Steering Committee Working Draft

INTRODUCTION
This report was done as part of an 8-week review at the request of the
Mayors office in collaboration with the district. Findings are preliminary
and indicate potential options for leadership consideration
What this work IS
What this work IS NOT
Exploration of potential options to
These are not recommendations

Further analysis is required to
improve student achievement, lower

district costs and drive operational
efficiency
Estimates of ranges of savings to

identify magnitude of savings from
various options
Collaborative idea generation and

discussion with district to bring
insights to light
identify specific opportunities and

to implement
Public conversations about
tradeoffs required for many
options
Strategic process to weigh costs
and benefits of options would be
needed to transform to
recommendations
Exact analysis to predict how much

money the district will save
DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 1
INTRODUCTION
The core focus of this review is on student outcomes in

pursuing improved operational effectiveness and reduced costs, all while
engaging and considering the needs of a broad range of stakeholders
Multiple considerations are essential
Cost
effectiveness
Student
outcomes
Operational
effectiveness
Ultimately, improved student outcomes is the

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

while keeping all of these factors in mind
INTRODUCTION
Glossary of terms
Term
Definition
English Language Learner (ELL)
Students whose native tongue is not English and have not achieved fluency
in English appropriate with their grade level
Students with Disabilities (SWD)
Students who have been formally evaluated by BPS and have been found to
have a disability that requires additional resources to meet the student need,
beyond a traditional general education setting
Inclusion
Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the general

education and special education populations and is research proven to be a
better approach to special education for the entire student population
Individualized Education Plan (IEP)
When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP is

designed by the school team to meet that students needs
Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy

(OTPT)
OT is individualized support for students to help them acquire basic skills for
daily living (e.g., self-grooming, self-feeding, self-dressing); PT is
individualized support for developing motor skills (e.g., walking, jumping,
lifting)
Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)
FNS is the department responsible for delivering food to all BPS students
Office of Instructional and Information

Technology (OIIT)
OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technological

services and hardware to the employees and the students of the district
Pull-out vs. push-in
Current special education practices in BPS require the pulling out of

students from general education settings to receive additional resources; a
push in method leaves the student in the general education classroom,
while ensuring that the resources meet her/him where they are
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Phase I: Scan of 25 RFP areas
Phase II: Area deep dives
Phase III: Capturing opportunities
Appendix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive summary
BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics much

different from the city of Boston and SWD and ELL populations that outpace
state and national averages
While BPS pushes 55% of its funds to the schools, BPS has a significant
number of underutilized buildings and classrooms, spreading funds thin
across the system and lessening the impact of resources on a per pupil basis
To concentrate resources more effectively for students, BPS can right-size the
district to reflect current and projected BPS enrollment
Over a quarter of the BPS budget goes towards Special Education, meaning that
small changes in student classification can translate to large BPS savings
and better learning environments for students. A move towards inclusion,
currently underway, has a 12-year horizon that if executed well will improve
special education student outcomes and lead to substantial cost savings
As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addresses

overextension issues, the BPS central office will have an opportunity to
address some of the misaligned parts of the organization, driving performance
and capturing operational efficiencies in other areas like transportation, food
services and maintenance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Capturable, but time-sensitive
Overview of BPS opportunities
Right-size
the BPS
Footprint
Special
education
Transport
Activity
Savings opportunity
Consolidate ~30-50 schools
$50-85M /yr
Maintenance
FY16
FY17
FY18
Onetime
$1.7m savings per school
Sell 30-50 closed school buildings
$120-205M one-time
estimated value $4.1m per school
Phase in of inclusion
$63M /yr after full phase-in

(currently FY26)
External paraprofessionals
$9-11M /yr
External related service providers
$8-10M /yr
Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,
$6-19M /yr
from current 0.16 mile
Target meal participation to improve

Food
Services
Capturable
$5M /yr
revenues
Centralize food preparation
$1-3M /yr
Contract out for the 137 night
$1-3M /yr
custodian work
Contract out all maintenance to single
$1-3M /yr
contractor
Immediate opportunities to save ~$20-40m in FY16 if intense focus and execution placed on activities
With bold decisions and focus, annual savings could total ~$200M /yr, and additional $120-200m one-time benefit
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DRAFT
BPS per pupil spend is higher than peer averages, while just 36% of spend
gets to all students in the classroom
Per pupil spending
$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552
17,455
Central office
2
2,375
2,191
$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%
976
is the foundation of each school

These funds are spread across all 128
schools
3,480
Total1
14% of per pupil

dollars are going to
central office
functions and support
Central
office
support functions
capture a lot of
spend, with
subpar systems
for managing
towards
improved operations outcomes
An overextended
BPS footprint
stretches limited
funds over a
large number of
schools
1,031
1,105
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
1,712
534
4,051
Special education
Benefits Trans- SPED

Bilingual Buildings School- Adminis- General
portation (including
level
trators
education
transportation)
support
classrooms
drives per pupil

expenditures but
only reaches
20% of students
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BPS Potential Opportunities

Opportunity to
reorganize
central office
Up to ~$27M
ongoing reduction
Opportunity to
consolidate
~30-50 schools
~$51-85m/yr plus
~$120-200m
one-time
Opportunity to
speed SPED
reforms
~$17-21M in FY16
and ~$63M longerterm annually
Opportunities to
improve
operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr
DRAFT
Key facts
Superintendent has 18 direct reports, making system goal-setting, alignment and focus difficult
System goals are not tracked systematically, with a deep need for performance management systems to align central
metrics that matter (e.g., students eating lunch, buses on time) with student outcomes and manage staff and system
performance better
If system moves towards right-sizing, up to $27M may be possible through ongoing reductions in support to smaller
footprint
BPS enrollment down 17% over last 20 years and 50% since 1970s
BPS currently has ~93K total physical seats with only ~54K seats filled
The system is overextended with declining dollars stretched over, same number of buildings and declining student
count
Consolidating 30-50 schools could reduce annual spend by ~$51-85M
Building sales could bring additional one-time ~$120-200M, while avoiding additional, unneeded CapEx
Right-sized system would concentrate more dollars in fewer schools, improving quality and breadth of student
resources
Moving Boston in-line with state and national averages is better for students and translates to ~$5M saved for every
% point decline
Outsourcing paras and specialists can reap immediate savings of $15-$20M,but requires discussions with
stakeholders
The move to inclusion, already underway, can serve BPS students significantly better, but comes with substantial
upfront investments whose financial benefits will not begin coming until 4 years out
There is an opportunity to think about inclusion sequencing to get benefits faster and reduce net investments
BPS bus riders average a 0.16 mile walk to their bus stop, 59% of students walk less than a 0.25 mile
Moving the target walk to a 0.25 miles walk would reduce bus stops and could save $6-20M
Moving to district-wide maintenance contract would align incentives with contractor and could save ~$5M in annual
maintenance costs
BPS is currently spending more per pupil on contracted meals, which student taste tests view as lower quality, and
can improve participation, changes in delivery and participation could capture ~$2-8M
Immediate opportunities for savings in FY16 total ~$20-40m if real focus is brought to opportunity areas
With bold decisions and focus, savings over the next 2-3 years can total ~$200M / yr, with additional one-time benefits
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
3. Accountability (15)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)
Most desired values

1. Being collaborative (39)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)
Least experienced values

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

1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)
4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)
DRAFT
Therefore, BPS could consider
Defining what accountability looks like for its Central Office

Reducing the internal politics and bureaucracy currently experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Since 1994, BPS student population has declined 17%, but the
number of schools has remained relatively constant
DRAFT
Schools vs. student population

# of school programs, # BPS students
150
66,000
64,000
BPS can reduce

its footprint
based on the
large difference
between its
enrollment and its
capacity
Projections
suggest no
additional space
will be needed in
the future
62,000
100
60,000
58,000
50
56,000
54,000
0
1994 95 96 97 98 99 2000 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 2015
With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continue
to cover the systems fixed costs including the buildings but also the
principals and school staff which are present at each location
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education; Internal interviews; BPS data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect

~$1.7M before property sales
Description
Consolidate
classroom staff
Foundation
for school staff
Average
custodial
support
Average
building
maintenance
Average
utilities
Prior cost
Cost after
closing
Savings after
closing
With fewer staff, BPS could commensurately

reduce teaching staff
The average teacher student ratio goes
from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
$3.8m
$2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
The foundation money is no longer needed

by the school
$200k
$0
$200k
Custodial support is no longer required at

the building but may increase by 30%1 at
receiving schools
$166k
$50k
$116k
Maintenance is no longer required but may

increase by 30%1 at receiving schools
$191k
$57k
$134k
The closed buildings no longer needs to

spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)
$260k
$0
$260k
Total
1 Assumed
DRAFT
$1.7- 2.2m
2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
Source: Team analysis; BPS Office of Finance
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS
DRAFT
Expanded before- and after-school

programming for students in all
schools
~$51-85M in run-rate savings

garnered from closing 30 50
schools
Guaranteed set of electives or

specials at all schools (e.g.,
Physical Education, Art)
Greater portfolio of teacher supports

and resources (e.g., instructional
coaches, first-year mentors,
counselors)
~$120M in one-time cash from

property sales of 30 50 schools
Funds to build 1 state-of-the-art

high school (~$30M) and 9 state-ofthe-art lower schools (~$10M each)
While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choose
how it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs between
consistency across schools and school autonomy
Source: BPS data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 SPED is ~25% of the BPS spend and 73% of its costs are in 3
areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Total spending $ 265m
24% of BPS budget
School
level
Central $ 136m (51%)
As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget
Transportation Private placement tuition
$ 49m
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Source: BPS 2014 all funds drill down, actual expenses
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and

ministrators, supports
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 BPS schools are classifying students at widely variable rates
DRAFT
Rates of SPED classifications among referred population, by school, SY 14-15

% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD, by school
Henderson K-4
Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)
Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad
Mendell Elementary
Tobin K-8
BTU K-8 Pilot
Beethoven Elementary
East Boston EEC
Kenny Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
Irving Middle
Mission Hill K-8
Margarita Muniz Academy
Boston Day/Evening Acad
Guild Elementary
ODonnell Elementary
Channing Elementary
Bates Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Perkins Elementary
Winship Elementary
Hennigan
Kennedy John F Elemen
Mattahunt Elementary
Conley Elementary
Hurley K-8
Gardner Pilot Academy
Lyon High
Dearborn
East Boston High
UP Academy Dorchester
Everett Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Blackstone Elementary
Warren/Prescott K-8
E Greenwood Leadership
King K-8
Lee K-8
Harvard/Kent Elementary
Sumner Elementary
Trotter
Ellison/Parks EES
West Zone ELC
Higginson/Lewis K-8
Adams Elementary
Kilmer K-8 (K-3)
Holmes Elementary
McCormack Middle
Young Achievers K-8
Dever Elementary
Quincy Elementary
Fenway High
Boston Arts Academy
Bradley Elementary
Brighton High
Kennedy HC Fenway 11-12
Tynan Elementary
Mather Elementary
OBryant Math & Sci.
Greenwood Sarah K-8
Ellis Elementary
Jackson/Mann K-8
Eliot K-8
Clap Innovation School
Kennedy HC Fenwood 9-10
Edison K-8
Kilmer K-8 (4-8)
Rogers Middle
Snowden International
TechBoston Academy
Lyndon K-8
Philbrick Elementary
Murphy K-8
Orchard Gardens K-8
Boston Latin
Condon
Haynes EEC
Grew Elementary
Ohrenberger
McKay K-8
Taylor Elementary
Charlestown High
New Mission High
Madison Park High
Manning Elementary
Russell Elementary
Curley K-8
Perry K-8
Frederick Pilot Middle
Kennedy Patrick Elem
Up Academy Holland
Hale Elementary
Alighieri Montessori
Lyon K-8
Haley Elementary
Shaw Pauline A Elem
Middle School Academy
Hernandez K-8
Dudley St Neigh. Schl
Mildred Avenue K-8
Otis Elementary
Henderson 5-8
Mason Elementary
Urban Science Academy
UP Academy Boston
West Roxbury Academy
Timilty Middle
Excel High
Boston Adult Tech Acad
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Newcomers Academy
Henderson 9-12
English High
Comm Acad Sci Health
Edwards Middle
Dorchester Academy
Mozart Elementary
Boston Comm Lead Acad
Boston Latin Academy
Burke High
Another Course College
Greater Egleston High
Quincy Upper School
Boston International
Boston Green Academy
Community Academy
There are 14 schools who
classified 100% of the students

referred and 35 who referred 0%
Variable rates reflect differing
school cultures around
classification
A centralized auditing process
can narrow the band of
variability
The variable classification rates
imply that some students are
receiving services they do not
need, while others are missing
students who do need extra
supports
Deeper data dives, at the level of IEP are needed to understand whether students
in these programs are being classified, when they may be over classified
Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification is

systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population
0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
* Schools with less than 200 student enrollments

Source: Office of Special Education data
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

State classification rates, 2011
Massachusetts district classification rates, 2015
% of students classified students with disabilities (SWD)
32.3
Top 25%
17.8
Massachusetts
19.5
Boston
17.3
25-50%
16.2
New England average
10
16.5
Massachusetts
14.8
50-75%
13.1
United States
0
DRAFT
11.0
Botton 25%
15
20
10
15
20
25
30
SWD vs. Free and Reduced Meal (FARM) rates by Mass.

District, 2015
There are districts with similar challenges and

lower SPED %
% of students SWD, % of students FARM
Districts with equal or greater FARM, but lower SWD:

Revere
Everett
Brockton
Lynn
Chelsea
Springfield
% FARM
100
Boston
80
60
40
35
20
0
6
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
% SWD
MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 districts in MA, many of
which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 BPS is increasing special education inclusion, a strong

research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities
DRAFT
Inclusion is good for both special

education and general education students
BPS will move to full inclusion as a

district by 2019
A 2014 state of Massachusetts report
BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD
found that across the state, students with

disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.1
A 2013 BPS study found that general

education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2
BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion
into inclusion classrooms, leaving just

those with disabilities that make
inclusion inappropriate in substantially
separate classrooms, movement of
roughly 2,500 students
The BPS plan is to create more inclusion

classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
zone at a time, at the rate of one zone a
year, over five years
classrooms in 2013
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 Office of Special Education City Council presentation, June 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3 SPED plan for roll-out currently spreads $326M in additional costs DRAFT
over 10 years, with eventual, annual savings reaching $63M, annually
Additional classrooms will add inclusion capacity
# inclusion classrooms added annually
141
139
135
The Special Education
133
107
95
73
27
departments plan for inclusion

is phased in fully over 13
years, calling for gradual
adoption, with two networks (AG) beginning the process every
year for the first five years
85
75
50
38
25
Inclusion costs
123
129
123
119
Sub / separate costs
103
91
83
75
70
additional costs for inclusion

will grow to ~$43M annually
As critical mass of inclusion
Special education annual budget for classroom teaching will grow by ~$6M
annually at peak of 10 of roll out, with eventual budget shrinking by $65M / yr
$M, SPED classroom budget
124
By the final year of the roll-out
classrooms grow, a tipping point

will occur allowing elimination
of sub/separate classrooms
at an increasing rate, beginning
in SY16-17
The annual SPED budget

66
63
59
should drop below historical

spends beginning in SY17-18
The total $326M cost of moving

SY14- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27
15
Source: Interviews with Office of Special Education
to inclusion will be fully paid

for by the final year (SY26-27)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Potential action items
DRAFT
Decisions / actions
Opportunity to
reorganize central
office
Up to ~$27M ongoing
reduction
Opportunity to consolidate 30-50 schools
Decisions around central office alignment with new schools footprint will need to
happen with school closings to immediately align support as befits new district
Given calendar constraints, strategic decision to address district overextension

and consolidate 30-50 schools in next ~2 years needs to happen immediately for
planning to begin
Given the calendar and union restrictions, a decision on outsourcing

paraprofessionals and specialists should be made immediately, with potential
blowback weighed
Reassess pace and transition plans for SPED inclusion strategy to shorten time to
benefits and reduce financial investment to get there
Decisions to drive down SPED rates more in line with the state and nation will
require decision and cultural shifts
~$51-85m/yr plus ~
$120-200m one-time
Opportunity to speed
SPED reforms
~$17-21M in FY16 and
~$63M longer-term
annually
Opportunities to
improve operations
through policy
~$10-33m/yr
Source: Team analysis
Transportation savings exist, but the decision would need to be made to lengthen
walks to bus stops and not guarantee busing on the current scale
Outsourcing custodial and maintenance services can capture savings immediately,
but may require a reduction in unionized employees
Moving toward in-housing all food services needs to be researched and aligned
with capital planning process
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization

Appendix
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Overview of BPS
DRAFT
Overview
54K students, down 6% in 10 years

Highly diverse system
20% of students Sped
30% students ELL, and growing
Demographics
78% qualify for free or reduced
meals, only 8 Mass. districts higher
Solid performance vs. other US urban

Districts
Student
Outcomes
Teacher population far more diverse than national
pool, but lags student and city populations

Only a handful of Mass. districts (Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea, Springfield) have higher
poverty rates, but lower % SpEd classification
Enrollment projected to continue to decline
modestly, but if the charter cap is lifted, would
accelerate rapidly
BPS performance, while continuing to track with the

state, consistently lags state performance by
significant margins across all populations
Throughout the 1990s and early

