ERS: School Funding in Duval County

8/7/2019 ERS: School Funding in Duval County

1/54

April 2010

ERS Resource Mapping: School Funding

Duval County Public Schools, January 27, 2011


2/54

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

T R A N S F O R M A T I O N A L R E S O U R C E S T R A T E G I E S

Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexiblefunding 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 supportand facilitate a system ofhigh-performing schools

2PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE


3/54

Preliminary Do Not Cite or Distribute

ERS will present our findings, aligned to the transformationalresource strategies, across 7 working sessions

3

Date Topic DCPS Lead Transformational Resource Strategy

Jan School FundingMikePerrone

Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexiblefunding across schools

Feb Elementary SchoolDebbieMenard

Support schools in organizing people, time, andmoney to maximize learningMar Middle School

LawrenceDennis

Apr High School Elaine Mann

MayCentral Roles(including Turnaround

Strategy)

Jackie ByrdTony

Bellamy

Redesign central rolesfor empowerment,accountability and

efficiency

Ensure access toaligned curriculum,instruction, assessment,

PD

May Human CapitalVickiReynolds

Restructure theteaching Job

Build school and districtleader capacity

JuneWrap-Up & ActionImplications

TBDRecap findings fromthe previous 6strategies

Partner with familiesand communities

PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE


4/54

Agenda

Setting the Context

Examining the impact of Duvals 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 forimproving school funding process and allocation levels


5/54

*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 calculatorSource: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

Overall, Duval spends less per pupil than almost anyother urban district that ERS has examined

5

$8.5

$18.1

$13.6 $13.2

$12.8 $12.3$10.9

$10.0$9.1

$7.9

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

AverageK-12$/pp

($K)

Cross District Comparison of AverageK-12 Operating $/per pupil (fully allocated)*

NCES-ComparativeWage-Index

1.19 1.20 1.43 1.55 1.30 1.31 1.33 1.55 1.39 1.31


Charlotte

Unadjusted $8.7/pp


6/54

Source: ERS knowledge management

To ensure comparability across districts in our analysis, ERS uses its

own methodologies, definitions and coding structures including

use and function

Pupil Services & Enrichment

Instruction

Operations & Maintenance

Instruction Support & Prof. Dev.

Business Services

Leadership

Teacher Compensation Aides Compensation Substitute Compensation Librarian & Media Specialist Instructional Materials & Supplies Other Non-Compensation

Other Compensation Extended Time & Tutoring

Enrichment Social Emotional Physical Health Services & Therapies Career Academic Counseling Parent & Community Relations

Professional Development Curriculum Development Recruitment(of Instructional Staff) Special Population Program Management &

Support

Facilities & Maintenance Security & Safety Food Services Student Transportation Utilities

Governance School Supervision School Administration Research & Accountability Communications Student Assignment

Human Resources Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution

Data Processing & Information Services Facilities Planning

Development & Fundraising Legal Insurance

Use

Function


Methodology


7/54

Note: Included districts reflect those with comparable ERS methodology and coding.

DCPS spends a higher % of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses onInstruction and Operations & Maintenance than other districts

7

57% 58%51%

55% 54% 50%

8% 5%

9%5% 9%

9%

20% 20%

23% 17%

20%

20%

3% 3% 4% 8%2%

4%

4% 6% 5% 7% 7%7%

8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Charlotte Duval PGCPS Atlanta Boston Rochester

$ofo

peratingbudget/exp

enditures

CROSS DISTRICT COMPARISONOF OPERATING EXPENSESBY USE

Leadership

ISPD

Business Services

O&M

Pupil Services

Instruction

PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTESource: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis

Low $/pp High $/pp


8/54

8

Management and overhead of the supportservices provided to schoolsExample: Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation

ERS also recodes expenses to identify how much thedistrict spends at the following five levels:

Essential district governance costsExample: Superintendent, Board Costs

CentralMgmt

SystemLeadership

Central Overhead

Methodology


DCPS: % ofExpenses

0.1%

6%

This is what ERS uses tocompare CentralOverhead across districts

All FTEs, services, and materials not reported

on the school budget, but support schools ona regular and predictable basisExample: OT/PTs, SROs, Region ESE Staff

All FTEs, services, and materials allocateddirectly to the school on the district budgetExample: Teachers, Principals, Aides

Centrally

ReportedSchoolResources

SchoolReported

All FTEs, services, and materials that providesupport across all schools but generally onas-needed or irregular basisExample: Transportation, Schulz Center

SupportServices

School-Attributed

12%

6%

77%This is what ERS uses tocompare spending acrossschools

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


9/54

*Central overhead defined as system leadership and central operations mgmt.

