generates new maps that optimize for one or more of the enrollment balancing factors

• Thousands of options generated, only most feasible will be converted to full scenarios

• Target date for release: October 1

Preferred enrollment ranges• Key enrollment balancing question:

How many students does a school need in order to offer core program?

• Historically, PPS has seen schools with the same grade structure have vastly different enrollments• Differences due to building size, population changes

Preferred enrollment ranges• Past analysis provided rough estimates of neighborhood

school program size minimum• Did not apply to stand-alone focus options

• Assumption was that any enrollment larger than the minimum was right-sized

• Schools with enrollment far below minimum were prioritized for change

• Analysis outdated due to changes in staffing formula

School type

Number of schools:

Under-enrolled:

Over-enrolled:At or above 100% utilization

Percentage of schools outside of enrollment targets2014 Comparison

to 2013

Elementary

26 5 schools below 375

8 13 of 26 schools, 50%

Under-enrl: +2 Over-enrl: +1

K-8 27 8 schools below 425

9 17 of 27 schools, 63%

Under-enrl: = Over-enrl: +1

Middle 9 2 schools below 500

0 2 of 9 schools, 22%

Under-enrl: -2

High 7 2 schools below 1200

n/a 2 of 7 schools, 29%

No change

Total 69 17 schools farbelow targets

17 34 of 69 schools, 49%

Under-enrl: = Over-enrl: +2

22

23

1. Determine enrollment ranges that can provide core program for K-5s, K-8s, Middle Schools and High Schools

Preferred Enrollment Ranges

2. Compare preferred enrollment ranges to available classrooms within buildings to assess which building could best house different grade configurations

3. Compare preferred enrollment ranges to available classrooms within buildings to house all classrooms and spaces needed for district-wide programs

Preferred Enrollment Ranges vs. Facility

Infrastructure

3 Part Analyses

New analysis• In order to create enrollment options that reflect our

current staffing, a new analysis was conducted for K-5 and K-8 programs

• Middle school analysis is in process• High school program sizes remain as designated during

high school system design

ContextDBRAC released values framework in July 2015. Within this framework, DBRAC states:

“PPS should define attendance targets based on the ability to provide the needed programming at the school. To do this, the District should do the following:

• Define a standard for what constitutes the mix of academic programs for equitably and effectively ensuring student success at each grade level, K-5, K-8 and middle school, enrichment/elective offerings and appropriate individualized support services that ensure that students can thrive and achieve their potential…”

25

Key questions today• What are preferred enrollment ranges for K-8s and K-5s?

• How were these ranges determined?

Note: Middle schools and high schools addressed at a later point.

26

Key terms and concepts• Core program = base program all schools are expected

to offer students• Section = number of classrooms per grade that are

enrolled concurrently. Example:• 60 students in 5th grade could be enrolled in 2 sections with class

size of 30 or 3 sections with class size of 20.

• FTE = positions are allocated in full time equivalents • example: one teacher or licensed staff member equals 1.0 FTE.

Two classified staff members equal 1.0 FTE.

27

Key terms and concepts• Teaching FTE = full time equivalents that teach classes• Set aside FTE = FTE that is used to support the core

program when either: 1) the enrollment projection proved to be inaccurate or 2) the school cannot sustain the core program due to low enrollment or other issues. This latter constitutes a subsidy.

28

Existing Staffing Formula

FTEAssigned by size

Equity Allocation

Schoolwide

support

Non Formula

FTETotal GF

FTE

FTE = Full Time EmployeeEquity allocation = Allocated by socio economic status and combined underserved population of school (racially underserved groups, Special Ed, ESL)School wide support = Administration, counseling, secretarial, etc.Non Formula = includes focus, priority allocation, and “set aside FTE”

29

HOW WERE ENROLLMENT RANGES DETERMINED?

30

Methodology – Analysis I

31

For a specified enrollment size, determine how much

teaching FTE would be generated given the

District’s current existing staffing ratios

Compare the number of teaching FTE allocated to

the number needed in order to offer the core program at the most optimal class sizes

possible

Complete this analysis for all enrollment sizes within

the K-8 and K-5 configurations (computer

generated)

Determine which enrollment ranges are most sustainable

Critical assumption regarding preferred enrollment rangesWithin a preferred enrollment range, the following occurs: • The currently defined core program can be offered to

every student• The core program can be offered at class sizes at 30

students or less• The core program is offered in a way that allows teachers

adequate planning time (as defined by meeting all contractual obligations with our teachers contract)*

32

• In this analysis, equity remains central by assuming that ALL schools offer the core program without using “equity allocation” or “focus and priority school/non-formula” resources.

• Purpose of the equity allocation is to provide additional support to schools who need it, not to provide the core program

• Analysis does not show class size impact from other funding sources (SPED, ESL, Foundation, Title-I or other Grants). In actuality, class sizes will likely be lower than what is shown.

33

Critical assumption regarding preferred enrollment ranges

Existing Staffing Formula

FTEAssigned by size

Equity Allocation

Schoolwide

support

Non Formula

FTETotal GF

FTE

34

Purpose of analysis was to identify enrollment ranges using this resource

Working through an example• Is a K-8 school at 500 students sustainable?