2000s, Boston was closing gap with
MA performance, now just keeping
pace with MA growth
$1.1B total budget,

$18K per student vs. $16K in peer
districts and $14K in Mass. districts

45% spent on central functions
~25% SpEd
~10% Transportation
Finances
Key Issues
Key Insights
Of the $18K, only $4,051 gets directly to the typical

student, with the rest going to system supports
The number has grown by 25% since 2005 because

of steady budgets and decreasing student counts,
with no additional increase in student services due
to an overstretched system
Current footprint puts significant
Current footprint could be 30-50 buildings smaller,
burden on the system that doesnt

improve learning
Lack of central office strategy,
alignment, and efficient design
Inconsistent SpEd classification
liberating ~$35M annually and $120M in one time

sales for more things that really help kids
Central office hunger for better culture and
operations keyed in on more accountability
Small improvements in SpEd classification and
delivery model would be better for kids and finances
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The BPS budget allocates 30% of spending to teacher salaries,

another 26% to benefits and teaching services
DRAFT
BPS budget break down

%, FY2013
Instructional Leadership
Administration
Operations and
3%
Maintenance
6%
6%
Classroom and
Specialist Teachers
30%
Pupil Services
Teacher salaries,
benefits and other
teaching services
comprised 56% of the
FY13 annual budget
11%
Guidance, Counseling
1%
and Testing
3%
Instructional Materials,
Equipment and Technology 5%
Professional Development
17%
11%
Payments To Out-OfDistrict Schools
Source: Massachusetts Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education
Insurance, Retirement
Programs and Other
9%
Other Teaching Services
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The FY15 budget has a number of large spending items
Spending item
DRAFT
Amount
% of FY15 budget
$160M
14%
$138M
12%
Personnel
Regular education teacher

Employee benefits (all BPS)
$57M
5%
Operations
Transportation
Food service
Facilities management
Custodial services
$36M
3%
$26M
2%
$22M
2%
Schools
School administration
Bilingual education
$51M
5%
$24M
2%
$45M
4%
SPED
Special Education transportation

Private placement tuition
Special Education inclusion
$41M
4%
$34M
3%
Source: BPS Office of Finance, 2015 all funds report
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Over 50% of spending comes from instructional variable costs

Total spending
Fixed
costs
$ 232m (20%)
$ 1,178m
Variable costs
$ 947m
Non
$ 339m (29%)
instructional
Payments
to out-ofdistrict
schools1
Ops and
maintenance
Admin
$ 134m
$ 47m
$ 30m
Insurance, Pupil
Retirement services
and other
$ 196m
$ 125m
DRAFT
Instructional
Guidance,
counseling, etc.
Classroom
and
specialist
teachers.
Other
teaching
services
Instructional
leadership
$ 17m
$ 352m
$ 105m
$ 65m
$ 608m (51%)
Profess- Instructional
ional
Develop- materials
ment
$ 53m
$ 33m
1 Includes private and charter schools

Source: BPS 2013 budget, Massachusetts Department of Elementary
and Secondary Education
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS provides 55% of general fund spending directly to schools
DRAFT

%, FY2015
Source of funds
Amount
Central budgets
Federal funds
(ARRA)
$2.1M
FY15 Lease
purchase
$11.2M
45%
55%
Grants
General funds
$134M
$975M
School
budgets
Total: $1,122M
ARRA and grant funding generally has little flexibility, and cannot
be used for purposes other than what they were initially identified
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Nearly all spending is driven by personnel at schools and central office

DRAFT
%, FY2015
BPS budget break down, by central and school spending

$M, FY2015
435
119
85
53
48
Central budgets
45%
Total
Health
ins. &
pension
Ctrl. off.
admin &
support
Choice
transport.
SPED
transport.
24
26
Reserve
Tuition
22
Custodians
23
15
Utilities
10
Maintenance
Misc.
Secuity
HQ
equipment
ComInsurance
puters &
equipment
539
55%
184
School budgets
74
56
39
Total
29
29
27
Regu- SPED
BilinMisc.
SpeAdmin- SPED
lared.
teacher gual
teach- cialist
istrators aide
Teachers
teacher ing per- teacher
sonnel
(coaches,
librarians,
substitute
20
SPED
resource
20
15
10
SPED ProNurses
itinerant gram
support
8
Counselor
CoorAides
dinators
Clerical Other
Misc.
support other
personnel
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
It costs BPS $4.6M to run the average BPS school, excluding support
costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services
DRAFT
130 total schools

Classroom staff costs
Custodial
support
36 teachers
3,800
"Foundation" to cover school staff
200
Custodial support
166
Building maintenance
191
Utilities
260
1 principal,
1 secretary,
and others
418 students
Total cost
Thousands
4,617
1 Does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers

2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
DRAFT
BPS has an above average per pupil expenditure, partly driven by region
Average per pupil expenditure
$, thousands per student in the state,
2010-2011
New York
Wyoming
Alaska
New Jersey
Connecticut
Rhode Island
Vermont
Maryland
Massachusetts
Pennsylvania
New Hampshire
Delaware
Maine
Ohio
Illinois
Hawaii
Wisconsin
Minnesota
National avg.
Nebraska
North Dakota
West Virginia
Michigan
Louisiana
Kansas
Iowa
Montana
Washington
Virginia
Arkansas
Missouri
South Carolina
Oregon
New Mexico
California
Kentucky
South Dakota
Texas
Indiana
Florida
Colorado
Georgia
Alabama
Nevada
Tennessee
Arizona
North Carolina
Mississippi
Oklahoma
Utah
Idaho
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
21.0
18.5
18.4
18.0
17.7
16.1
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
14.9
14.3
13.9
13.4
13.2
13.0
13.0
12.9
12.7
12.5
12.4
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.0
11.8
11.7
11.5
11.4
11.2
11.0
10.9
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.2
9.8
9.7
9.4
9.2
8.9
8.7
8.5
7.9
7.6
0
1 NCES 2010-2011
$, per student by Mass. district,

2012-20132
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Boston: $17,589
Massachusetts and New

England more broadly have
significantly higher per pupil
expenditures due to
historically high investment
in education
BPS higher per pupil average

in the state of Massachusetts
is driven mostly by costs of
living in Boston
The per pupil average of peer

set of national districts is
$15,7553
When cost of living

adjustments are made to
national peer set, Bostons
per pupil spending declines
to $12,472, below the peer
average of $13,109
MA Avg.: $14,544
10,000
2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; counts just general funds
20,000
30,000
40,000
3 Peer districts and methodology in the appendix
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
Of BPS per pupil spend, 36% reaches directly into the classroom
DRAFT
Per pupil spending

$, per student
BPS per pupil spend
is 11% higher than the
peer average of
$15,7552
17,455
2,375
Central office
$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%

2,191
976
is the foundation of each school

These funds are spread across all 128
schools
3,480
14% of per pupil

dollars are going to
central office functions
and support
Total1
Central
office
support functions
capture a lot of
spend, and needs
updated systems
for managing
towards
improved operations outcomes
An overextended
BPS footprint
stretches limited
funds over a
large number of
schools
1,031
1,105
20% of per
pupil dollars
are directly for
SPED students
1,712
534
4,051
Special education
Benefits Trans- SPED

Bilingual Buildings School- Adminis- General
portation (including
level
trators
education
transportation)
support
classrooms
drives per pupil

expenditures but
only reaches
20% of students
1 This excludes out of district tuition dollars, as those students are being educated outside of district
2 Boston is more in-line when Cost of Living adjustments are made, or only compared to Northeastern cities, but still trends high
Source: BPS FY15 all funds
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
SPED is ~25% of BPS annual spending and 73% of SPED costs are in
three areas: classroom staff, transportation and private placements
24% of BPS budget
School
level
Central $ 136m (51%)
As the biggest
three areas in the
biggest part of the
BPS budget, these
areas are 18% of
total BPS budget
$ 49m
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
Admin. &
superadvisory
$ 13m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
Other labor Misc. equipsupports (ad- ment and

clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Compliance Insurance
Misc. expenses
(e.g., equipment,
inclusion, itinerant support)
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The BPS budget has not accounted for student declines

BPS budgets and student population since 2005
$ BPS budget, millions; # of students
1,200
59,000
1,000
In 2005, BPS had a per

pupil spending rate of
$15,915, by 2015, that
same rate had grown to
$20,568
Because the BPS

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

its per pupil spending
rate in 2015, the budget
should have fallen to
$864M, 23% less than
FY15s budget
58,000
800
57,000
600
56,000
400
55,000
200
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, includes

grant funds and other sources
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
0
2005
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
nor has FTE count
DRAFT
Central office
Schools
BPS FTEs and student population since 2009

# of BPS FTEs, # of students
(7-10%)
11,000
If BPS were to decrease staff

with future enrollment trends
and historical central office
FTE counts, BPS would
shrink by ~7-10%
In 2009-10, BPS had a ratio

of 5.5 students per FTE, by
2014-15, that ratio had fallen
to 5.0
If BPS had maintained its

2009-10 student to FTE
ratio, in 2014-15, BPS would
have 9,875 FTEs, 902 fewer
than six years ago, at a
savings of ~$60-70M
By operating its current

number of schools, BPS
cannot currently bring
school staff down
commensurately
57,000
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000
Source: BPS Human Capital data and Enrollment data
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
The share of school-based employees has remained mostly constant
DRAFT
Central
Schools
FTE break down

% of BPS employees
18
18
19
19
20
24
82
82
81
81
80
76
SY
2009-2010
SY
2010-2011
SY
2011-2012
SY
2012-2013
SY
2013-2014
SY
2014-2015
The change
in share is
representati
ve of smaller
school staff
numbers
with slightly
increased
central office
shares
The ratio of school-level to central office BPS

employees constant over the past 6 years, with a
slight uptick in central to school ratios in recent years
Source: BPS employee data, Office of Human Capital
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS is a diverse system, whose demographics differ from

Boston overall
Hispanic
Black
White (non-Hispanic)
Asian
Other/multiracial
Racial break down
% of total population, out of 100%
40
10
21
35
62
13
3
BPS students1
White BPS teachers

6
18
24
84
BPS teachers2
47
Teachers nationally6
City of Boston3
Poverty indicators
% of population in poverty
78
Students at 185%
of federal poverty
line or below
42
Households at or below
185% of federal poverty
level for a family of four
BPS students4
DRAFT
City of Boston5
represent 30% more of the

teaching force than of the
city of Boston and nearly 5
times that of the student
body
BPS Hispanic students
represent double the
student body share to the
Hispanic share of the City of
Boston and four times the
share of the teaching force
The Black share of the
BPS student body is >50%
greater than the teaching
force and of the city as a
whole
BPS teaching force is
significantly more diverse
than teachers nationally
BPS students are in
greater need than the
population of the City of
Boston
1 BPS at a Glance, SY 2013-2014;

2 BPS employee data, Jan 1, 2015;
3 US Census Bureau, 2010
4 BPS data, 2013, last time data collected on this measure
5 Estimate from CLR research, 2010
6 EdWeek, Profiles of teachers in the US, 2011
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS has a significantly higher rate of students qualifying for Free and
reduced meals than the state and nation
DRAFT
Free and reduced meal rate

% of students in state receiving free or reduced meals1
District of Columbia
Mississippi
New Mexico
Louisiana
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Georgia
Kentucky
Florida
Alabama
Tennessee
South Carolina
California
West Virginia
Oregon
Nevada
North Carolina
Texas
New York
Delaware
Kansas
Hawaii
Indiana
Illinois
State average
Michigan
Arizona
Missouri
Idaho
Maine
Rhode Island
Ohio
Nebraska
Montana
Maryland
Washington
Colorado
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
Iowa
Alaska
Utah
Wyoming
South Dakota
Vermont
Virginia
Minnesota
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Jersey
North Dakota
New Hampshire
% of students in district receiving free or reduced meals2
73.0
70.6
67.6
66.2
60.5
60.5
57.4
56.6
56.0
55.1
55.0
54.7
54.1
51.5
50.6
50.3
50.3
50.3
48.3
48.0
47.7
46.8
46.8
46.7
46.6
46.4
45.2
45.0
45.0
43.0
42.9
42.6
42.6
41.2
40.1
40.1
39.9
39.4
39.3
38.9
38.4
38.2
37.1
37.1
36.8
36.7
36.5
34.5
34.2
32.8
31.7
25.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
New England
states
Boston: 78%
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
BPS outpaces
the nation and
Massachusetts
districts in the
percentage of
students
qualifying for
free and
reduced meals
BPS is more in
line with urban
districts, where
38% of these
districts have
greater than
75% of students
qualifying for
free and
reduced meals
Percentage distribution of public elementary and secondary students, by

locate and percentage of students in school eligible for free or reducedprice lunch (FRPL): Fall 2010
2012 MA Avg.: 25.7%
10 percent or less
26-50 percent
11-25 percent
51-75 percent
More than 75 percent
Locate
Total
City
Suburban
Town
Rural
15
21
15
20
38
28
36
16
27
26
22
29
21
37
36
14
15
30
10
Percentage of students in school eligible for FRPL
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1 US Dept. of Education, 2011

2 Kidscount data, 2012
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation
DRAFT
State classification rates

% of students in state classified SPED1
Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by State 2009-10
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
Maine
Wyoming
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Indiana
Vermont
Delaware
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Nebraska
Illinois
South Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Wisconsin
D.C.
Missouri
North Dakota
Oregon
Kansas
South Carolina
Florida
Michigan
Alaska
Iowa
New Mexico
Arkansas
Virginia
United States
Mississippi
Louisiana
Maryland
Tennessee
Connecticut
Washington
Montana
North Carolina
Utah
Hawaii
Alabama
Arizona
Nevada
California
Georgia
Colorado
Idaho
Texas
% of students in district classified SPED2

Identification Rate of Students with
Disabilities, by MA district 2013
18.7
17.8
17.4
17.3
17.2
16.8
16.7
16.6
16.5
15.7
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.0
15.0
14.8
14.8
14.7
14.7
14.6
14.6
14.3
14.3
14.2
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.0
14.0
13.9
13.8
13.6
13.4
13.1
13.0
12.6
12.5
12.4
12.3
12.3
12.2
11.9
11.3
11.3
11.2
11.1
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.3
9.9
9.1
10
15
20
19.5 Boston
16.5 2013 MA Avg.
New England
states
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
Massachusetts has historically

higher SPED numbers due to being
a leader in SPED beginning in the
1970s their being higher than
national averages is not a
reflection of any state policies,
but of state culture
Assuming direct labor aligns with

the number of students, BPS could
save roughly $5M for every one
percentage drop in classification
Aligning with state average

could translate to $10-15M in
savings
Aligning with New England

average of 16.2% could
capture $15-18M
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011 2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 districts
in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
SWD and FARM classification are correlated across MA districts
DRAFT
Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status1

% of students in district, 2013-2014
Free and reduced meal
% of district FARM students
Districts with equal or greater
100
90
Boston
80
70
60
50
40
FARM, but lower SWD:

Revere, Everett,
Brockton, Lynn, Chelsea,
Springfield
Districts with equal or greater
FARM, but higher SWD:
Lawrence, Fall River,
Holyoke
A 2014 Massachusetts study
30
20
10
0
7
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
found that low-income

students in the state were
identified as eligible for
special education services
at substantially higher
rates than non-low-income
students
% SWD
% students classified with disabilities
1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013

SYSTEM OVERVIEW
BPS English Language Learners population continues to grow,

making it among the highest in national peer set
DRAFT
Percentage of ELL students

% of student body classified as ELL
2010 - 2011
This represented a raw

change of +7,656 students
+10%
31
31
28
30
28
2012 - 2013
14
16
15 15
14 13
11 11
9 10
9 10
9
6
Boston
41% of BPS
students now
identify as
Hispanic
BPS FY16
Weighted
Student Formula
allocates a
blended rate of
$1,677 per ELL
student
At FY16 rates,
this 10% change
would add
$12.8M to
district needs
30
25
Oakland1
San OklaFran- homa

cisco1 City
Sacra- Tulsa
mento1
Wichita Omaha Nashville
Colum- Detroit Newark DC

bus
8
5
6
3
Tucson Cleve- Atlanta

land
1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 2011 school year

Source: NCES 2010-11, 2012 2013; adjusted MA DESE reporting
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization

Appendix
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
System performance summary
BPS, beginning in the late1990s, began a transformation that brought it

national recognition as a high-performing, urban system. A 2010 report1
on the worlds most improved systems identified Boston as one of the
20 systems in the world and one of just 3 in the US to make
significant, systemic, and sustained improvements in student
achievement during the period from 1995-2009
Since 2009, BPS momentum has stalled. While it continues to track with
Massachusetts performance averages, the gap it narrowed in the early
2000s, is annually persistent
While BPS ELL population performs almost exactly as well as the