Compared to other districts, Duval spends a much smaller % ofits total Pre-K12 Operating Expenditures on central overhead($63M or 6%)

9

8%

6%7%

6%

8%

6%

12%

15%

11%10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

%ofexpenditures/bu

dget

% of K12 operating budget/expenditures spent onCENTRAL OVERHEAD


Low $/pp High $/pp


10/54

Duval reports 77% of its PreK-Operating Expenditures at theschool-level, which is one of the highest %s among the districtsthat we've studied

10

77% 77% 77%69% 66%

71%

58%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%60%

70%

80%

%ofexpenditures/bu

dget

Cross District Comparison of the % of Resources Reported atSCHOOL LEVEL


Low $/pp High $/pp


11/54

In summary, Duvals low overall funding creates important context and

urgency to make sure the district is making the most of the resources it has

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


Florida gets

RTT $S

Upcoming Budget Shortfall: How can westrategically change current resource use toaddress the anticipated $92+ million shortfall?

Race to the Top $s: How can the district leverageRTT $s to correct existing resource misalignmentsand ease the impact of the fiscal crisis?

Lets keep the following lenses in mind as we review the findings:


12/54

Agenda

Setting the Context




Discussion

Next Steps



13/54

When ERS thinks about what makes a districts funding system effective, we

use the following 7 funding principles:

Funding Principle Description

Transparency The system and process for funding schools is

easily understood by all stakeholders.

Meets Student Needs Allocates resources equitably across students,

based on student need.

Equitable Across Schools Allocates resources equitably across schools,

based on student and school need.

Flexibility Schools have greatercontrolover the right

resources in their schools and the capacitytomake decisions on effective resource use.

Alignment with Strategy Supports the districts and schools academic

strategy.

Reflective Integrates lessons learned from prior year

process.

Predictability School allocation processes are structured to

minimize disruption of educational process fromyear to year.

PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE 13


14/54

Evolutions we explore in the funding system should buildon the strength of a transparent budget process


For a transparent budget process, districts need to ensure that:

School budgets include all funding sources andare easy to understand and compare

Funding formulas for staff and school resourcesare widely shared and understood

School principals clearly understand what

resources they have and why

School budget reports include benefits costsfor each position


15/54

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:

How much variation is there?

What is driving this variation?

What can/should Duval do about this?

15

1

2

3

This is a much harder question to answer

which is why we have 3 sessions (ES, MS, HS) directly following thisone that focus on resource use

so that we can understand how changes in school funding mayaffect resource use.



16/54

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

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

16

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (UNADJUSTED)

DUVAL VIRTUAL INST ACAD$4,636

M V RUTHERFORD ALT ED CTR$35,999

Median $7,066Hi-Lo Spread 7.8x

Duval SchoolsSource: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis



17/54

DCPS spends more on students with additional needs - almost2x on students attending Alternative Schools; more than 3x onSWD Self-Contained students

$6.8$7.9 $7.4

$10.8$11.9

$7.3$9.7

$12.3

$22.3

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

GenEd PreK Gifted AlternativeDPP

AlternativeSchls

ELL- LFMonitored

ELL-LYServed

ESE-VEInclusion

ESE Self-Contained

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

# of Pupils 114,984 1,537 3,452 2,941 1,552 922 3,093 13,539 2,944

ERS-Calculated

Weights- 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.3

Schoolattributed $/pp($ 000s)

Additional $681/pupil isallocated for Povertystudents of any type(Weight of 0.1)