35

For a specified enrollment size, determine how much

teaching FTE would be generated given the

District’s current existing staffing ratios

Compare the number of teaching FTE allocated to

the number needed in order to offer the core program at the most optimal class sizes

possible

Complete this analysis for all enrollment sizes within

the K-8 and K-5 configurations (computer

generated)

Determine which enrollment ranges are most

sustainable

K-8 School at 500 Students• Based on our existing K-8 staffing ratios, this school

would receive 22.25 teaching FTE.

Notes:• This does not include FTE this school may receive from the equity

allocation, grants, Title I or foundations.• Middle school and K-5 schools of the same size have different

staffing ratios and would receive less teaching FTE as a result

36

K-8 School at 500

37

For a specified enrollment size, determine how much

teaching FTE would be generated given the

District’s current existing staffing ratios

Compare the number of teaching FTE allocated to

the number needed in order to offer the core program at the most optimal class sizes

possible

Complete this analysis for all enrollment sizes within

the K-8 and K-5 configurations (computer

generated)

Determine which enrollment ranges are most

sustainable

K-8 School at 500

38

K 1 2 3 4 5

Enrollment 62 55 55 50 60 57

Class Size* 21 28 28 25 30 29

Core subject teachers 3 2 2 2 2 2

Coreenrichments/Planning timeTeacher

1.3 FTE (0.1x13 FTE)

6 7 8

55 54 52

2 2 2

28 27 28

2 2 2

1.2 FTE(0.2*6 FTE)

TOTAL TEACHING FTE REQUIRED = 21.5

Sections 3 2 2 2 2 2

Class size for middle grades calculated differently than for K-5 grades. For middle grades, teachers get one planning period per day, so they teach 5 out of 6 periods. However, students must be taught for 6 periods.

Is this school sustainable?

39

TOTAL TEACHING FTE REQUIRED =

21.5

TOTAL TEACHING FTE generated by staffing formula =

22.25

Remainder = .75 FTE

YES

Analysis• What if we removed 5 students per grade level at this

school, so total enrollment was not 500 students but 455 students?

• Would it still be sustainable?

40

K-8 School at 455

41

K 1 2 3 4 5

Enrollment 57 50 50 45 55 52

Class Size* 19 25 25 22.5 27.5 26

Core subject teachers 3 2 2 2 2 2

Coreenrichments/Planning timeTeacher

1.3 FTE (0.1x13 FTE)

6 7 8

50 49 47

2 2 2

25 25 26

2 2 2

1.2 FTE(0.2*6 FTE)

TOTAL TEACHING FTE REQUIRED = 21.5

Sections 3 2 2 2 2 2

Class size for middle grades calculated differently than for K-5 grades. For middle grades, teachers get one planning period per day, so they teach 5 out of 6 periods. However, students must be taught for 6 periods.

Is this K-8 (455 enrollment) school sustainable?

42

TOTAL TEACHING FTE REQUIRED =

21.5

TOTAL TEACHING FTE generated by staffing formula =

20.58

Remainder = -0.92 FTE

NOSchool either 1) receives subsidy FTE , 2) uses equity allocation, grant funding or foundation funding to fill in the gap 3) relies on other creative scheduling strategies, such as blending grades.

Next step

43

For a specified enrollment size, determine how much

teaching FTE would be generated given the

District’s current existing staffing ratios

Compare the number of teaching FTE allocated to

the number needed in order to offer the core program at the most optimal class sizes

possible

Complete this analysis for all enrollment sizes within

the K-8 and K-5 configurations (computer

generated)

Determine which enrollment ranges are most

sustainable

Analysis

44

• Repeat this analysis for all enrollment ranges from 240-990 students

• Determined that certain enrollment ranges are not as able to offer core program without either receiving subsidy or increasing some classes to above 30

• We did find that certain enrollment ranges are more likely to provide core program at smaller class sizes

Finding #1• Simply exceeding a minimum target does not by itself

mean that a school will be sustainable. • Some enrollment ranges for K-5 and K-8 schools have

more sustainable characteristics, and are labeled preferred.

45

Finding #2 (K-8s) • A K-8 enrollment range of 700 to 810, which supports 3

sections per grade level, is preferred because it allows PPS to offer the core program to all students while also mitigating many risks associated with enrollment fluctuations that routinely occur at individual grade levels.

• This range may also result in more elective choice for students.

46

Finding #3 (K-8s)• PPS can also sustain a K-8 program at an enrollment

range of 470 to 540, which supports 2 sections per grade level.

• However, at this enrollment range, the school may be less likely to absorb enrollment fluctuations and/or lack of retention across grades.

• If it cannot absorb these fluctuations, the school may need to tap into other funding sources, such as the equity allocation, raise class sizes or receive a subsidy.

47

Finding #4• There are three sets of K-5 enrollment ranges that are most preferred:

48

K-5s funded at current levelsPreferred Ranges

330-360 (supports 2 sections)500-550 (supports 3 sections)670-720 (supports 4 sections)

PPS K-5s have been sustained by tapping into other funding sources (i.e. grants, equity, non-formula, etc…) , marginally increasing class sizes, blending grades, etc…

Next Steps• Comparison of preferred enrollment targets to available

classrooms will generate a clearer picture of which building could best house different grade structures

• Classroom needs for district-wide programs will complete the list of schools and programs to be included in enrollment balancing scenarios• (DLI, Focus Options, Special Ed, Multiple Pathways, Early

Learners)