BPS student average and performs nearly as well as Massachusetts ELL
population, BPS SPED population lags all BPS students dramatically
and continues to lag Massachusetts SPED population significantly
The achievement gap between black and Hispanic students and their
white peers has not narrowed much in recent years
1 McKinsey and Company, "How the world's most improved school systems keep
getting better," 2010
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Reading scores show frequent performance above Large City index

but below National average
Nation
Grade 4 Reading
Average scale scores: 2003-2013
222
220
218
216
214
212
210
208
206
204
202
200
2201
2161
2201
220
221
270
265
215
217 2143
2101
2061
Large city
Grade 8 Reading
2171
2071
Boston
DRAFT
2101
211
212
2611
260
255
2601
2611
257
2521
2531
254
2061
245
2041
2491
266
258
255
2573
2551
250
2081
2621
2641
2501
2501
05
07
2521
240
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
2003
09
11
2013
BPS reading is beginning to decline
After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS performance

has stalled
Reading scores in particular are beginning to decline

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

and only slightly below National average
Nation
Grade 4 mathematics
Grade 8 mathematics
245
285
240
235
230
2371
2341
2391
2331
2291
2241
225
2281
2301
2391
240
2373
233
235
2761
265
2201
260
210
2781
2801
2821
2831
Large city
284
2832
2791
2761
2701
2691
2621
Boston
282
275
270
220
215
280
237
236
2311
241
DRAFT
274
276
2711
2651
2621
255
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
2003
05
07
09
11
2013
BPS math has leveled off
After large gains from 2003 through 2009, BPS performance

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

plateau
Note: The NAEP Mathematics scale ranges from 0 to 500
1 Significantly different (P <.05) from 2013
2 Significantly different (P <.05) from Large City in 2013
3 Significantly different (P <.05) from Nation in 2013
Source: Report on 2013 Trial Urban District Assessment (TUDA)
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS tracks with, but consistently lags state districts in

MCAS performance
DRAFT
BPS student performance

3rd grade ELA
% of students proficient or advanced
3rd grade Math1

70
60
70
Mass
50
40
60
BPS
50
BPS
40
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
2006 07
10th grade ELA

08
09
10
11
12
13 2014
10th grade Math

100
80
Mass
80
Mass
70
BPS
60
60
Mass
BPS
While BPS
tracks with the
state, Boston
consistently
underperforms
state averages
BPS students
are narrowing
the gap by
10th grade, but
are starting
significantly
behind their
peers in the
early grades
50
40
40
30
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006

Source: MA DESE
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS SPED students lag state districts in MCAS performance

by even larger margins
DRAFT
BPS SPED student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math

25
35
Mass
20
Mass
30
BPS
25
15
20
BPS
10
0
2008
15
0
09
10
11
12
13
2014
10th grade ELA

2008
10
11
12
13
2014
10th grade Math

70
45
Mass
60
50
40
Mass
35
BPS
40
30
30
25
2008
09
BPS SPED
students are
tracking with
state
performance,
but with a
significant gap
in perfor-mance
from their
Massachusetts
peers
09
Source: MA DESE
10
11
12
13
2014
2008
BPS
09
10
11
12
13
2014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS ELL students track with and occasionally surpass state

averages in MCAS performance
DRAFT
BPS ELL student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math

35
60
Mass
30
BPS
BPS
50
Mass
40
BPS ELL
30
25
students rival
the performance of MA
ELL students
20
0
2008
0
09
10
11
12
13
2014
10th grade ELA

09
10
11
12
13
2014
10th grade Math

60
50
Mass
55
50
BPS
45
BPS
BPS ELL
students
scores are
consistently at
or near overall
BPS performance
Mass
40
40
35
30
30
0
2008
2008
0
09
Source: MA DESE
10
11
12
13
2014
2008
09
10
11
12
13
2014
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has not closed the achievement gap in most areas, with 10th
White BPS students
Black BPS students
grade ELA being an exception
Mass. avg.
DRAFT
Hispanic BPS students
BPS non-white student performance

3rd grade ELA
3rd grade Math1

70
80
60
70
50
60
50
40
30
White BPS
students
perform at or
better than the
state average
40
30
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
2006 07
08
09
10
11
12
10th grade ELA

10th grade Math

100
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
20
0
20
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
13 2014
Students of
color
consistently
achieve at a
rate nearly
half that of
white students
in the early
grades
0
200102 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 132014
1 MA only started testing 3rd grade math in 2006

Source: MA DESE
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS has a larger SPED share than most MA districts, and its
population performs less well
DRAFT
Plot of MA district by SWD share and SWD 10th grade performance

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % of students classified SWD
MCAS 10th grade ELA
MCAS 10th grade Math
% of SWD scoring proficient or advanced % of SWD scoring proficient or advanced
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
Boston
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
Boston
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
% SWD
% SWD
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
There is a correlation
in the state between
share of students
classified and overall
SWD performance
Boston has a higher

share, but its SWD
population is
performing worse
than would be
expected
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
While having one of the largest ELL shares in the state, BPS ELL
population performs better than correlations would predict
DRAFT
Plot of MA district by ELL performance and $ spent

% of students scoring proficient or advanced on MCAS, % district ELL
MCAS 10th grade ELA
% of ELL proficient or advanced
MCAS 10th grade Math

% of ELL proficient or advanced
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
10 15
20 25
BPS has one of the

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

outperform the
expected
performance levels
60
Boston
50
30 35
Boston
% ELL
Source: MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013
10 15
20 25
30 35
% ELL
$ spent per SWD pupil
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
BPS lags, but tracks with state districts in graduation rates
DRAFT
Graduation rates
% of students graduating1
90
Mass
85
While on the upswing,

BPS 4-year
graduation rate is
significantly below the
Massachusetts
average
BPS does track

generally with
Massachusetts
graduation rate
improvement, but is
not closing the gap
80
75
70
BPS
65
60
0
2006
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
2014
1 MA DESE 4-year graduation rate

Source: MA DESE
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Surveys show parents generally satisfied with schools, with some

specific concerns
This school is a good place for my child to
learn
% of parents responding
My child's teacher challenges him/her to do

their best and works hard to meet the needs
of my child
70
47
DRAFT
Perspectives from parents focus groups

Working parents cant start at 9:30am and
so our school is losing enrollment because
of the late bell time Elementary school
parent
42
28
1
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
The school is doing a good job at preventing

bullying and harassment based on race,
gender, sexual preference and disabilities
70
28
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
agree
Strongly
disagree
Disagree Agree
No one walks to school. Why are we

wasting resources on too many school
buses? Elementary school parent
Strongly
agree
Parents perception of
Avg. score, 1-4 (4being the highest)
Parent Engagement
at Home
Overall Perception
of School
School Safety &
Welcoming Environment
Principal
Performance
Teacher
Performance
Parent Participation
at School
Source: Annual BPS school climate survey, 2013-2014; 20% of

parents on average responded t osurvey at each school
3.5
When I first looked at BPS [years ago],

there were only 3 schools I would consider.
Now, I see many more options Im
comfortable sending my child to. High
school parent
3.3
3.3
BPS has given me an incredibly diverse

community for my child High School
parent
3.2
3.2
2.3
0
There are a lot of programmatic

inconsistencies, like having so many
different school models K-1, 2-8, etc.
Middle School parent
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization

Appendix
HUMAN CAPITAL
BPS teachers have a predictable age distribution, and have been

rated proficient
DRAFT
Year of birth
# of teachers by year of birth
1,275
933
680
1,420 The average

BPS teacher
is 42 years
old
151
75
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
968
21% of the teaching

force does not have
an evaluation on file
96% of teachers
with evaluations on
file are rated
proficient or higher
2,719
626
24
No
evaluation
94% of teachers are

licensed to teach in
their subject are,
compared to 98% of
teachers state-wide
1990s
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
Unsatisfactory
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
131
NIP
Proficient
Exemplary
HUMAN CAPITAL
BPS principals are on average 4 years older than BPS teachers,

and none in the system have received a rating lower than proficient
DRAFT
Age of principals
# of principals born in decade
51
36
21
The average
BPS principal
is 46 years old
18
7
1940s
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
Evaluation rating
# of teachers
75
Principals rated
lower than proficient
will almost always
be moved out of the
system
56% of principals do not

have evaluations on file
41
18
0
No
evaluation
Unsatisfactory
Source: BPS Office of Human Capital data
0
NIP
Proficient
Exceeds
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
System performance
Human Capital
Organization

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

Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 8.5
Cleveland
Newark
Columbus
Omaha
DC
Tulsa
Atlanta
Boston
Wichita
Oklahoma City
Tucson
LA
San Francisco
Oakland
Sacramento
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011
4.9
5.8
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.4
If BPS were
at the peer
average, it
could have
500 fewer
FTEs
9.5
10.5
11.0
11.0
14.3
ORGANIZATION
The total number of FTEs, across schools and central office has not
declined in line with student population
Central office
DRAFT
Schools

11,000
57,000
(7-10%)
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
If BPS were to align staff

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

2014-15, that ratio had
fallen to 5.0

than six years ago
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Framework for RFP 25
RFP areas for possible deep dive
Other RFP areas

Appendix
APPROACH AND WORKPLAN
The operational review was conducted over a period of

~3 months, shifting from a broad scan to deep dives
DRAFT
Progress review
Phase 0:
Data collection and
interviews
Phase 1:
High-level diagnostic
Phase 2:
Deep-dive on priority areas
Phase 3:
Opportunity
development
Duration
Dec 8-19
Jan 5 -23
Jan 26 - Feb 13
Feb 16-27
Activities
Collect existing data

and reports based
on data request
Identify internal and
external
stakeholders for
interviews and focus
groups
Begin scheduling
and conducting
interviews and focus
groups
Start initial analysis
and benchmarking
Conduct high-level
quantitative and
qualitative analysis across
the 25 areas, including
benchmarking
Review previous reports,
studies, reviews, etc.
Analyze the BPS budget
Collect input on priority
operational areas from
internal and external
stakeholders through
interviews, focus groups,
and other forums
For the prioritized areas,

review diagnostic findings
and identify gaps vs. best
practice
Conduct additional deepdive analyses to assess
efficiency and
effectiveness
opportunities
Prioritize areas with
greatest opportunity to
explore further
Synthesis of initial
key themes and
learning
Overview of BPS fiscal

and operational health
across each of the 25
areas
Identification of priority
areas for deep-dives
Interim workshops as
requested by the City
Detailed diagnostic of
priority areas
Deliverables
Prioritize
improvement
opportunities based
on impact toward
BPS mission and
strategic goals
Identify short term
and long term
actions for
implementation
For priority opportunities, provide
rationale, estimates
of costs and cost
savings, and practical implementation
guidance
Workshop to align
on next steps for
BPS in capturing
opportunities
Agenda
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas

Appendix
CROSS-BPS THEMES
BPS has a strong talent base, but does not have a long-term strategy DRAFT
Challenge
Stable, with opportunity
Area of strength
to align process and execution
Overall
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
Positive inertia and a deep local talent pool sustains a comparatively good urban
system
Largely coasting for a number of years, modernizing and evolving has not been
deliberately and thoughtfully considered
Too large a physical footprint for the number of students currently being served
High caliber people in schools as teachers and principals and in central office roles
Dynamic (but siloed) visions in pockets of central office
Strong approaches to community engagement and technology support
Some key conditions for success put in place across the system (e.g., mutual
consent, weighted student funding)
Absence of overarching vision causes a focus on initiatives vs. system goals, drift in
how different areas move forward and causes an inability to execute/follow-through
Recurring budget shortages as available funds are spread thin across buildings and
programs, many of which are underutilized and under-enrolled
Data not used broadly for decision making
Org. structure reflects personalities, not functional needs or core goals
Lack of coordination and collaboration, as focus rests with where people want it
CROSS-BPS THEMES
BPS faces challenges that cut across the organization
Challenge
DRAFT
Area of strength
Overall assessment
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student
assignment, q. parent engagement, r.
ELL)
Strong foundation, in need of more robust
Talent management
(a. personnel policies, b. contracts, c.
hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e.
instructional staff, s. licensing, t.
CORI / SORI)
Dissatisfaction with professional develop-
Non-academic student supports

(l. transportation, m. food service, p.
extracurriculars, u. security)
Opportunities for cost capturing likely exist in
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and
measurement tools)
No robust performance management system

Lack of follow-through and execution
focus on reaching all students where they

are
ment and advancement opportunities
Innovation in school staffing areas (e.g.

mutual consent)
Emerging themes
Data and technology not actively or

consistently used to support decision
making
Budget development process has
many areas
opportunities for efficiencies and

collaboration, is unaligned with strategy,
while not evaluating spending for
effectiveness at school level
Organizational structure is not always

aligned with functional needs of students,
with inefficiencies that stymie crossorganizational collaboration
BPS is overextended physically and

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

OIT effective at meeting customer needs
Back office functions get done
Leadership and governance

(w. School Committee)
Serves community well, may be tensions
budgetarily, supporting buildings and

schools that lead to subscale services in
some pockets
with supt. over strategy

Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas

Appendix
RFP 25
DRAFT
Analysis of RFP areas and cross-cutting themes identified 12 for
potential deep dive consideration
Cross-cutting theme, not an identified RFP area
From data and interviews, the Steering Committee considered the size of the opportunity in
terms of benefits to students, cost savings, and efficiency
From this approach, 11 areas emerged in two groups as potential Phase 2 targets
Quick wins
Long-term goals
These are areas with
These are areas of high opportunity that will also take time
opportunities that may

be readily captured :
1. Food Services
2. Personnel
and a good deal of effort, but are worth it:

5. District overextension
3. Finance and
accounting
(budgeting process)
4. Org. structure
8. Technology
6. ELL
7. Data culture
9. Transportation
10. Special Education
11. Maintenance (of buildings)
12. Performance and quality objectives and measurement
tools
RFP 25
Framework for approaching RFP areas and crosscutting themes
Approach
Comparison of RFP areas

Opportunity ($, efficiency) v. ease ($, time, quality)
Opportunity
High
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
District overextension
ELL
Data culture
Technology
Transportation
Construction and
renovation
Negotiation
Student assignment
Purchasing
10. Special education

11. Maintenance
12. Performance
management tools
External funds
transparency
Instructional staffing
General staffing and
recruiting
Extracurriculars
Security
Licensure
Parent Engagement
School Committee
CORI / SORI
Opportunity: This is the size of

the opportunity that exists for
improvement; it could be time
saved, money saved,
improvement in outputs, etc.
1. Food Services
2. Personnel
Ease: This is how much effort on
BPS part it will take to capture the

opportunity; it could be in dollars
required, time required to execute,
etc.
3. Org. structure
4. Finance & accounting
(budget process)
Outputs
Quick wins: Large opportunities

for savings and/or performance
improvement that are easily
implementable and should be
considered for immediate action
Curriculum
Timekeeping
Role delineation
Long-term goals: Large
opportunities for savings and/or

performance improvement that
require a good deal of effort/time
to implement
Not a priority now: Opportunities
Quick wins and Long-term goals

comprise over 60% of BPS budget
Low
FOR STEERCO DISCUSSION
Ease
that are too small and/or too

difficult to be worth the effort and
attention required capture them
High
RFP 25
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to

pursue without further deep dive (1/2)
e Efficiency opportunity
$
Area
CORI / SORI
FY14 budget: N/A
School Committee FY14 budget:
$0.3M
Licensure
FY14 budget: N/A
Parent engagement FY14

budget: $2.6M
Security
FY14 budget:
$3.9M
Instructional
staffing
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
Rationale to not include
PRELIMINARY
Financial opportunity
Key factors to consider
5,000 CORI / SORI forms

e
processed annually by fax, even
though technology exists
Secure process keeps people from Have there been any lapses?
being hired before clearing
Is this a high-risk area?
Small budget, narrow scope of
$300K budget, any savings will be Will there be an expanded role?
activities
tiny, no processes to improve
Inconsistent staffing and attention, While frustrating, no great gains
but no deep problems exist

Licensing more compliance-driven
The Engagement department is

considered one BPS strongest
relative to other options
High-functioning department
Small budget ($2.6M) with small
saving potential
Focus on communities
BPS perceived to be largely safe
by school-based staff
Recent uptick in incidents, after 5year long decline
Weighted student formula allots
school staffing by policy

Transparent system, with some
funding backstops necessary
Are we planning a licensing

push of any kind that would
need this function bolstered?
Are there concerns about

engagement that is not led by
the Engagement department?
Is the recent uptick in events

significant enough to require a
deep dive?
Determined by formula and policy, Does the WSF need analysis or

not by operations or budget usage
decisions
fresh thinking?
RFP 25
There are 11 areas with opportunities that BPS can continue to

pursue without further deep dive (2/2)
$
Area
Financial opportunity
Changes begun to evaluate

$
partners and manage better
e
Limited transparency into
effectiveness of programs
There are opportunities to
How concerned are we that
Curriculum
FY14 budget: $7M
Recent leadership has begun

$
reassessment of curriculum, which
e
is outdated
Opportunities for savings and
Timekeeping
FY14 budget: N/A
Paper systems utilized with

e
manual entry
Supervisor process for checks on
this process
Some opportunities in
Some new thinking around
Small department with
Extra curriculars
FY14 budget: N/A
General staffing
and recruiting
FY14 budget: N/A
External funds
transparency
FY14 budget: N/A
Role delineation
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
PRELIMINARY
conversion rates of applicants

doing more with less
New rigor of analysis brought to
funds and where they come from