Fully-Allocated $s/pp by Student Type



18/54

Duvals spending on student type appears to be in line withwhat weve seen in other districts

18

DistrictGeneral

EducationStudent ($K)

PovertyStudents

EnglishLanguageLearners

ESEVE/

InclusionStudents

ESESelf-

ContainedStudents

Charlotte $6.6 1.2 1.3 1.8 3.0Duval $6.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.3Chicago $6.0 1.3 1.1 2.6 4.2PGCPS $7.9 1.1 1.2 2.3 3.7Philadelphia $8.1 1.3 1.3 2.3 3.4St. Paul $7.8 1.4 1.1 2.4 4.4Atlanta $10.8 1.1 1.4 2.4 3.4Wash. D.C. $11.0 1.1 1.3 2.3 3.9Boston $9.7 1.1 1.3 1.7 3.7Rochester $14.1 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4

Cross District Comparison of Per Pupil Expense by Student Type (fully allocated)


Low Overall$/pp

High Overall $/pp


19/54


20/54


21/54

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

Duvals emphasis on Elementary Schools is slightlyhigher than what ERS has seen in other districts

21

District Elementary Middle/K-8 High

Duval 1.11 0.99 0.92St.Paul 1.09 0.97 0.86Atlanta 1.06 0.96 0.89PGCPS 1.05 1.01 0.88Baltimore 1.05 0.91 0.97Boston 1.04 1.05 0.9Charlotte 1.02 0.96 1Chicago 1.01 0.97 1.04Wash. D.C. 1.01 0.91 1.06Philadelphia 0.93 1.04 1.01

Cross District Comparison of School Attributed Per Pupil Expense Weight by School Level*


Possible explanations forwhy ES might be higher:

Deliberate districtstrategy

Consequence of stateclass size policy

ES has higher share of

small schools


22/54

Within school levels, significant variation remains, even afteradjusting for student need

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

ES/K-8 MS

Median $7.3K

Hi-Lo Spread 2.1XMedian $6.5KHi-Lo Spread 1.7X

22

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL(ADJUSTED FORSTUDENTNEED)

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

HS/SS

Median $6.3KHi-Lo Spread 1.7X

John Love

N. Berlin

Butler

Twin Lakes

Ribault

Sandalwood



23/54

This level of variation in per pupil expense after adjusting forstudent needs is comparable to what weve seen in otherdistricts

23

66% 65% 63% 61%56% 55% 53%

48% 47% 46%

88% 89%

76%

88%81%

93%

84% 81% 86% 80%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

%ofschools

Cross District Comparison of school attributed Per Pupil ExpenseVariation Across Schools (school attributed, adjusted)

% of schools funded within +/-10% of the median

% of schools funded within +/-20% of the median



24/54

Whats 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

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Median $7.3K

24

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FORSTUDENTNEED)


* These are high-level estimates provided to help the district consider various potential actions. They are not ERS recommendations in any way.

10% above

Bringing schlsthat are 20%above median

to 20% $6.1mBringing schls that are10% above median to10% $13.8m

ELEMENTARY and K-8 SCHOOLS

20% above

Elementary/K-8 Schools $13.8m

Middle Schools $3.9m

High/Secondary Schools $3.3m

Bringing 10% outliers to 10% of median

Elementary/K-8 Schools $6.1m

Middle Schools $2.3m

High/Secondary Schools $1.0m

Bringing 20% outliers to 20% of median



25/54

But hold on! Having variation in per-pupil fundingacross schools is not necessarily a bad thing

25

So before we can discuss whether the district would even want toreduce the variability in per-pupil funding across schools, we need tounderstand what is driving these funding differences across schools

Good variation Bad variation

Deliberate/By Design

Aligned withdistrictsstrategic goals

Gives needierschools addl $s

Unplanned/Unintentional

Unstrategic

Resources notgoing to theneedier schools



26/54

So its time to play

26

DCPS EDITION

What else is driving thedifferences in per-pupil funding

across schools?