Compliance requests handled
department by department
enhance services, but would

require a good deal of work to
capture smaller opportunities
better outcomes will come from

deep review of pedagogy and
curriculum
technological enhancements, but
not critical upgrade
opportunities that are largely cost

centers
BEDF is not maximizing

potential?
Are principals concerned by a
lack of extracurricular options?
How much of the rest of the

system does curriculum drive?
Should they be considered as
part of another deep dive?
Are there ways we can leverage

the city here to move BPS more
automated process?
Are we concerned about

pipelines and the need for
further analysis and
identification?
Grantmaking bodies (including the Have there been historical

feds) mostly require accounting,
building internal accountability
audits that turned up issues?
Roles and duties between central Better communication and thought Is there a need to understand,
office and schools unclear under

network model
Some overlap in roles (e.g., PD)
on roles can improve clarity

quickly, without needing to go very
deep
more deeply what is driving the

lack of clarity?
RFP 25
There are 4 areas with opportunities that are connected to other, PRELIMINARY
parallel process at this time
$ Financial opportunity
Area
Construction
FY14 budget:
$26M
Purchasing
FY14 budget: N/A
Negotiations
FY14 budget: N/A
Current situation
$3-$4B in current needs

$
With the capital planning process
How will the future footprint be
e
Capital planning process running
e Procurement has conservative
teachers) slated to begin in the fall

for next contract (2017)
New thinking around contracts at
BPS (e.g., open-hiring)
underway, efforts would be

duplicative
Costs here driven by academic
decisions around future footprint
Some process improvements
culture and policies set by city

Some frustration about speed of
procurement turnarounds
Negotiations planning (for
Student assignment FY14

budget: $3.4M
exist, but they would also involve

heavy coordination with the city
aligned to enable more

efficiently filled buildings and
classrooms even as enrollment
fluctuates?
Is there a quick win here that

should be investigated?
Timeline for major changes in this Are there analyses that we
area is set a ways off

Currently managing contract and
innovating effectively
should be considering that are

valuable now or valuable
enough to do now in preparation
for negotiations? (e.g., cost of
contractually required class/
support ratios, model for pay for
performance approach)
Good process of collaboration with Student assignment opportunities How much of student
Engagement office to assign

students and communicate with
families
Forecasts largely accurate at
district level, vary widely at school
level
are tied up in capital planning

process and considerations about
the size of the district as well as
WSF
assignment issues are driven by

the department vs. other policies
and other departments?
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Cross-BPS themes
Other RFP areas

Appendix
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Food services
DRAFT
FY14: $36M
Summary points
Food services currently runs a significant deficit, where most districts roughly break even
Carrying dual management structure of doing half internally and half through vendor, Whitsons
Delivers meals to students at a rate at the high end of peer comparisons
Area strengths and challenges

Strengths
Above benchmarks on breakfast and lunch participation rates, and
very high for those eligible for F/RM
One of the lowest cost per meals against benchmark
Participant in Provision II, but at low rates
Challenges
Annual losses at 11% of revenues, district performs low among peers
on this measure, where the average district loses just 1.5% of
revenues
Managing internal food services preparation as well as a food services
contract, roughly splitting up the district
Poor management of cafeteria workers between food services and
individual schools lead to failed pilots
High direct labor costs
Low levels of data tracking below the major data points used for
compliance
Opportunities and potential impacts

Coherence
By managing a contract, while also providing services, BPS makes it structurally difficult to bring coherence to food services as well as have direct
accountability for specific areas; Whitsons current contract accounts for just a third of the food service budget, implying there could be real savings
to make this a more coherent area
BPS is carrying employees and costs associated with them while also using contractors and contracted employees. If BPS employees were shifted
to contract employees, costs could be expected to go down by 20-30% in the employee area, a savings of $1-3M
Revenues
BPS is delivering meals, but failing to cover costs in line with peers; an operational review and mapping can identify the areas that drive lost
revenues, while also developing a better system of accountability to capture available revenues
Source: Interviews with BPS and City staff as well as BPS data
RFP 25
Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag

peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13
77
101
16
45
26
62
58
25
33
1
56
5
20
19
13
9
67
3
14
52
8
54
34
30
M
39
79
21
28
48
66
37
4
44
41
12
23
57
55
10
35
71
18
47
2
43
7
49
6
DRAFT
Boston
Districts
Median
Food services costs

% of revenue, 2012-13
2.16
2.22
2.46
2.47
2.51
2.52
2.58
2.64
2.69
2.76
2.79
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.89
2.89
2.92
2.97
3.02
3.06
3.08
3.09
3.09
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.26
3.26
3.27
3.39
3.41
3.41
3.42
3.49
3.51
3.60
3.61
3.63
3.63
3.64
3.70
3.71
3.71
3.81
3.82
3.84
3.93
3.96
BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis
4.57
20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77
71.44%
79.52%
83.12%
83.44%
88.02%
88.22%
91.99%
92.39%
92.58%
93.52%
93.63%
94.08%
94.28%
95.17%
95.32%
95.40%
95.57%
95.61%
97.01%
BPS is not
97.03%
getting the
97.15%
data tracking
98.41%
it needs to be
98.57%
successful
98.57%
and drive
98.57%
98.68%
revenues
99.12%
99.34%
99.56%
99.62%
100.00%
100.25%
100.35%
100.98%
102.13%
102.94%
103.33%
103.85%
103.94%
104.85%
105.40%
105.53%
105.89%
110.45%
113.33%
120.81%
121.51%
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 69
RFP 25
Personnel policies and procedures

(and development)
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY13: $53M in PD
Summary points
Strong teacher performance rubrics, weak central office rubrics with inconsistent application, and little data-driven management
Professional development at the central office level is non-existent, while teachers and principals are deeply dissatisfied with it at school level

Strengths
New open placement policies loved by principals
Good implementation of teacher evaluations and use of data
systems has led to more transparency and more appropriate
quicker processes to remove poor performers
Some of the best salaries in the country, with good benefits
Have flexibility in management contractual terms
Challenges
No regular, central office staff evaluation expectations and rubrics
that do not align with job duties
Professional development is inconsistent and lacks any
coordination as it comes from nearly every central department,
leaving teachers and principals frustrated, but spent $53M1 in FY13
(4.5% of budget)
Boilerplate and rarely updated job descriptions
Outside of IT, no onboarding process for new employees and no
requirements for succession planning
Data systems do not talk to each other (SIS, EDFS, PeopleSoft and
TalentED all exist independently)
Of the 4,500 non-school based employees, only 1,185 have a
review on file; in 13-14, only 15 employees dismissed

Professional development
Professional development needs coherence, either fully coordinated across all departments with an annual coordination and process by which a
department must clear trainings, or pushed to schools entirely with some oversight; in both situations, schools would get the PD they need, when
they need it; some potential cost savings if PD was pushed entirely to schools
Evaluations
Standardized evaluation processes with consequences for managers would bring consistency to central office and provide a culture shift that would
model for schools effective management policy; research into performance management shows improved employee performance and satisfaction
when evaluations are implemented
Consistent evaluations would also allow for a greater ability to manage out low performers
1 MA Dept. of ESE
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Finance and accounting systems

and policies
DRAFT
FY14: $1.7M
Budget & Finance dept.
Summary points
Annual budgeting driven by previous budgets, not by actual, historical spends

Procurement office viewed as unimpeachable internally at BPS, culturally sets the tone

Strengths
City and BPS budgeting systems collaborate and allow program
directors to view budget and budget spend
Weighted Student Formula is generally transparent to principals
and the public and aligns with goals of fairness and equity within
the system
Challenges
Budget process has no strategic plan on which to anchor and fund or
defund priorities
Schools are under enrolled, requiring soft landings under WSF
BPS has 193 cost centers, over half of the citys, with policy changes
that affect coding and budget tracking, making parts of the budget
difficult to track
Finance and Human Capital systems do not talk, requiring manual
connections and adjustments

Budgeting
Budgets built from base of the previous year and historical needs, where zero-based budgeting is considered best-practice; a zero-based budgeting
process would allow for transparent weighting of priorities and alignment of budget with priorities
While there are plans at department levels, and the School Committee is developing one, there is not currently a long-term strategic plan to guide
the district in budgeting decisions and identifying areas that need more or less investment to achieve the identified goals
Technology
A fully integrated system between human capital and budget data will provide significantly greater visibility into cost centers and practices, while
giving budget managers greater control over budgets, which can be used to effectively monitor costs and drive towards hitting budgeting marks
RFP 25
English Language Learners
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $5.6M dept.

FY14: $62M schools
Summary points
Improved compliance monitoring in wake of DOJ finding, but the office remains compliance driven and struggles to focus on student outcomes
Not well integrated with general education and curriculum

Strengths
After nearly 2 years without a report, have now submitted 40-50
reports, 85% on track
MCAS data shows increase in ELL student performance in ELA
Recent uptick of ELL students moving from ELL to general
education, 13% of ELL population
Challenges
Views core work as monitor and supportto meet federal, state and
local mandates, with no clear vision of how to provide exceptional
services
Number of ELL students have doubled since 2010, making it one of the
highest in peer set
Not integrated into general education approach, academics department
has struggled to collaborate with ELL
Teachers do not feel supported by OELL
Data tracking not used to disaggregate factors in student performance

Organization
ELL and Academics departments are not integrated and so develop PD, curriculum and student supports largely in isolation of the other; this
creates what principals and teachers feel like wasted time and no feeling that they are supported in ELL, only from a compliance standpoint
PD and data support
There is a large appetite at schools for ELL support that uses WIDA data to move more students into general education population, but sense of a
lack of support in this area, including no visibility into or availability of data. A better data management system that gives teachers and schools
access and support would push the needle and potentially lower ELL costs in the long term
RFP 25
BPS now has double the number of English Language Learners

than in 2010, making it among the highest in peer set
Percentage of ELL students
% of student body classified as ELL
DRAFT
2010 - 2011
2012 - 2013
+100%
31
30
28
30
28
25
14
14
16
15 15
14 13
11 11
9 10
9 10
9
6
Oakland1
San
OklaFrancis- homa
co1
City
Boston Sacra- Tulsa

mento1
Wichita Omaha Nashville
8 8
Colum- Detroit Newark DC

bus
5 6
3 3
Tucson Cleve- Atlanta

land
1 No data on ELL students available in 2010 2011 school year

SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013
RFP 25
Technology
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $11.6M
Summary points
OIT viewed as one of the best run departments by the customers they serve
Data-driven culture used to track customer service metrics and drive performance
Technology at schools are on regular upgrade cycles, leading to decent technological infrastructure in place at schools

Strengths
OIT consistently named as teachers and principals best
performing department; recent roll out of laptops was described as
flawless by many
Data dashboards provide transparency into performance of OIT on
customer service issues
Recently launched MyBPS for teachers to connect to PD, early
success with getting 93% of teachers to log in and complete a
module
5 year network upgrade cycle keeps schools current, with fewer
costs in the future as a consequence
Challenges
Boston has second lowest IT spend of peer districts, less than 1/4 of
the median, per pupil and per FTE spends1
No process to align departments and schools on technology has led to
incompatible departmental purchases on software and forced OIT to
buy hardware for BPS departments to use, rather than departments
describing needs first and OIT purchasing

Align with city technology
The City provides a great deal of systems support to agencies that BPS does not fully take advantage of; savings of $500K - $1M could be had by
allowing the City to run data centers and networks BPS currently maintains
Align with departments
A process of technological procurement for schools and departments would provide better technology to end users and eliminate risks of purchasing
systems that cannot be used
1 Council of Great City Schools
RFP 25
IT spend and performance lags other districts

Bandwidth per student
Kilobytes per second (kbps)
0
58
12
34
9
14
6
21
71
67
49
25
3
41
55
33
4
23
19
52
66
M
39
11
101
53
46
26
10
16
56
1
7
57
32
48
44
13
35
37
62
8
10
20
30
40
50
60
Median
Boston
DRAFT
IT spend per student

$ / student
70
80
68.61
66.09
63.66
63.56
34.55
33.86
32.42
32.26
28.29
27.32
27.10
26.43
25.23
25.20
24.93
23.70
22.49
20.68
19.85
19.82
19.77
19.72
19.71
18.85
17.93
17.70
17.54
17.45
15.19
12.22
11.73
11.68
11.62
11.54
10.56
8.89
7.67
4.78
2.37
2.29
1.09
Districts
0
33
19
2
30
62
21
14
45
52
57
34
7
39
12
4
35
66
41
6
49
37
3
M
46
25
71
5
11
32
23
67
53
13
48
56
16
1
44
8
9
55
58
101
26
10
100
200
300
400
500
600
$507.85
$497.62
$420.86
$419.58
$413.55
$412.13
$399.75
$359.76
$341.16
$338.91
$337.42
$316.99
$307.55
$274.82
$266.99
$260.22
$255.74
$248.33
$248.15
$242.72
$222.48
$220.28
$219.88
$219.47
$206.61
$187.81
$185.38
$171.30
$168.82
$168.08
$158.98
$155.40
$152.58
$150.56
$149.51
$134.54
$128.84
$123.46
$115.19
$108.75
$103.51
$95.87
$82.50
$81.08
$56.56
BPS approaches peer
averages for kbps, despite

having a comparatively
low IT spend against peer
districts
Interviews with principals
and teachers indicate very

high levels of satisfaction
with the performance of the
IT department
1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Transportation
DRAFT
FY14: $109M
Summary points
Transportation is a strength of BPS, leveraging data-driven decision making, with results to show for efforts
Opportunities for cost savings are possible with policy changes and efforts around Special Education

Strengths
Transportation moved bus ontime arrival from 65% to 90% in three
months in 2011 through data driven management
Successfully moved all 8th graders to MBTA passes
Refined distance metrics to move some students off mandatory bus
list
Tiered start times maximize driver utilization
BPS does CORI/SORI checks (not vendor), ensuring city process is
adhered to
Challenges
In 2012-2013 spent $1,255 per student for transportation, 20% higher
than median for peers1; biggest line item in the budget, at $109M
annually, bringing in line with peers could save ~$20M
Required to provide transport for charter schools and provide some
parochial transportation ($2M)
SPED transport costs $51M2 a year 5% of BPS budget
High driver wages and occasional wildcat strikes can cost instructional
time and money
Transition from zone transportation to homebase system has legacy
costs that will be stretched out of 8 year transitions

MBTA
Can move all 7th graders to the T, and possibly even 6th graders, dropping per student costs from $1,500 to $260 a year, a $1-2M savings
Homebase
Changing policy around homebase process, which grandfathers transportation can cut the number of students entitled to transportation
Special education
Special Education transportation is $51M, a coordinated effort to move students in-district and correct classifications to appropriate levels could net
a modest drop in needs, leading to significant savings as the budget line is so large
Parochial and charter transportation
Parochial and charter transportation could be looked at to save ~$5M, if policy changes can be agreed upon
2 This is in-district and private out of district transportation
RFP 25
Transportation department is more expensive than peers, despite

using data management to manage performance
Boston
Bus on time tracking

% of buses on time, weekly
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
12/22
12/15
12/8
12/1
11/24
11/17
11/10
11/3
10/27
10/20
10/13
10/6
9/29
9/22
9/15
50
9/8
Districts
Median
Peer school district transportation costs

$ cost per rider, 2012-2013
% Before Bell: Year-to-Year comparison
9/1
DRAFT
Week of
SY2013-2014
Current year
SY2012-2013
2011-2012 % Before Bell
By using data on bus leaving and arrival times, the transportation

department, drove on-time bus arrivals from 65% to 90% over
three months in 2011, where it has consistently stayed
67
14
21
18
55
23
37
3
8
2
13
50
5
7
10
71
20
19
12
41
49
1
52
48
M
33
30
9
34
44
35
45
28
6
26
63
39
43
25
79
4
56
16
66
58
11
57
101
62
54
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
415
425
427
463
500
540
559
602
610
654
665
676
676
684
687
695
756
803
829
927
934
968
993
1,001
1,008
1,008
1,010
1,081
1,108
1,112
1,168
1,185
1,241
1,242
1,255
1,309
Bostons transportation
is ~20% higher than
peer districts
With a budget of
$109M, further savings
could be expected to
net as much as $20M
1,521
1,526
1,633
1,716
1,769
1,848
2,349
2,443
2,554
3,186
3,220
3,397
3,916
4,588
SOURCE: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 77
RFP 25
BPS spends more per student on transportation than other

high choice school districts as rated by CRPE
DRAFT
Comparative district size and cost per student in choice categories

$ per student, 2009
Los Angeles
Jefferson
Parish
Large
Size circle indicates

level of transportation
spending per student
FM = Franklin-McKinley, CA
SB = Spring Branch, TX
Nashville
Memphis
Size of
district
(sq. miles)
Indianapolis
Chicago
Medium
New
Orleans
RSD
Henry
County
Cleveland
Boston
Sacramento
Spokane
Oak-land
SB
Fullerton
Lawrence MA
FM
Small
Low
Medium
High
CRPE Choice Score

SOURCE: Choice dimension: Center for Reinventing Public
Education (CRPE); Spend dimension: NCES 2008-09
RFP 25
Special education
Opportunity type
$
DRAFT
FY14: $263M
Summary points
More than a quarter of the BPS budget, with many difficult regulations and scenarios, but with some real opportunities
Recent focus on moving Special Needs students to inclusive environments in year two of five year implementation, will improve services
Separation of SPED from general academics loosened accountability of general education teachers to keep students in general education

Strengths
Planning to move 30-50% of students from substantially separate to
inclusive environments over the next five years, enhancing services
General education students in inclusionary environments at BPS perform up
to 3x better than schools without inclusion1
Challenges
Currently 20% of BPS students are identified SWD, of which 43% are not in
inclusionary environments; nationally 15% of SWD are in inclusionary
environments, implying Boston may be over identifying students for SPED
services
Special education funds are more than a quarter of BPS budget
Private placements and transportation account for 15% and 17% of the SPED
budget

Over-identification
A deeper audit of students in special education could align Boston with national norm of 15%, potentially freeing up $10-13M
Paraprofessionals and clerks
BPS has a policy of 1:1 para/aide to teacher ratio in most settings, when research suggests lower ratios are equally appropriate and effective; pushing higher ratios
(which would require some alignment with the state) could reduce costs by 5-10%, or $1.4-2.8M
Paraprofessionals can also be contracted out, which some districts have seen capture as much as 30% savings, equivalent to $8M at BPS
SPED clerical services are required by contract, but are largely outdated positions, totaling $2.75M, annually, most of which could be cut
Private placement
A deeper audit of students in special education private placement could identify students who can be effectively served in BPS; even bringing back 10% of students
could amount to savings of $4.1M, annually, while more aggressive efforts could net significantly more
A deep dive on what the triggers are for private placement could identify the schools/coordinators/teachers who are more likely to end up with students privately
placed, building a preventative plan to lessen that burden over a longer time horizon
Transportation
A deeper audit of student classification and SPED bus routes can allow for consolidation, where a 10% savings is $4.5M
Organization
Integrate SPED with academics, driving better collaboration and more holistic focus on student experience and supports, as well as greater ownership by academics
for keeping students in a general education environment, not simply reacting to student poor performance
1 SPED City Council presentation on inclusion June 2014
RFP 25
Special education benchmarking shows BPS has 21% more special

education students than peer districts, with little change since 2010
Percentage of SPED students
% of student body classified as SPED
2010 - 2011
DRAFT
2012 - 2013
-21%
21 21 20
19 20 20
Cleve- Bosland ton
DC
17 17 17 18
Colum-Ombus
aha
SOURCE: NCES 2010-11, 2012 - 2013
15
17
16
15 15 14 15
13
13 13 13 13
Detroit Tulsa Tucson
11 12 11 12 11 11
New- Wich- Oklah- San Sacark

ita
oma Fran- ramCity cisco ento
11
Nash- Oakville
land
9 9
Atlanta
RFP 25
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $48M
Summary points
Facilities department has outdated information on state of buildings, with tracking that has not been updated in at least 5 years
As much as $600M in deferred maintenance and potentially as much as $4B in needed renovations across the system

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

Consolidation of contractors
By moving maintenance to one contract (as opposed to many, small vendors called in on work orders) can capture economies of scale and align
incentives for upkeep of facilities; districts that have done this have seen modest decreases in costs with improved level of services
Outsource maintenance
Outsourcing janitorial services can expect to see 20-30% savings on current facilities funds could net $10-$15M, as well as improve janitorial
management
Energy management
BPS spends $20M on energy (electric, gas and oil); recent pilot energy audits identified massive opportunities in a few, specific schools, even a
10% improvement in efficiency can net $2M annually; districts have seen successful lowering of bills through incentivizing principals as well as
buying energy cooperatively and using long-term contracts
RFP 25
Performance and quality objectives

and measurement tools
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
BPS has developed adequate systems for tracking school-level data, but does not always use this data to manage for outcomes
BPS uses practically no data internally to manage central office and make strategic and operational decisions

Strengths
Focus on generating and delivering data to schools has
empowered schools to look at student performance and adjust
practice appropriately
Most schools are focused on using the data they are given
Centrally, data-driven management in transportation drove bus on
time rates from 65-90% over three months in 2011
Challenges
Performance office started to begin tracking performance across the
organization, scaled back significantly, lives now only in ops and to
date has only been leveraged for transportation
Non-existent data collection or creation in most central office
departments
KPIs are not developed for chiefs to track internal performance and
there is not regular reporting to the superintendent
Very few, good IT systems for tracking and collecting operational data

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

Appendix
In discreet areas, BPS is a mixed bag of strengths

and opportunities (1/6)
Challenge
Academic student support
(i. curriculum, j. SPED, k. student assignment,
q. parent engagement, r. ELL)
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
DRAFT
Area of strength
Good bones in the schools and the system

Struggles to meet all children where they are and move them
Strong principals and network superintendents drive good implementation

New vision for SPED moving towards inclusion model
Strong culture of parent and community engagement
Good implementation of student choice model
High rates of SPED classification and lack of inclusion

Gen. ed. does not own SPED or ELL classification, impeding coordinated
efforts
ELL focused on compliance, not on improving services and outcomes
Principals work to keep central office out their schools, rather than turn to for
supports
Curriculum is at times confusing and overlapping for principals and teachers

Challenge
Talent management (a. personnel policies, b. contracts,
c. hiring, d. responsibility delineation, e. instructional
staff, s. licensing, t. CORI/SORI)
Overall
Strengths
DRAFT
Area of strength
Little training or development centrally, quality of PD at schools highly variable

Undefined roles, responsibilities and hiring criteria
Innovation and modernization needed in support areas
(e.g. contracting, hiring)
High caliber people throughout the organization and schools

Recruiting shifting resource focus to smaller areas BPS has historically been
successful and leveraging technology to track recruits
Reliable (if not always efficient) processes for back office functions
Challenges
Most school PD not coordinated across departments, viewed negatively by

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

Challenge
Non-academic student supports
(l. transportation, m. food service, p. extracurriculars,
u. security)
DRAFT
Area of strength
Challenge
New thinking and momentum in operations leading to savings and efficiency

improvements
Rigor of data and evaluation not applied across all operations
Strengths
Arrests and incidences in schools on downward trajectory

Transportation routes and operations drastically improved
Partnerships beginning to add rigor to annual evaluations of partners
Challenges
Continually running lossmaking food services department

Transportation policies losing money due to legacy policies
Partnerships driven by relationships, not proven outcomes
Overall

Challenge
Performance management
(v. performance objectives and measurement tools)
Overall
Strengths
Area of strength
Challenge
No culture of central office data collection and management

Few measurement tools are used with fidelity to drive outcomes across the
organization, beyond the school level
Good, reliable data on school-level, student performance, mostly accessible

to teachers and principals
Operations department building and implementing data dashboards and
systems
Challenges
DRAFT
No BPS-wide KPIs to align with goals and hold departments and individuals
accountable
Failure to report to the city certain data requests
Data not used to make decisions in majority of operational areas

Challenge
Administrative services (f. accounting systems, y. external funds, g. timekeeping, h. purchasing, o. IT, n. building maintenance, x. school construction and renovation)
DRAFT
Area of strength
Overall
Systems are largely in place to get back office functions completed

Many outdated and slow moving processes that have not been actively
updated to benefit from technology
Strengths
Autonomy and WSF allows schools to be more flexible with spending

Purchasing is very conservative, culturally protecting from potential abuses
Facilities funding is a fraction of reported needs and is used to upkeep

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

Challenge
Leadership and governance
(w. School Committee)
Overall
Strengths
Challenges
DRAFT
Area of strength
The School Committee has a limited budget, spent wisely

Focus on community input and accountability has kept parts of BPS focused
on execution
Tension between the role of a superintendent and the role of the committee in
setting strategy can be distracting
Involved in oversight, but not meddlesome

Small, transparent budget makes impropriety difficult
School committee sees role as setting strategy for the district and hiring a
superintendent to execute it, may hamstring any future hires and has created
tension in the past
RFP 25
Curriculum
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $7M
Summary points
Curriculum languished until recently, with ELA update recently and process to update outdated Math is now underway, but different curriculums
across different grades and subjects still lacks coherence for principals and teachers
Because of autonomous schools designation, schools are accountable for outcomes, not for fidelity to curriculum

Strengths
BPS has many recognized curriculum experts in the field
Deliberate processes for curriculum testing and piloting, guards
against flavor of the month approaches
Teachers empowered to raise concerns with curriculum to
improve it
Challenges
Math curricula not updated since 2000
Many different curricula at various grade spans difficult for principals to
align
Teachers feel budget cuts that have eliminated coaches, fewer
resources available to help them implement curriculum
Some schools found to still be teaching off old standards
Difficulty collaborating and integrating general education curriculum
with ELL and SPED
Autonomy practices among low performing schools unclear, causing
concerns about fidelity to curriculum in some pockets

Organizational structure
Fully integrate and align SPED, ELL and Academics to ensure greater coherence of curriculum and approaches
One office for all PD to ensure quality and coordinate goals for educators and leverage resources to maximum potential for supporting curriculum
implementation; will lead to better integration of resources, cost savings and better experiences for teachers
Long-term planning
Develop policies and long-term plans to regularly review curriculum with principals and teachers on regular cycles, to keep curricula fresh,
continually competitively bid and negotiate for pricing (where applicable) and develop full K0-12 alignment
RFP 25
Student assignment
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $3.4M
Summary points
Student assignment is follows a rigorous assignment algorithm that is fair and protected from tampering
Student assignment process flows quickly, easily and transparently for families
New student assignment patterns were rolled out successfully, but at a cost in legacy transportation

Strengths
Welcome centers staffed with trained professionals, who help
families through a simple process, managed by Engagement office
Schools assignments are protected from tampering through
computer system and randomized lottery
Parents and families do not wait longer than 3 days for initial school
assignment
New, homebase assignments have successfully ensured options
closer to home
Challenges
As homebase is phased in, some confusion and overlapping zones
will persist
All student files and registration still paper-based systems
Legacy costs for students under old zone system are unquantified, but
are potentially contributing significantly to $40M Choice bussing plans
Transition to SIS system has more than doubled processing time
Enrollment projection process not sophisticated and thusly costs
between $0.1 and $2M annually in added school needs

Technology enhancements
Better technology and moving away from paper-based systems would improve turnaround time and errors in data, while likely decreasing need for
manual roles in department
Better software or process for creating enrollment projections can lead to better direction of student assignment and prevent the need to add
teachers at the beginning of every school year
RFP 25
Parent Engagement
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $2.6M
Summary points
Engagement department regarded by many stakeholders as strongest BPS department due to expectation setting and relentless focus on
engagement
Systems and culture in place that maximize engagement across the organization

Strengths
Engagement office is very clear with all stakeholders what the office
can and cannot do
Superintendent circulars require three, representative parents on
principal screening committee, with quorum only achieved with at
least one parent or one teacher present
Parent University has reached 6,000 parents
School site councils require schools to actively engage with parents
Challenges
Some principal hiring processes were done incorrectly and invited
lawsuits, when circulars were ignored
Principals concerned over a lost connection to the mayors office and
the city with changing of administration

Expanded engagement
Principals concerns over lost connection to city could be alleviated by an expanded portfolio of constituent relations for mayoral staff, or more
formal links through the Engagement office
RFP 25
Opportunity type
Union contract implementation, management

and negotiation
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Good working relationships with unions

Departments affected by union contracts not as fully involved as would like to be

Strengths
Strong working relationship with unions through regular meetings
and working sessions
Innovative mindsets in Human Capital around better ways to
leverage contracts to drive value for kids and schools (e.g., openhiring,
H.R. functions aligned with executing contractual obligations, with
few complaints from teachers
Challenges
Teacher contract negotiation planning not yet underway, concerns
about timeline of previous negotiations (1-2 years of negotiations)
should expect negotiations to start soon
Some departments frustrated by previously negotiated union rules
around duties and practices BPS must follow and have untapped
perspectives on new needs

BPS-wide contract communication / collaboration
Many different functions in many different parts of the organization interact with union requirements and have thoughts on opportunities to adjust
duties and find cost savings; a formal process for soliciting areas of strength and opportunity BPS-wide with each contract negotiation could lead to
effective insights and more robust thinking around BPS students needs
RFP 25
Opportunity type
General staffing and recruiting policies

and procedures
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Improving processes and pipelines for school-level recruiting through use of historical data, however not a clear strategy for central office
recruiting

Strengths
New culture of using data on previous conversion rates being used
to target high likelihood teachers and principals also using data to
target recruitment of diverse work force
New system (TalentED) in place to engage, recruit, track and hire
teaching candidates
Have some of the best compensation in the country for teachers,
makes BPS a destination
Innovative uses and placement of unplaced teachers, using them
as subs, or co-teachers
Created recruitment fellows to engage teachers in recruiting
Challenges
Unpredictable staffing openings in schools with weak communication
around how staffing will change year-to-year
Managerial step changes and pay grades have not been reviewed for
years, leading to inconsistencies in appropriate designations
Under teachers union contracts, principals can make significantly less
than some teachers, lessening interest in principal pathways
Union contracts limit what can and cannot be in job descriptions,
making unique hires difficult
Data on hiring pools and performance not available

Central office recruiting
While significantly less of a priority, pipelines and pathways for central office hiring could be attached to current teacher and principal efforts, to
leverage the BPS brand and resources currently already in the field
RFP 25
Delineation of duties between BPS

and schools
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Belief in varying levels of autonomy has created low-level confusion around who is responsible for what duties
New network structure has created vague structure of accountability with FTEs shared between networks and central office
Central office departments do not collaborate often enough to identify opportunities for shared approaches

Strengths
New network structure has pushed more resources and attention to
the schools
Network superintendents believe they have far greater insights and
are able to bring more targeted PD and supports to the problems
they see
Challenges
Principals and central office staff are often unclear about what certain
designations mean (e.g., pilot school) and improvise
Networks now share FTEs with central office, creating accountability
and management problems
Principals unclear about when to reach out to network v. HQ
Central office does not coordinate effectively across offices, missing
opportunities to leverage shared goals and resources (e.g., PD,
employee evaluations, integration of curriculum with SPED and ELL)

Organization
BPS has a handful of successful cross departmental meetings and task forces (chiefs, deputy chiefs, directors, etc.), however regular crossdepartmental meetings and communications would increase collaboration and identify areas of overlap and opportunities for more efficiently
leveraging resources
Policy communication
Lack of clarity among principals and central office staff about expected relationships and duties of each need specific policy clarification and
communication to all BPS employees
RFP 25
Instructional staffing
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $7M
Summary points
Weighted student formula used to build school budgets provides good framework, could use updating
New open posting policy has improved hiring process for principals as has mutual consent hiring
Wide spectrum of popularity among schools has student to teacher ratios varying across schools and the district

Strengths
Weighted student formula effective in providing both transparency
and equity in the system
New open posting policy freed up principals greatly and they have
much higher degree of confidence in their hires
Jump in teacher hiring by June from 7% to 87% year over year
through big central office push
Student to teacher ratios are in line with research-backed
appropriate levels
Challenges
WSF is not deeply evaluated for academic outcomes or alignment that
could inform principals about effective (and ineffective) ways to
leverage budget allocations
Student to teacher ratios vary across schools as overall school
populations vary (e.g., K0-5 schools average 13.3, with a range of 10.4
to 17.9)
District population alignment:

With some schools at maximum capacities and others well below these levels, student to teacher ratios will vary; a strategic direction for the
districts footprint and a district right-sizing will narrow the spectrum between schools
WSF review:
A deeper dive on how WSF allocation and decisions on usage affects student outcomes can provide additional insights into how the WSF might
be adjusted to better account for the needs of schools
RFP 25
License maintenance
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Human Capital systems tracks licenses and identifies areas of need, but poor PD and expectations that teachers will self-certify lead to occasional
delays
Viewed as a compliance function, is not fully aligned with producing better student outcomes

Strengths
Clear business processes in place for capturing licensure
Recent hire will have a an FTE dedicated to keeping data current
and working with instructional leads to identify opportunities
Challenges
Because much of this is considered compliance, there is difficulty
getting all teachers to self-certify as needed, resulting in a recent lag in
ELL certifications
Frustrations around some licensure being more driven by compliance
than by what is good for kids
PD is not always aligned and available to aid in getting licensure

Alignment with student outcomes
A systematic review of licenses and outcomes of students could identify licensing pathways and specific licenses that correlate with strong student
performance and align policies as appropriate
RFP 25
CORI and SORI processes
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Attached to hiring process, applicants cannot be hired without satisfying requirement, keeping unapproved out of positions or work, extra vigilance
needed for volunteers
BPS is one of the few (if not the only) City department that still uses a paper-based system of faxing required

Strengths
Structurally, no one can be hired at BPS without completing CORI /
SORI checks
Business process in place to reliably get to City, as needed
Challenges
Any entirely manual, paper-based process, despite the rest of the City
executing these checks online arranged through previous work with the
state
Forms required for volunteer adults in schools who are not employees,
leaving school with responsibility of verifying adult has received
clearance

Technology:
Getting BPS system online and fully aligned with the city will improve time required for checks, decrease errors and provide better data tracking;
technology exists and city Human Capital can train and incorporate BPS into its systems
RFP 25
External funds transparency
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
BPS does not have a unified strategy for securing external funds, leaving applications and efforts largely to the department and school level
While most grant funding is accounted for, a less formal process exists for providing transparency for private funds