To be uncovered in the next

few slides



27/54

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 per-

pupil funding across schoolsDCPS


School SizeFixed positions across schools generate higher perpupil spending in smaller schools1

2

3

4

5

6

School StatusSchool status as Turnaround, Magnet, Title I- may haveadditional staff or resources associated with them.

Building UtilizationSchools that are at or over capacity may have lowerper student operating costs than those that aresignificantly under-capacity

Teacher CompensationSchools with more experienced teachers get more $s ;district may reward teachers at low perf. schools.

Enrollment projectionsOver-projecting enrollment can lead to overstaffing ifleveling does not occur.

Ad-hoc exceptionsDistricts may be making ad-hoc decisions separatefrom the stated policy/guidelines.

27


28/54


29/54

In Duval, school size at the Elementary/K-8 Level correlates strongly

with spending per pupil

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

John Love

Notes and observations

Strong correlationbetween school sizeand cost per student

Cost curve for ES getsmuch steeper below400 students

We see a similar butless pronounced trend(i.e., flatter curve)

when we look atMiddle and HighSchools

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

Enrollment


#1.SCHOOL

SIZE

Bank of America

MLK Jr.

New Berlin

Chets CreekSchool-Attributed(adjuste

d$/pp)



30/54

30

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Charlotte Duval PGCPS Philadelphia Baltimore Atlanta Boston Rochester

%ofelementaryschools

% OF SCHOOLSBY SIZE BUCKET ELEMENTARY/K8


31/54

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000


32/54

32

Instruction Drill-down: The smallest schools have more teachers because

they are more likely to have under-filled classes AND because they dont

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 gradewhich translates to 3 strands

16 kids

but when class size max increases, asmall school cant combine classes so itmust keep 3 strands

#1.SCHOOL

SIZE

Size:1,000

Has roughly 140 kids per gradewhich translates to 8 strands

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

18 kids

16 kids

18 kids

16 kids

and can combine to 7 strands whenthe class size max increases

22 kids

21 kids

18 kids

18 kids

22 kids

21 kids

22 kids

21 kids

21 kids

Size:350

17 kids 17 kids 25 kids 25 kids



33/54

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

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Non-Turnaround Schools

Turnaround Schools

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

Enrollment


#2.SCHOOLSTATUS

School-Attributed(adju

sted$/pp)

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000

Middle Schools

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

High Schools

Justina Road$10,377

W.Jville

$10,320Northshore K-8

$7,387

Butler

Mayport

Northwestern

Twin Lakes

Ribault

Baldwin

Sandalwood

The three schools highlighted areall Title I, with similar % Pov and %

SWD, but with dramaticallydifferent performance.

0809 0919

WEST JVILLE A C

JUSTINA ROAD D B

NORTH SHORE F F



34/54

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

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

Turnaround Schools


A C

Median $7.0kHi-Lo Spread 1.9X

Median $8.5KHi-Lo Spread 1.8x

34

ELEMENTARY & K-8 SCHOOLS ONLY:

2009-10 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL(ADJUSTED FORSTUDENTNEED)

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysisExcludes MERRILL ROAD , R. V. DANIELS, WESTVIEW K-8, and BARTRAM SPRINGS because we did not have their 0809 School GradesPRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE

B D F

Median $7.3kHi-Lo Spread 1.7X

Median$8.8KHi-LoSpread1.4X

Median $9.2KHi-Lo Spread 1.2X

0809 (Prior Year) School Grade

Pearson MLK Jr

JvilleHeights

Northshore &Livingston

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

#2.SCHOOLSTATUS


35/54

TITLE I SCHOOLS:

Elementary Title I Schools also tend to be small and have a higher

per-pupil spending than non-Title Is

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400

Non-Title I Schools

Title I Schools

Notes and observations

ES Title Is mostly small

Similar but lesspronounced trend atMS/HS

Elementary/K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment

Enrollment


#2.SCHOOLSTATUS

School-Attributed(adjusted$/pp)

Magnet Status: Notrend observed



36/54

There is significant variation in average teacher salaryboth across and within school-levels

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

$40,000

$45,000

$50,000

$55,000

$60,000 TA Schools

Non-TA Schools

ES/K-8 MS

36

AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY

HS/SS

Median $44.5k

Hi-Low 1.5x


#3.TCHRCOMP.

Median $42.1k

Hi-Low 1.5x

Median $43.3k

Hi-Low 1.5x

Northshore K-8

MayportFletcher

Northwestern

Jackson

Fletcher



37/54

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

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000TA Schools

Non-TA Schools

ES/K-8 MS

37

AVERAGE TEACHER COMPENSATION

HS/SS

MedianOverall: $60.7kTA: $57.8k

Non-TA: $60.7k


#3.TCHRCOMP.

MedianOverall: $59.0k

TA: $56.3kNon-TA: $59.2k

MedianOverall: $61.3k

TA: $61.2kNon-TA: $63.0k

Sadie Tillis

MayportFletcher

Fletcher

JacksonHighlands



38/54

But you can see that theres not a strong relationship between a

schools average teacher compensation and its per pupil spending

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

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


Turnaround Schools

Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Avg. Teacher Comp.

Average Teacher Compensation



38

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75

Middle Schools

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75

High SchoolsMayport

J. Love

N.Berlin

Fletcher

Northwestern

Jackson

Fletcher


#3.TCHRCOMP.

Butler

Ribault


39/54

Duval Schools that have low building utilization %s tend to be more

expensive on a per-pupil basis across all school levels

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

$11,000

$12,000

$13,000

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%


Turnaround Schools

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

Building Utilization(Enrollment/Building Capacity)


#4.BLDG

UTILIZ


39

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Middle Schools

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

High Schools

Butler

Northwestern

Ribault

Raines

Ribault

Lee

Westview K-8

Mayport

Garden City



40/54

though, not surprisingly, under-utilized schools havesmaller enrollments

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%


Turnaround Schools

Elem./K-8 Schools: Building Utilization vs. School Size

SchoolSize


#4.BLDG

UTILIZ

Building Utilization(Enrollment/Building Capacity)

40

0200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

Middle Schools

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

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

High Schools



41/54

There does not appear to be a strong relationship between whether

a school was over/under-projected and its $/pp

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Schools where the ProjEnroll was UNDER 10%

Schools where the ProjEnroll was OVER 10%

ES/K8 MS

41

SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FORSTUDENTNEED)

HS/SS


#5.EnrollmentProjections

This is because veryfew schools aresignificantly over orunder-projectedcompared to actualenrollments

% of SchoolsOver Projected

>/= 10%

% of SchoolsUnder Projected >/

= 10%ES 16% (17 schools) 8% (8 schools)

MS - -

HS 11% (2 schools) -

Total 13% 5%



42/54

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 schools total spending

High Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment

Enrollment


#6.Ad-Hoc

Exceptions

School-Attributed(adju

sted$/pp)

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis1 school: Randolph received cabinet-add-ons and are excluded from this analysis

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000

$7,000

$8,000

$9,000

$10,000

500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500

All Other Schools

Schools that received Cabinet Add-Ons

Ribault$407k or 5%

Raines$476k or 6% Parker$345k or 3%

White$254k or 2%

Englewood$66k or 0.6%

First Coast$820k or 7%

Jackson$662k or 9%

Is this about supplementingTurnaround allocations

based on individual schoolneeds?

Or is it about prolongingprior efficiencies in schoolresource use?


43/54

Increases* in the following drivers had the greatest impact on per-pupil

funding at Elementary Schools

*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



43

Potential Driver ofDifference

Increase in Driver (1 standard deviation ofincrease)

Change in $ PerPupil

School Size** (smallschools)

300575 students $1,145Turnaround Not TA TA status $950Building Utilization*** 75% utilization 95% utilization $383Percent Poverty*** 30% poverty 54% poverty $305Enrollment projection***

0 difference between spring FTE and fall FTE fall 10% greater FTE than spring $144

Teacher Salary***School average salary equals ES median($44.5K) school average salary 8% aboveES average ($48.1K)

$120School Size** (largeschools)