Strengths
Secured $40M in outside funding in FY14, $30M from competitive
grants and $10M from private funds
Recent trainings of program managers who manage grants have
been instituted by the Department of Institutional Advancement
Most grants require disclosures and transparency into funds usage,
compelling grant managers to comply to continue funds
Challenges
Funds are identified by offices as needed and are applied to on a
departmental or school level, without coordination across the
organization
No unifying view of what BPS should be directing private funds
towards, without alignment to any strategy
Funds accepted for programs or ideas without a formal evaluation
of whether the new programs align with BPS academic strategies
No formal review of grant funding and impacts
Funder strategy:
BPS is potentially leaving money on the table without a clear vision for fundraising and its uses; through aligning fundraising activities with
overall department strategy additional funders can be more easily identified and ultimately solicited
Organizational structure:
BPS has an irregular structure from other districts in that its foundation is run in-house, a legacy structure. A further review of the pros and cons
for this structure may reveal that it is better run as an independent foundation, or should be more tightly interwoven into BPS; in either case the
resulting structure will be a more deliberate decision and will more effectively support BPS activities
RFP 25
BPS spends $10M annually on partnerships that are not regularly

reviewed for student impact
Schoolbased
partnerships
Non-school
based
Program
Outlay
Achievement Network
Alliance for inclusion and
$500K
$65K
$60K
$223K
$482K
$1.2M
$994K
$2.4M
$50K
$265K
$100K
$200K
$55K
$600K
Source: BPS Office of Partnerships
prevention (AIP)
BELL
Blueprint
Boston debate league
Citizen Schools
City Connects
City Year
Communities in schools
Key steps
Talent development
Tenacity
American Student Assistance

BPE Boston Teacher Residency
Boston Partners in Education
Edvestors
Generations, Inc.
MassInsight
Teach For America
TeachPlus
PIC
UMASS TAG Alerta
$80K
$100K
$10K
DRAFT
Partnerships bring in ~$28M of funds

from partners to bear on system
Recently a systematic review of

these partnerships has begun, but
funding continues to be granted
centrally on a relational basis more
than on a strategic basis
At the school level there are
hundreds of partners (most of whom

are not receiving BPS funds) who are
also not evaluated for efficacy,
process for central evaluation should
be mimicked at schools
$500K
$78K
$122K
$1.2M
$450K
RFP 25
Timekeeping
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: N/A
Summary points
Timekeeping is a process that is still paper-based, requiring sign-in sheets followed by manual keying in of time later
Effective process controls require managers to approve time and department heads to review manager time approvals before time can be entered

Strengths
While not efficient, process requires both manager and timekeeper
to approve employee time and principal or department heads to
sign off on payroll reports
Errors are avoided as the electronic system into which time is
keyed is set to default hours that just have to be adjusted, rather
than entered anew
Recent work at BPS to identify processes that lead to higher levels
of employees on leave identified process changes
City of Boston payroll department regularly audits timekeeping at
BPS
Challenges
Time entry is done by sign-in sheets, none of which is automated
Leave of absences have historically not been tracked effectively,
leaving it open for abuse, although recent staff addition and policy
changes have begun to be instituted
Certain types of leave (e.g., medical) have low standards of
verification
Technology:
BPS can transition to a fully automated, electronic system, which would lessen paperwork and potential manual errors
Accountability:
Continuing to implement recommendations for improving verification for various types of leave will likely drive down false leave (both purposeful
and inadvertent) , with a focus on data tracking of trends and building automated processes into technological systems to push accountability
and accuracy
RFP 25
Contracts and purchasing
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
BPS performs roughly 50% of citys procurement transactions

City purchasing requirements and regulations are observed and in place for all purchases
The large volume of procurement that BPS handles regularly leads to slower approvals and execution

Strengths
BPS procurement policies set by city and followed consistently
Stories of procurement officials not eating food at official functions
because they dont believe money should go to food abound
Challenges
School and central based staff complain that procurement process
frequently takes too long
Responsible for 50% of citys purchasing transactions, while
representing just over a third of the citys budget
Process mapping:
A fuller understanding of where procurement slows down, from an operations perspective, could unlock capacity and improve customer
satisfaction with procurement functions; the process mapping could identify areas for deeper collaboration with the city
BPS as the largest city agency could drive different procurement practices for the city if opportunities are identified for improved processes
RFP 25
Building construction and renovation
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $26M
Summary points
Rough estimates that current schools stock requires between $3 and $4B in renovation
12M square feet of buildings in BPS system (3/4 of all city square footage), with little scaling back of footprint despite declining enrollment over
decades

Strengths
Master plan on track to select vendor; part of the contract will
encompass building audit and data system for tracking
New plan will also look at BPS financing directly (as opposed to
through the city) for the first time, which could open up additional
financing streams
Challenges
No facility renewal plan or cycle for buildings or long term vision for
the facilities needs for the academic program moving forward
No data tracking on current state of the buildings at a comprehensive
level, which allows for consideration of usage and utilization of
rooms, buildings and system
Back of the envelope estimates based on perceived state of the
buildings point towards as much as $4B in needed renovation across
nearly 75% of school buildings
Building financing has historically been done through the city,
preventing schools from seeking independent financing for upgrades
District footprint:
The district has lost ~10K students (1/6 of enrollment) in the last 20 years, but still operates the same number of buildings; the master facilities
plan process now underway, can incorporate a strategic academic plan and align on the actual needs of the district for educating the current
population now and into the future
Master plan has to ensure that investments are not being made on buildings that will potentially no longer be part of the BPS portfolio
RFP 25
Extra-curricular activities
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $N/A
Summary points
Extra-curricular activities are largely managed at the school-level, leaving principals and communities with a great deal of autonomy around what
types of activities are made available to students
Limited accountability for partnerships at district and school levels

Strengths
Between 600 and 800 out of school time (OST) providers providing
extra-curricular activities at at least 80% of BPS schools1
Most OST are self-funded, bringing additional support dollars to
BPS students
Recent attempt to capture panoply of providers has given principals
a better view to what is available to them, to structure partnerships
and school programming as they see necessary
Increased oversight recently of partners that are centrally funded
and managed
Challenges
Very thin data available on available programming no
comprehensive audit of effectiveness and distribution across
schools has been undertaken
Limited oversight on school spending on OST providers and
partners
No policies or expectations around what extracurriculars are
expected to be available to all students
Accountability:
The department of partnerships and the CAO can do a comprehensive audit of extracurriculars currently available and align on KPIs and
metrics to evaluate year to year effectiveness for both partners as well as any programming offered internally at schools;
A more robust accounting for funding of extracurricular activities at the school level would provide an opportunity to see where partners could
be leveraged to maximize multiplier effects of dollars invested at schools
1 Investing in success, 2007 report
RFP 25
Security
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $3.9M
Summary points
Schools are increasingly safe over a 6 year period, with a recent uptick in incidents in school year 2014-2015
Not all schools have been fully trained in active shooter scenarios, due to limits on principal time

Strengths
Incidents down 20% since 2008-2009
Arrests down 67% since 2008-2009
Security officers have training and approach to schools that
involves proactive culture building, not only reactive policing to
incidents
Challenges
Recent spike in activity in the 1st semester, incidents up 10% versus
2013-2014 year to date, with spikes in Assault with a Dangerous
Weapon (+83%), Disruption of School Assembly (32%), Possession
of controlled substance (+27%)
Multiple attempts by school security to principals active shooter
trained have failed as principals have not attended workshops
Some district policies are not clearly established or enforced (e.g.,
use of metal detectors)
Assault and battery incidents 2012-2013 three times the rate of
peer average1
Facilities plan:
As part of master facilities plan, school security should be considered and integrated into evaluations of buildings; under-enrolled facilities are
harder to secure and keep students safe, looking at incidents against building capacities and occupancies could reveal certain tipping points in
school security numbers
RFP 25
The number of school incidents and arrests have been on a

steady decline
DRAFT
Arrests and reported incidents at BPS schools

Count of arrests / incidents
Incidents
Arrests Year to date incidents in

500 2014-2015 are up 10%
5,000
4,000
400
3,000
300
2,000
Incidents
Arrests
1,000
0
200
100
Downward trajectory in
incidents provides
opportunities for police
officers to be more
proactively involved in
school communities,
putting further downward
pressure on incidents
2007- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- 201308

09
10
11
12
13
14
SOURCE: Operations department performance management;

Council of Great City Schools
RFP 25
School committee
Opportunity type
DRAFT
FY14: $0.3M
Summary points
School Committee has a newer set of folks who are engaged and passionate about community engagement and oversight
In the process of developing a district strategy, which could complicate and discussions with future superintendents who were not involved in
developing the district strategy

Strengths
Very small budget, run lean organization, supported by 1.8 FTEs
New blood on the School Committee is very involved and
passionate about its role as providing effective oversight
Challenges
Lack of clarity around whether school committee sets strategy and
hires superintendent to implement, or whether superintendent sets
strategy and committee approves it
Strategy:
School Committee is developing strategy through conversations with the community, but is not working closely with BPS leadership and without
a permanent superintendent in place, there could be eventual tensions with the new superintendent; School Committee could slow the process
some to involve candidates and not finalize the strategy until a permanent leader has been hired to put her or his final touches to the eventual
vision
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Organizational effectiveness
Other operational areas

Appendix
PHASE II: DEEP DIVES
Through an analysis of the RFP areas, the Steering Committee

identified four areas for further deep dives
Description
District
overextension
Organization
DRAFT
Deep dive
Many operational limitations that the district

A deep dive in this area is structured to
faces stem from stretching too few resources capture the magnitude of the situation and
too thin across too many schools
identify the opportunities for right-sizing the
district footprint
Interviews revealed a lack of goal alignment A survey of central offices employees and an
across BPS as well as poor data tracking and analysis of current structures is designed to
management
provide insights into opportunities for
organizational restructuring and alignment
Special
education
Special education comprises nearly 25% of

the BPS budget and does not deliver
improved services for students with
disabilities
A fuller understanding of where BPS stands

relative to peers in special education and an
accounting of current and future spends is
leveraged to identify opportunities for better
services and cost savings
Other operational
areas
While not systematic, BPS has a number of

operational areas that have large spends and
have potential opportunities for ensuring that
spend gets fully to the student
A medium dive investigation of large spend

areas including areas like maintenance, food
services, transportation and professional
development for further efficiencies
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education

Appendix
DISTRICT OVEREXTENSION
Warning on use of values in this section
DRAFT
Values have been used throughout this section to

estimate the potential costs and savings associated with
closing a BPS school
These numbers are based on averages that, while

helpful for estimation, do not take into account the full
complexity of the situation
These numbers should give a sense of the situation but

should not be used as expectations for future work
without taking into account a full analysis of the situation
Executive Summary
DRAFT
BPS has a larger footprint than is required of its comparable peers. Since the early 1970s, the
total number of students enrolled in the district has declined by ~40,000, while the number of active
BPS buildings has remained relatively constant. In the next 15 years, student enrollment may
continue to change due in part to a changing population but could change drastically if the charter
cap is lifted, leaving BPS with up to 44,000 seats in excess capacity.
Operating with extra capacity costs BPS. BPS incurs annual expenses of ~$4.6M per open
school in operating expenses, before considering the additional tolls of a large system including
a more dispersed focus for Central Office teams than is truly needed, smaller communities of
support and engagement due to less-than-capacity schools, and an overstretch on programming
budgets (e.g., Athletics or Wellness).
BPS could consider saving money and improve the system by consolidating schools to fill
each school to capacity, theoretically allowing BPS to close ~30-50 schools. This could allow BPS
to capture ~$50-80M in annual opex savings, potential one-time revenue from ~$120-200M in
property sales or long-term leases, targeted Central Office support for a smaller portfolio of
schools, and more robust school communities with larger programming budgets from
reinvestment.
Should BPS choose to proceed in addressing this overextension, deliberate planning will be
required to make the transition the most beneficial to students and least disruptive. Many
districts have experienced school consolidation from which BPS can learn in order to maintain or
improve the academic achievement of every seat while engaging the community productively.
With careful identification of schools and a thoughtful timeline for implementation, BPS can let the
academic vision drive its footprint
BPS has 15% fewer students than 20 years ago

and could lose up to another 13% if the charter
cap is lifted
Past enrollment
Best case scenario
Worst case scenario (charter cap lifted)
Student population
# of students
Since 1994, BPS

has lost nearly
9,000 students
While the
population of
Boston is expected
to grow by over
20% over the next
15 years, BPS
current trend
suggests very
little change in
student population
Lifting the charter

cap can have
strongly negative
impacts for BPS,
losing another
7,000 students
105,000
100,000
97,344
95,000
90,000
85,000
80,000
-44.2%
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
54,475
55,000
0
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
DRAFT
2020
2030
NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the past
Source: Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary

Education; UMass Donohue Institute;
In the same period, the number of schools in the district has

remained relatively constant
DRAFT
School programs
# of school programs
150
135
100
Today BPS has

10 more
schools than in
1994
Many of the
2011 school
closures were
operationally
consolidations,
limiting the
change in
schools to 9
50
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
NOTE: This reflects all schools, including BPS charters

Education; Internal interviews; BPS data
The current 130 schools could hold over 90,000 students if

operating at full capacity without student-teacher ratio limits
DRAFT
School capacities
Number of physical seats
4,000
This includes
the total count
of classroom
seats, without
counting
resource rooms
3,500
3,000
2,500
The average
2,000
school has 715

seats
1,500
The total
1,000
500
715
capacity is
92,950
0
METHODOLOGY: Rooms were counted as A or B by the facilities team; A rooms could hold 21-30 students depending on the
school, B rooms can only hold 12 students
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)
The extra seats are mostly well distributed across the district
with an average of 68% utilization
DRAFT
School facility capacity utilization

Percent of seats filled
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
Half of the
schools are
under 2/3rds
utilized
Some schools
are being very
overutilized
based on
Facilities
assessment of
available seats
68%
METHODOLOGY: Based on building capacity data from prior analysis; does not take into account student teacher-ratio or use of resource classrooms
Source: BPS Facilities data (2011)
BPS may have as many as 38,000

seats beyond what is necessary
Past enrollment
Worst case scenario2
Best case scenario1
Building capacity
DRAFT
Student population
# of school programs, # of students
105,000
100,000
95,000
90,000
85,000
80,000
75,000
70,000
65,000
60,000
55,000
BPS could
reduce its
footprint
based on the
large
difference
between its
enrollment
and its
capacity
Projections
suggest no
additional
space may
be needed in
the future
92,950
38,638
58,530
54,312
48,618
0
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
With students decreasing, the funding for each student must continue
to cover the systems fixed costs including the buildings but also the
principals and school staff which are present at each location
NOTE: This reflects all students in traditional and non-traditional (BPS charter) schools; assumes an average building student capacity based on
BPS facilities analysis from 2009
1 Best case scenario assumes charter cap is maintained and BPS keeps its current share of school-aged students, despite recent decline
2 Worst case scenario assumes BPS continues to lose share at its current rate and loses students to new charters at the same rate as in the past
Education; UMass Donohue Institute;
Declining enrollment coupled with a stable footprint drives a far

lower student-teacher ratio than intended
DRAFT
Average student-teacher ratio1

Ratio of total students to total teachers
Cambridge
Newark
Boston
Winthrop
DC
Atlanta
Revere
Cleveland
Chelsea
Wichita
Omaha
Columbus
Tulsa
Oklahoma City
Tucson
San Francisco
Oakland
LA
Sacramento
11.0
11.3
11.6
13.1
13.3
13.4
13.6
13.9
14.4
15.6
16.3
17.0
17.0
17.3
18.8
19.8
21.8
23.5
While BPS has set

limits that would
allow class sizes to
be 20 or more
students, BPS
operates with ~12
students in a classroom; most peer
districts operate
with more
If BPS were to meet
26.3
peer average, they

would carry ~1,300
fewer teachers, at
a savings of
$90-110M
Peer avg. 16.3

1 These numbers include all students (e.g., SPED, ELL), so equally wrong, but comparable; method of choosing peer set in appendix
Source: Common Core of Data
The average BPS school costs $4.6m to run, excluding support

costs from the Central Office or for ELL or Special Education services
DRAFT
130 total schools
Classroom staff costs

Custodial
support
36 teachers
3,800
"Foundation" to cover school staff
200
Custodial support
166
191
Utilities
260
1 principal, 1
secretary, and
others
418 students
Total cost
Thousands
4,617
1 Does not include benefits; does not separate out SPED or ELL teachers
2 Does not include deferred maintenance, which is estimated to add costs of ~$6m per school
Source: Based on data from BPS Finance and Facilities teams
Consolidating schools could net the district ~$1.7M before

property sales
Prior
cost
Description
Class room
staff
reduction
DRAFT
Cost after Savings

closing
after closing
The average teacher student ratio goes

from 1:12 to 1:13 or 1:162
District adjusts teaching staff accordingly,
with impact on compensation and benefits
$3.8m $2.3-2.8m
$1.0-1.5m
Foundation
for school
staff
District adjusts staff where classrooms can

be consolidated in receiving buildings
$200k
$0
$200k
Average
custodial
support
Custodial support is no longer required at

the building but may increase by 30%1 at
receiving schools
$166k
$50k
$116k
Average
building
maintenance
Maintenance is no longer required but may

increase by 30%1 at receiving schools
$191k
$57k
$134k
The closing school no longer needs to

spend on utilities (including electric, gas,
water, and telecom)
$260k
$0
$260k
Average
utilities
Total
1 Assumed
$1.7- 2.2m
2 The Massachusetts state average is 13.7:1, while high performing states like Minnesota 15.9:1
Source: Team analysis and Office of Finance data
The non-staff savings are consistent with what other systems

have experienced
DRAFT
Four other school districted that consoidated schools

saw an average saving of $580K per school per
year
Milwaukee: $330K per school per year with 20

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

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

closures
Detroit: $593K per school per year with 59 closures
Research into savings has found, How much

money is saved by closing schools depends
in part on the degree to which closings
are accompanied by job reductions.
Source: Closing Public Schools in Philadelphia - Lessons from Six Urban Districts, the
Philadelphia Research Initiative, PEW Charitable Trusts, October 19, 2011
Additionally, BPS could recognize many positive gains beyond

a reduction in operating costs from consolidating schools
Potential gain
True neighborhood
schools
Closure of lowestperforming schools
Better targeting for
Central Office support
Reduction in
transportation complexity
Avoidance of building
maintenance expenditures
Revenues from property

sales
DRAFT
Description
Parents, as evidenced in focus groups, highly value
students remaining with the same neighborhood-based

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

and improve the student experience through school consolidations
Projected run-rate value
$ Millions per year
ILLUSTRATIVE
~10
~15
~35
~10
Set A
Set B
Bottom ~10
schools in
academics could
be identified in
the first set of
schools
~10 closures
could focus on
the costliest
schools in
maintenance
Set C
Additional ~10
closures could
include schools
that are in lowdemand
Total run-rate
cost reduction
In all, BPS could
choose to close
many schools
based on a
combination of
factors
The buildings chosen should be based on a detailed

analysis, including factors such as demand for seats,
academic achievement, academic progress, deferred
maintenance and operation costs, and others
Numbers are illustrative and kept simple (but within range) as they will vary by school
DRAFT
In addition to the
monetary value, BPS will
also gain:
A better-focused Central
Office to serve students
with a path forward on
direction of district and the
size of the Central Office
needed to support it
A smarter allocation of
resources with wider and
deeper resources
allocated
to narrower set of
individual schools to
support students and
improve district-wide
academics
Schools reflecting the
local communities with
more neighborhood
schools and reduced
transportation complexity
BPS may unlock one-time revenues from property sales

that could be reinvested in the capital facilities plan
The average BPS

elementary school property
is worth $4.1M
Altogether, ~30 school

properties may be worth ~
$120M
BPS also has two properties

which have exceedingly high
land value (in Fenway and in
Copley) which could also be
examined for a capital
infusion
Source: Based on a random sampling (n=10) of property values using

City of Boston assessment values
DRAFT
This infusion of capital can

be reinvested into the
system to:
Improve existing schools
in need of maintenance
projects
Special-build capital
projects to improve the
programming capabilities
of existing schools
Build new state-of-the-art
schools
While the new funds will not be easy to unlock, they can bring
the promise of a better future for BPS
DRAFT
Expanded before- and after-school

programming for students in all
schools
~$51-85M in run-rate savings

garnered from closing 30 50
schools
Guaranteed set of electives or

specials at all schools (e.g.,
Physical Education, Art)
Greater portfolio of teacher supports

and resources (e.g., instructional
coaches, first-year mentors,
counselors)
~$120-200M in one-time cash

from property sales of 30 50
schools
Funds to build 1 state-of-the-art

high school (~$30M) and 9 state-ofthe-art lower schools (~$10M each)
While these are possibilities, the school district will have the ability to choose
how it reinvests the money, taking into account the tradeoffs between
consistency across schools and school autonomy
Source: BPS data
DRAFT
A handful of big-city districts have successfully confronted over-extension
problems to concentrate resources on students
Situation
Resolution
The number of students in

CPS had shrunk and the
district was operating at a
large deficit
Decline in student population

by 50% with a growing budget
deficit
Consolidated 59 schools in
2010 and 70 schools in 2011
to arrive at a district of just 72
schools
Greater use of charters,

deteriorating facilities, and the
need for NCLB-mandated
restructuring at some schools
Aggressive school
consolidations from the
superintendent and mayor
created savings but process
fostered distrust
Lots of unused district space in

school buildings and a demand
for more space from charters
Passed an ordinance allowing

unused space to be rented to
charters
Chicago
Detroit
DC
Los
Angeles
Consolidated 53 schools over

3 years, redirecting all
students to a school
academically equal to or better
than their current
While these
school
consolidations
were tough in
the short-term,
many systems
have gone on to
see positive
long-run
academically
and fiscal
benefits1
1 Full case study examples in the appendix

When considering which schools, BPS could

consider a few factors
Academic
performance
Description
Key analyses
BPS currently has many Level 4 and 5 schools

An increase in numbers of these schools could
Programmatic offerings
downgrade the districts overall rating

BPS could factor in academic performance of
schools to improve the overall average rating of
the district
BPS can factor in the schools most in need of

Maintenance
costs
maintenance
This would help avoid those costs and free up
significant funding for investing in other schools
The capital saved may be enough to build entirely
new, state-of-the-art flagship schools in the
coming years
Despite having more seats available in many
School
demand
DRAFT
schools, BPS places an artificial market cap on

the number of students admitted to each school
Many students are turned away from schools that
are in-demand yet not allowed to maximize their
student-teacher ratios or classroom spaces
Students could benefit from filling the highest
demanded schools to the fullest capacity
BPS would then factor in the least demanded
schools, thereby displacing the fewest number of
students; these students could still be guaranteed
an improved seat
aligned with student

needs
Academic performance
data ranking schools in
multiple dimensions
Ranked list of average
on-going maintenance
needs in all schools
Ranked list of deferred
maintenance needs in
all schools
Ranked list of number
of applications for
spots in every school
in the district
Ranked list of current
school occupancy
levels
Ranked list of potential
school capacities
Combining
all of these
factors
could help
the district
make
informed
decisions
about
which
schools
might be
targeted
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Classroom based drivers
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view

Appendix
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Executive Summary
DRAFT
Classrooms, transportation and private tuitions account for 73% of SPED

budget. SPED accounts for ~25% of the BPS budget, meaning these costs together
account for ~20% of the overall BPS budget
Classroom costs are driven by variability in classification and non-inclusion

models. Investigating this variation will give BPS a few levers to focus on programs
that may be over-classifying students as ways to both improve services and limit
unnecessary costs.
SPED placement and transportation decisions are driving BPS transportation

costs. Decisions around tracking students to current zone patterns and which
students are getting transportation as part of their IEPs are contributing to an already
large transportation line item.
Private placement decisions are driving both transportation and tuition costs.
BPS has an opportunity to direct private placement students to better programs while
also decreasing costs associated with these placements.
BPS has begun an ambitious, 12-year plan to move almost all SPED students to
inclusion classrooms. In SY13-14 BPS began a phasing in of inclusion classrooms.
The gradual phasing in will grow SPED costs by up to $8m a year at the roll-out peak,
but an aggressive adherence to phasing out sub / separate classrooms can capture ~
$63m annually and provide significantly better education by year 12.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Special education costs have been rising nationally for

years, but BPS budget is more heavily weighted towards SPED
DRAFT
Special education as % of total per pupil spending1

SPED as % of total PPS
Special education
25
21.0%
20.1%
20
17.0%
18.3%
15
costs have been

rising nationally since
the 60s, capturing a
continually larger
share of per pupil
spending, annually
By 2005, special
education made up
21% of budgets
10
5
In 2014, actual BPS
3.7%
0
1967
1975: passage of
IDEA
1991
1996
2001 2005
expenditures on
special education
were 24% of the
BPS budget
1 Where has the money been going?, Economic Policy Institute, 2010
SPECIAL EDUCATION
73% of special education costs are in three areas:

classroom staff, transportation and private placements
Central

$ 49m
24% of BPS
budget
School
level
$ 136m (51%)
As the biggest three

areas in the biggest
part of the BPS
budget, these areas
are 18% of total
BPS budget
$ 37m
Specialists
(e.g., OTPT,
autism)
$ 24m
Sub/sep
teacher
Sub/sep
aides
$ 64m
$ 23m
DRAFT
Resource
teacher
Compliance
program
support
$ 21m
$ 12m
$ 129m (49%)
Misc. equipOther labor

supports (ad- ment and
clerks, etc.)
$ 6m
$ 3m
Admin. & Misc. expenses Compliance Insurance

(e.g., equipment,
superinclusion,
itinerant
advisory
support)
$ 13m
$ 9m
$ 2m
$ 2m
SPECIAL EDUCATION
In the largest areas of SPED spending, BPS has a few

levers that can be used to control costs
Budget areas and spend
DRAFT
Classroom-based
Key drivers
Classification Ratios
Inclusion Location IEPs
Staffing model
Sub/separate teachers
$64M
$64M
Transportation
$49M
Private placement tuition

$37
$37M
Sub/separate aides
$23M
$23M
Resource teachers
$21
$21M
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view

Appendix
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS SPED classification is above MA average, well above nation

New England
states
State classification rates

% of students in state classified SPED1
% of students in district classified SPED2
Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by State 2009-10
Identification Rate of Students with Disabilities, by MA district 2013
18 .7
17.8
17.4
17.3
17.2
16 .8
16 .7
16 .6
16 .5
15.7
15.6
15.6
15.6
15.0
15.0
14 .8
14 .8
14 .7
14 .7
14 .6
14 .6
14 .3
14 .3
14 .2
14 .1
14 .1
14 .1
14 .0
14 .0
13 .9
13 .8
13 .6
13 .4
13 .1
13 .0
12 .6
12 .5
12 .4
12 .3
12 .3
12 .2
11.9
11.3
11.3
11.2
11.1
10 .7
10 .6
10 .5
10 .3
9 .9
9 .1
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New York
Maine
Wyoming
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Indiana
Vermont
Delaware
New Hampshire
Kentucky
Nebraska
Illinois
South Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Minnesota
Wisconsin
D.C.
Missouri
North Dakota
Oregon
Kansas
South Carolina
Florida
Michigan
Alaska
Iowa
New Mexico
Arkansas
Virginia
United States
Mississippi
Louisiana
Maryland
Tennessee
Connecticut
Washington
Montana
North Carolina
Utah
Hawaii
Alabama
Arizona
Nevada
California
Georgia
Colorado
Idaho
Texas
0
10
15
20
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Massachusetts/
Boston
Group
average
A 2011 Fordham Institute report found
19.5 Boston
16.5 2013 MA Avg.
DRAFT
that Massachusetts has historically

higher SPED numbers due to being a
leader in SPED beginning in the 1970s
their being higher than national
averages is not a reflection of any
state policies, but of state culture
Boston has 19.5% of students in special
education, slightly above the
Massachusetts district average of
16.5% and significantly above the
national average of 13.1%
A reassessment of SPED classification
standards could more accurately
classify students and align the district
with peer aveages
Assuming direct labor aligns with the
number of students, BPS could save
roughly $5M for every one
percentage drop in classification
Aligning with state average could
translate to $10-15M in savings
Aligning with New England average
of 16.2% could capture $15-18M
If we believe MA has moved to far
from proper classification, moving
even closer to the national average
can bring greater savings and more
accurate classifications
1 Fordham Institute, "Shifting trends in Special Education," May 2011

2 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this
includes all 409 districts in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
SWD designation varies little by income statuses of MA districts,
however low income students have a higher likelihood to be classified
Plot of MA districts by Free and Reduced Meal and Disability status1

% of students in district, 2013-2014
% Low income
% of district FARM students
100
90
80
70
A 2014 Massachusetts
study found that lowincome students in the
state were identified as
eligible for special
education services at
substantially higher
rates than non-lowincome students
Boston
60
50
40
Massachusetts
30
20
10
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
% SWD
% students classified with disabilities
1 MA Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2013; this includes all 409 districts in MA, many of which are individual schools; the state
average remains unchanged when just traditional districts are considered
SPECIAL EDUCATION
27 schools are referring students to SPED at rates more than double

the district average, and are classifying students 39% more frequently
DRAFT
Rates of SPED referrals, by school, SY 14-15

% of student population referred for SPED evaluation
Henderson 5-8
Lyon High
Fenway High
Excel High
Boston Arts Academy
Henderson 9-12
English High
Dorchester Academy
TechBoston Academy
Brighton High
Burke High
Charlestown High
Boston Latin
New Mission High
Madison Park High
East Boston High
OBryant Math & Sci.
Quincy Upper School
Community Academy
HS avg.: 1.2% of students

referred for testing

Kilmer K-8 (4-8)
McCormack Middle
MS avg.: 2.3% of students

Henderson 5-8
Rogers Middle
UP Academy Boston
Timilty Middle
Edwards Middle
Irving Middle
Haynes EEC
Manning Elementary
Bates Elementary
Hale Elementary
Trotter
Grew Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Henderson K-4
Ellison/Parks EES
Perkins Elementary
Conley Elementary
Winship Elementary
Everett Elementary
Mendell Elementary
Tynan Elementary
Greenwood Sarah K-8
Channing Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Perry K-8
Hurley K-8
Warren/Prescott K-8
Lyon K-8
Haley Elementary
Tobin K-8
West Zone ELC
Ellis Elementary
King K-8
Shaw Pauline A Elem
Lyndon K-8
Sumner Elementary
Higginson/Lewis K-8
Adams Elementary
Kilmer K-8 (K-3)
Edison K-8
Hernandez K-8
Curley K-8
Russell Elementary
Orchard Gardens K-8
Guild Elementary
Condon
Holmes Elementary
BTU K-8 Pilot
Ohrenberger
Mildred Avenue K-8
Otis Elementary
Murphy K-8
Mather Elementary
Mason Elementary
East Boston EEC
Young Achievers K-8
Jackson/Mann K-8
McKay K-8
Dever Elementary
Lee K-8
Quincy Elementary
Eliot K-8
Kenny Elementary
Up Academy Holland
Taylor Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
ODonnell Elementary
Bradley Elementary
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Hennigan
Mozart Elementary
Mission Hill K-8
The top 20% of BPS

schools are referring
an average of 5.8%
of their students
twice the district
average
This 20% of schools

is classifying 39%
more of those
referred as special
education than the
BPS average
Moving the top 20%

of referring schools
into alignment with
the district could
save $80-90K
annually across
those 27 schools
Investigation and
training at these
schools could move
schools into
alignment with the
district
83% of referrals are

coming from parents
ES avg.: 3.7% of students

BPS avg.: 2.8% of

students referred for
testing
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
2.8%
Source: BPS Office of Special Education data
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Wide variation of classification means over classification could be

costing ~$500K annually, while 34 schools may be under classifying
DRAFT

% of students referred for testing who were classified as SWD
Lyon High
East Boston High
Fenway High
Boston Arts Academy
Brighton High
OBryant Math & Sci.
TechBoston Academy
Boston Latin
Charlestown High
New Mission High
Madison Park High
Henderson 5-8
Excel High
Henderson 9-12
English High
Dorchester Academy
Burke High
Quincy Upper School
Community Academy
HS avg.: 25% of students referred

for testing are classified
Irving Middle
McCormack Middle
Kilmer K-8 (4-8)
Rogers Middle
Henderson 5-8
UP Academy Boston
Timilty Middle
Edwards Middle
MS avg.: 25% of students referred

Henderson K-4
Mendell Elementary
Tobin K-8
BTU K-8 Pilot
East Boston EEC
Kenny Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
Mission Hill K-8
Guild Elementary
ODonnell Elementary
Channing Elementary
Bates Elementary
Winthrop Elementary
Perkins Elementary
Winship Elementary
Hennigan
Conley Elementary
Hurley K-8
Everett Elementary
Chittick Elementary
Warren/Prescott K-8
King K-8
Lee K-8
Sumner Elementary
Trotter
Ellison/Parks EES
West Zone ELC
Higginson/Lewis K-8
Adams Elementary
Kilmer K-8 (K-3)
Holmes Elementary
Young Achievers K-8
Dever Elementary
Quincy Elementary
Bradley Elementary
Tynan Elementary
Mather Elementary
Greenwood Sarah K-8
Ellis Elementary
Jackson/Mann K-8
Eliot K-8
Edison K-8
Lyndon K-8
Murphy K-8
Orchard Gardens K-8
Condon
Haynes EEC
Grew Elementary
Ohrenberger
McKay K-8
Taylor Elementary
Manning Elementary
Russell Elementary
Curley K-8
Perry K-8
Up Academy Holland
Hale Elementary
Lyon K-8
Haley Elementary
Shaw Pauline A Elem
Hernandez K-8
Mildred Avenue K-8
Otis Elementary
Mason Elementary
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Mozart Elementary
ES avg.: 50% of students referred