730 855 $90


44/54

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

Lowest Spending Third Middle Spending Third Highest Spending Third

ISPD

Pupil Services

Leadership

O&M

Instruction

While we cant 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

$6,446

$7,927

$6,051

Middle Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use

% Poverty 48% 55% 70%

% ELL 3% 4% 2%

% ESE 15% 12% 17%

Size 1,204 1,017 680

Turnaround Status 0% are turnarounds 0% are turnarounds 56% are turnarounds

School 0809 Grades 63% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs 38% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs 33% are As, 22% are Ds or Fs

Teacher Salary $43,071 $41,988 $42,092

% filled to capacity 98% 92% 68%

% Over/Under Projected 0% -1% 0%

AVERAGE

PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE 44Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis


45/54

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

Lowest Spending Third Middle Spending Third Highest Spending Third

ISPD

Pupil Services

Leadership

O&M

Instruction

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

$6,158

$7,290

$5,506

High Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use

% Poverty 37% 46% 45%

% ELL 4% 6% 1%

% ESE 12% 11% 10%

Size 2,172 1,792 1,178

Turnaround Status 17% are turnarounds 83% are turnarounds 57% are turnarounds

School 0809 Grades 17% are As, 0% are Fs 17% are As, 17% are Fs 29% are As, 43% are Fs

Teacher Salary $45,343 $43,582 $42,601

% filled to capacity 109% 97% 84%

% Over/Under Projected -5% 0% -3%

AVERAGE

PRELIMINARY: DONOTCITEORDISTRIBUTE 45Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis


46/54

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

46


DCPS

Is there variation acrossschools within this driver?

What is this drivers impacton overall $/pp?

What does this driveroverlap with?

School Size Yes, a lot of variation in schoolsize across ES, MS, HS

Major across ES, MS., HS Building utilization,Turnaround, Student needs

School Status N/A Major across ES, MS., HS Size, Student Needs, andTeacher Comp

TeacherCompensation

Yes, a lot of variation in avg.teacher compensation

Moderate at ES (suspectsimilar at MS, HS)

Turnaround

BuildingUtilization

Yes, a lot of variation in avg.building utilization

Moderate at ES (suspectsimilar at MS, HS)

Size, Turnaround, StudentNeeds

Enrollmentprojections

No, most schools are projectedclose to actual

Minor across ES (n/a at MS.,HS)

None very few schoolsimpacted

Ad-hoc exceptions Yes, but only targeted at 12schools (mostly MS, HS)

Minor at ES (bigger impact atMS, HS)

N/A



47/54

Summary of Today: Major Takeaways and Possible Implications

47


Summary of Major Takeaways Possible Implications for Duval

Low OverallFundingLevel

Smaller investment in central administration Larger investment in Instruction

Hard to make major cuts without touchingInstruction & schools

Urgency to make sure school level investments notin Instruction are highly leveraged

Transparency School budget process highly transparentrelative to others studied

Continue with current process

School Level ES receive more than MS and HS Relative priority on ES greater than other districts

studied

ERS future ES, MS, HS presentations to investigatehow schools are using their $s (across school levels

and school sizes) to help Duval determine whetherit might want to change:o School Funding (i.e., change small schl premium)

o School Portfolio (i.e., rethink school sizes)

School Size Relatively larger share of small ES Biggest driver of differences in per pupil funding

School Status TA schools get $950/pp more than non-Tas TAs tend to be small, under-capacity, with lower

tchr comp

ERS future TA session to investigate how TA schoolsare using these addl $s and how needs varyacross TAs

TeacherComp.

Substantial variation in avg. teacher comp acrossschools

Not a major driver of $/pp differences

ERS future Human Capital session to investigatedistribution of teachers across schools to helpDuval determine action implications

BuildingUtilization

Substantial variation in utilization Moderate driver of $/pp differences Overlap with school size & TA

Use as factor in decision-making on school closure/consolidations

Enrollmentprojections

Most schools projections are +/- 10% of actual Minor driver of variation

Continue with current process

Ad-hocexceptions

Mostly HS 12 schools get between1-9% of their total

allocation

Is this a TA supplement or prolonging priorinefficient resource use?

ERS future HS session will investigate

1

2

3

Driversofvariationacrossschools


48/54

Agenda

Setting the Context




Discussion

48



49/54

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 explorechanging about school funding?

What questions does this analysisraise?

49



50/54

Agenda

Setting the Context




Discussion

Next Steps

50



51/54

PRELIMINARY DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

Winter/Spring Project Milestones

51

Jan Feb Mar Apr

Project Team: Working Sessions

HS Visits

1/25-1/281/27

ERS at the district for data gathering

Working Session #1School Funding

2/10 3/10 4/14

Session #2ElementarySchools

Session #3MiddleSchools

Session #4HighSchools

4/28

Session #5Central Roles(Includingturnaround

Strategy)



52/54

Appendix

52


ES and K-8 Regression AnalysisResults: Detailed Breakdown

ESE (not including Gifted)Weights by Setting Suffix


53/54

ES and K-8 Regression Analysis Results: Detailed Breakdown


53

RegressionStatisticsMultipleR 0.91404344

RSquare 0.83547542

AdjustedRSquare 0.81222738

StandardError 558.340954

Observations 106

ANOVA

df SS MS F ignificanceF

Regression 13 145643018.4 11203309 35.93746 2.3722E-30

Residual 92 28680505.12 311744.6

Total 105 174323523.5

Coefficients StandardError tStat P-value Lower95% Upper95%

Intercept 11869.4237 635.6576539 18.67267 4.72E-33 10606.9528 13131.8947

TotalEnrollment -8.7661474 1.06815093 -8.20684 1.34E-12 -10.887587 -6.64470748

Enrollment-Squared 0.00505644 0.000702338 7.199433 1.61E-10 0.00366153 0.00645134

Program_Magnet 114.464089 127.1598707 0.900159 0.370386 -138.08638 367.014562

Dedicated_Magnet 216.140957 369.543732 0.584886 0.560056 -517.80478 950.08669

Turnaround948.150257 187.0042924 5.070206 2.05E-06 576.743599 1319.55691

%Pov(K-12) 12.7983709 3.937624285 3.250277 0.001611 4.97790934 20.6188324

%ELL -4.4829771 9.620052058 -0.466 0.642314 -23.58923 14.6232762

%Self-Contained -18.70143 14.01785489 -1.33411 0.185459 -46.542099 9.13923902

%VEInclusion -34.740987 22.92670808 -1.51531 0.133123 -80.275407 10.7934328

%alt-DPP 0.63435881 32.13128217 0.019743 0.984291 -63.18114 64.4498572

Averageteachersalary(%difffromdistrictaveragesalary) 16.1017462 8.29501577 1.941135 0.055303 -0.3728707 32.5763632

EnrollmentProjection(%difffromspringtofall) -15.148239 6.213657922 -2.43789 0.016695 -27.4891 -2.8073785

BuildingUtilization -19.639061 4.075364239 -4.81897 5.67E-06 -27.733086 -11.5450358


54/54

ESE (not including Gifted) Weights by Setting Suffix

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

Setting SuffixesSchool

Attributed$/pp

ERS-Calculated

Weights

# ofStudents Total Investment

VE-Inclusion $ 12,321 1.8 13,539 $ 74,941,731A-Communication Social Skills Class (CSS) $ 24,592 3.6 692 $ 14,991,981B-VE Pre-Kindergarten $ 25,229 3.7 190 $ 4,237,265C-Center School $ 19,032 2.8 520 $ 8,374,212I-Sensory Self-Contained $ 21,854 3.2 130 $ 2,460,366N-Participatory Level for Academics (PLA) $ 43,213 6.4 59 $ 2,376,816P-Physical/Medical Needs $ 24,143 3.6 213 $ 4,518,969Q -Day Treatment $ 21,731 3.2 285 $ 5,358,901R-Transition Kindergarten $ 20,860 3.1 47 $ 842,832S-Behavior Support Class (BSC) $ 24,474 3.6 183 $ 3,942,927T-Support Level for Academics (SLA) $ 18,633 2.7 625 $ 9,815,643


54

Documents

ERS: School Funding in Duval County