We feel subtle pressure

sometimes to avoid classifying
students BPS teacher
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
41%
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
20% of BPS schools

classified 87% of
referred students
120 students
The schools with high
classification rates
also are referring
3.5% of their
students, 21%
above the district
average
Moving the top 20%
of classifying schools
into alignment with
the district average
could save
$400-600K annually
across those 27
schools
Between Feb and
Sept, the 34 schools
with 0% classified
had 216 students
referred some
schools may be
under classifying
100
BPS avg.
SPECIAL EDUCATION
There is a signification correlation of higher referral rates and higher

classification rates
DRAFT

Classification rates
% of referred students classified
100
Schools that refer
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
higher percentages
of their students are
also likely to
classify referred
students at higher
rates as well
While the
correlation is not
overwhelming, it
indicates that there
could be cultures
of overreliance on
special education
in some school
communities
0
0
10
Referral rates
% of total student body referred for testing
SPECIAL EDUCATION
Communication is the leading single category of classification, a

frequently misused diagnosis and an opportunity for further study
Types of SPED classification, % of SPED students
with this classification, out of 100%
29.4%
28.2%
27.5%
26.0%
18.1%
17.9%
17.0%
17.0%
12.8%
12.6%
12.7%
11.5%
11.4%
12.2%
8.0%
9.3%
10.2%
10.5%
10.2%
10.8%
3.0% 4.1%
4.6%
2.1%
2.1%
2.0%
4.3%
3.9%
3.6%
2012-2013
2013-2014
Source: BPS Office of Special Education
2014-2015
11.0%
9.0%
11.0%
1.0%
9.0%
Mass.
2013-14
Specific Learning Disabilities
Intellectual
Communication
Health
Developmental Delay
(ages 3-9 only)
Physical
Emotional
All others
Autism
BPS distribution is mostly aligned with the

state, with some potential opportunity in
Intellectual classification
Communication is the leading single

classification and is a disorder frequently
applied to students who are ELL or have
simply not received quality instruction
Looking at rates of communication
classification at various schools could present
opportunities to reclassify students or move
them into general education classrooms,
identifying 10% of communication
classifications as misidentified cases could
save $500-700K
10.0%
6.0%
DRAFT
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS policies around special education staffing are aligned with

higher costs and not the most effective outcomes for students
Area of
opportunity
Description
Potential opportunity
Paraprofessional quality is highly

variable and research suggests
they do not add quality to student
experience
Resource room teachers are

currently used primarily as pullouts
Resource room teachers can be staffed as push-in

teachers, providing additional resources in classrooms
and lessening the need for paras
Special services like OTPT are

currently very expensive and not
managed closely
Employ assistants under supervision of specialists, can

save 40-50% ($8-10M) at no diminishment of services
Outsourcing related services can save up to 50% (~
$10M), with no diminished services1
Better scheduling for specialists can identify efficiencies
Paraprofessionals
Resource
room teachers
Related
services
Staff to avg.
daily
attendance
DRAFT
Attendance for severely

handicapped students is very low,
but BPS staffs to full attendance
As BPS phases in inclusion, phase out paras

Outsourcing paraprofessional services can net $9-11M
savings, with no diminished services1
Eliminating paras in favor of 3 teachers for every 2
classrooms can improve services and could save
money if implemented correctly
BPS has the ability to staff to average daily ratios, with

no diminishment of services in cases where teachers
are underutilized
1 "Something has to change: Rethinking Special Education," Levenson, 2011

SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS has additional opportunities outside the classroom around

policy and contract negotiations to improve SPED services while
also lowering costs
DRAFT
Area of
opportunity Description
Union contracts require SPED clerks and typists, a position intended

Clerks
SPED
Coordinators
for a world where IEPs were not electronic
Currently 73 on the books, at a salary of $2.75M

By contract, SPED coordinators are not permitted to also be teachers,
they must be separate
Negotiating a split role can improve student services, while also

increasing the efficiency of SPED teams at schools
In an effort to mimic feeder patterns across the district, SPED patterns

SPED
zone
alignment
have forced opening of a handful of programs that are subpar and

prevents steering students to the best SPED services available
Abandoning SPED zone alignment can potentially improve student

services, while closing a few poorly performing programs
Bus
attendants
Budgets are occasionally misused to get SPED bus attendants on

buses that need general education monitors; a review of attendants
could reveal bus routes that do not need them
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view

Appendix
SPECIAL EDUCATION
A third of district IEPs require door-to-door transport, but wide

variations by school identify schools to research further
DRAFT
IEPs with transportation

% of SPED students receiving door-to-door transportation as part of IEP, by school
Dr. Catherine Ellison / Rosa Parks Early Education School
Dennis C. Haley Elementary School
Mattahunt Elementary School
James J. Chittick Elementary School
Joseph P. Tynan Elementary School
West Zone Early Learning Center
Samuel W. Mason Elementary School
George H. Conley Elementary School
William Ellery Channing Elementary School
Roger Clap Innovation School
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart Elementary School
Oliver W. Holmes Elementary School
David A. Ellis Elementary School
Martin Luther King, Jr. K-8 School
Dr. William W. Henderson Inclusion K-4
East Boston Early Education Center
Charles H. Taylor Elementary School
Sarah Greenwood K-8 School
Edward Everett Elementary School
Mission Hill K-8 School
Manassah E. Bradley Elementary School
Mary Lyon K-8 School
Harriet A. Baldwin Early Learning Pilot Academy
Jackson/Mann K-8 School
Joseph P. Manning Elementary School
Rev. Dr. Michael E. Haynes Early Education Center
While some schools have

concentrated programs where
busing is likely a part of all
IEPs, the distribution in
variation by school points to
opportunities to revisit IEPs
for needs
Investigation and training at

these schools could move
schools into alignment with
the district
At an average of $1,500 a
student for transportation,
students receiving door-todoor transportation represent
$4.5M annually
Harvard/Kent Elementary School

Higginson / Lewis K-8 School
Mildred Avenue K-8 School
Thomas J. Kenny Elementary School
John Eliot K-8 School
Oliver H. Perry K-8 School
Samuel Adams Elementary School
Warren/Prescott K-8 School
Mary Lyon Pilot High School
Joyce Kilmer K-8 School (Grades k-3)
Charlestown High School
Orchard Gardens K-8 School
Josiah Quincy Elementary School
Ludwig van Beethoven School
Dudley Street Neighborhood Charter School
Ellis Mendell Elementary School
Charles Sumner Elementary School
Richard J. Murphy K-8 School
Patrick J. Kennedy Elementary School
Up Academy Holland
William Monroe Trotter School
William Blackstone Elementary School
Curley K-8 School
Phineas Bates Elementary School
Mario Umana Academy
Dorchester Academy
Boston Community Leadership Academy
Thomas A. Edison K-8 School
Boston Teachers Union K-8 Pilot School
John W. McCormack Middle School
Mather Elementary School
Paul A. Dever Elementary School
William H. Ohrenberger School
Henry Dearborn School
Young Achievers School of Science & Math
Josiah Quincy Upper School
Dr. William W. Henderson Inclusion 5-8
Patrick Lyndon Pilot School
Donald McKay K-8 School

Elihu Greenwood Leadership Academy
William E. Russell Elementary School
Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School
Washington Irving Middle School
The English High School
James F. Condon School
James Otis Elementary School
John D. Philbrick Elementary School
TechBoston Academy
Joseph J. Hurley K-8 School
Dr. William W. Henderson Inclusion 9-12
Community Academy of Science and Health
James W. Hennigan School
Brighton High School
East Boston High School
Excel High School
Franklin D. Roosevelt Elementary School (Grades 2-8)
F. Lyman Winship Elementary School
Clarence R. Edwards Middle School
Madison Park Technical Vocational High School
Curtis Guild Elementary School
Another Course to College
Maurice J. Tobin K-8 School
UP Academy Charter School of Boston
John F. Kennedy Elementary School
Franklin D. Roosevelt Elementary School (Grades K1-1)
Fenway High School
James P. Timilty Middle School
Muriel S. Snowden International School at Copley
John D. OBryant School of Mathematics and Science
New Mission High School
Boston Latin School
William Barton Rogers Middle School
Boston Arts Academy
Jeremiah E. Burke High School
John Winthrop Elementary School
5.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0
Source: BPS transportation data
SPECIAL EDUCATION
DRAFT
20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while
~60% of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away
BPS bus routes

1,575
1,263
312
20% of BPS routes have

fewer than 5 students and
those routes collectively
transport 3% of the students
BPS transports
The average student

BPS students riding buses
26,923
748
27,671
receiving transportation
has 0.16 mile walk to their
bus stop
59% of students are

classified as bus stop (i.e.,
not door-to-door) riders and
have a walk of less than a
quarter mile
59% of the transportation

Routes with
5+ students
Source: BPS data
Routes with
<5 students
Total BPS
bus routes
budget is $67M
SPECIAL EDUCATION
78 of the 81 SPED private placement routes carry fewer

than 5 students
DRAFT
BPS private SPED bus routes

81
78 routes, or 96% of BPS

private SPED routes have
transport 140 students
78
3
BPS private SPED students riding buses

156
140
16
Routes with
5+ students
Source: BPS data
Routes with
<5 students
There are a number of
private placements with poor

reputations, an effort to
concentrate private
placements in quality
programs could improve
student services and limit
costs
Total BPS
bus routes
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view

Appendix
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS has 93 private placement sites, of which

13 sites account for 50% of tuition dollars
DRAFT
Private placements
$, millions, spent on tuition at each private placement site
May Inst
Easter Seal NH
JRI
Home Total
Perkins
League Sch
N.E.C.C.
Compass Emer.
Protestant Guild
Boston Higashi
Latham
Walker Home
Compass
Learning Cntr Deaf
Judge Baker
RCS
MAB
Wediko Summer
Nashoba Learning Group
Franciscan/Hope Aca
Crotched Mountain
Cardinal Cushing
Seaport
Franciscan/KDS
Learning Prep / Little Peoples
Lighthouse
So. Shore Collab
SEEM Collaborative
Brandon
Farr Academy
Amego
Kids are People
Stetson
Crystal Springs
Gifford
Judge Rotenburg
N.E. Pedi
St. Anns
Schools for Child
Cotting
CHARMS Collab
Hillcrest
Melmark
Walker Home Beacon High
C.C. Braintree
Italian Home
Germaine Lawrence
Plymouth Rehab
Milestones
Crossroads
LABB Collab
Carroll Sch
Valley Collab
YOU, Inc. Cottage H
Fall River Deaconess
Franklin Perkins
New England Academy
Whitney Academy
Futures Clinic
Integrated Learning
Eagleton School
Murphy & Dwyer
Landmark
Bay Cove
Stevens
RF Kennedy
Evergreen
Creest Coll
McLean
Boston College
Granite Academy
Beverly School
Kenndey Donovan
Chamberlain
Shore Collab
FLLAC Ed Collaborative
Bridge G Stanley Hall
Willow Hill
Devereux
Seven Hills Groton
Pilgrim Area Coll
READS Collab
North Shore Spec
Wayside
South Coast Collab
Wachusett Regional
Southeastern MA Ed Col
Wediko Res
So. Worcester
Education Cooperative
Waltham Public
Central Mass Sped Collab
$37M1 is spent on private
placements each year, on 346

students, $107K per student
Private placement spending has
a long tail, with 89% of sites

accounting for 50% of
spending and 64% of
students
Many sites require private
transportation, a cost of $9M a
year, with 78 routes
transporting just 140
students
Consolidating students at high

quality sites can improve
student outcomes and save
transportation costs
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
1 Includes transportation
Source: BPS data
SPECIAL EDUCATION
There are a few concentrated areas that are triggering private

placement, which present opportunities to adjust or drop placements
DRAFT
Private placement triggers, 2013-2015

# of private placements by cause
117
Dept. of Children & Families (DCF)
53
Court settlements
IEPs
Temporaray placements
Dept. of Youth Services (DYS)
Dept. of Mental Health (DMH)
Move In
Mediation
New to Boston
92% of placements
are from DCF
placements and court
settlements
DCF adds ~$2M

annually
Settlements add ~
$1.6M
Better coordination
with DCF could
improve placements
for students and limit
transportation and
needless tuition costs
More tactical placements can lessen the intensity of transportation needs
Source: BPS Office of Private Placement data
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Transportation
Private placement
Inclusion view

Appendix
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS is moving to special education inclusion, a strong

research-based decision that will benefit students with disabilities
DRAFT
Inclusion is good for both special

education and general education students
BPS will move to full inclusion as a

district by 2019
A 2014 state of Massachusetts report
BPS aspires to move up to 80% of SWD
found that across the state, students with

disabilities who had full inclusion
placements appeared to outperform
similar students who were not included to
the same extent in general education
classrooms with their non-disabled peers.1
A 2013 BPS study found that general

education students in inclusion classrooms
performed 1.5x better on ELA MCAS and
1.6x better on Math MCAS2
BPS had just 57% of SWD in inclusion

classrooms in 2013
into inclusion classrooms, leaving just

those with disabilities that make inclusion
inappropriate in substantially separate
classrooms, movement of roughly
2,500 students
The BPS plan is to create more inclusion

classrooms at the K-1 and K-2 levels, to
grow inclusion from the bottom, while
moving K-5 classrooms into inclusion a
network at a time, at the rate of two
networks a year, over five years,
phasing in fully over twelve years
1 Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: A Synthesis Report," August 2014
2 OESESS City Council presentation, June 2014
SPECIAL EDUCATION
The move to full inclusion is being phased in over 12 years
DRAFT
The move towards inclusion at BPS is underway in the current school year
A phasing-in of inclusion by BPS network (e.g., A-G) begins next year with Network
A, with two more networks every year for the following three years
Each phase-in begins at K0 and grows in network every year, over 8 years, until
the network has full, K-8 inclusion; high schools will be phased in on a different
timetable that is still in the planning stages
Costs outlays in the initial years will be substantial, with substantial savings
coming in the out years that will offset and eventually pay for the entire
roll-out by the end of the roll-out
Savings will only be captured with aggressive adherence to inclusion model,

which involves closing down sub / separate classrooms
A note on this section: The Office of Special Education built costs for
SY15-16, but has not done long-term cost / benefit analyses. This
section is an early approximation of the adoption of inclusion,
performed with broad estimates from the Office of Special Education and
other experts and represents only a rough estimation of outcomes
SPECIAL EDUCATION
BPS will phase-in inclusion by network, over a 12 year period,

adding as many as 140 classrooms per year at peak of roll-out
DRAFT
Additional classrooms1
# inclusion classrooms added annually
Wave 1
Net. D
Net. A
Net. E
Net. B
Net. F
Net. C
Net. G
141
139
135
133
BPS began moving
107
95
85
73
75
50
38
27
25
towards inclusion in
SY 14-15 with
wave 1, but
recast plan for rollout to network-bynetwork process
beginning in
SY15-16
In each network the
roll-up will begin at
K1 and roll up to
8th grade over 8
years
SY14- 15-16 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27
15
Current
year
1 This roll-out is estimated, as final plans identifying specific classrooms are still in process
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff
SPECIAL EDUCATION
There are significant short-term costs, with $1.4M budgeted for

SY15-16
DRAFT
SY15-16 inclusion transition costs

Area
District-wide
grade 1
Network A,
grades 2-5
Additional resources
28 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
Costs
$30K each = $840K
10 1.0 FTE
paraprofessionals
$30K each = $300K
3 1.0 FTE inclusion

specialists
$90K each = $270K
Total cost: $1.41M
Network A transition will target 9 schools for full inclusion, creating 50

new inclusion seats, in addition to students transitioned
Additionally, 11 schools will get just a grade 1 inclusion transition,

bringing 135 new inclusion seats on-line, in addition to those transitioned
The full costing of inclusion has not yet been performed by BPS
SPED offices, so granular projections of costs are not yet available
Source: BPS Office of Special Education budget presentation, 2014
SY 15-16 will bring

online 38 new
inclusion
classrooms, each of
which will require an
additional
paraprofessional
In the first few years

of inclusion
transition, there will
be no cost savings,
as there will be a
delay in BPS ability
to take off-line sub/
separate classrooms
SPECIAL EDUCATION
and longer-term costs growing to $7M a year with total,

10-year investment of $42M
DRAFT
Paras
Inclusion
specialists
FTEs1
Additional
# FTEs of each type added per year
73
38
3
34
107
34
As the number
141
139
135
133
95
85
34
75
50
25
SY15- 16-17 17-18 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 24-25 25-26 26-27
$, thous.
16
Additional 1,140 2,190 3,210 4,230 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500
750
para cost
Additional
specialist
cost
270 3,060 3,060 3,060
-At peak- roll-out,

- BPS will
- be adding $7.3M in one year
Additional
annual
spend
1,410 5,250 6,270 7,290 4,170 4,050 3,990 2,850 2,550 2,250 1,500
750
Total
model
spend
1,410 6,660 12,930 20,220 24,390 28,440 32,430 35,280 37,830 40,080 41,580 42,330
of inclusion
classrooms
grow, the
annual need to
support them
will as well
By the end of
the inclusion
roll-out, BPS
will have
added ~1100
paras and ~115
specialists to
schools
Annual cost
additions over
the period will
average ~$3M,
spiking to as
much as $6-7M
in SY18-19
Source: Interviews with BPS Office of Special Education staff
SPECIAL EDUCATION
with annual savings that outstrip annual costs by SY18-19
DRAFT
SPED spend on substantially separate classroom support1

$, millions
Sub / separate teacher
Sub / separate aide
63
63
63
57
SPED resource teacher

SPED itinerant teacher
51
41
20
20
$, mil.
Annual
sub /
separate
costs
Annual
inclusion
costs
Total
SPED
budget
Impact of
inclusion
20
20
20
20
18
18
16
33
13
26
21
19
19
19
17
15
12
10
10
10
FY14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
98.8
79.1
63.2
50.6
40.5
32.4
25.9
20.7
16.6
122.0 122.0 122.0 109.8

1.71
1.41
16
13
8
8
8
7
6
17
5
5
5
13
11
9
4
3
3
4
4
3 3
3 3
As critical mass
of inclusion
classrooms grow,
a tipping point will
occur allowing
elimination of
sub/separate
classrooms at an
increasing rate
The $326M costs

of inclusion over
13 years will be
fully covered by
the final year
(SY26-27)
6.66 12.93 20.22 24.39 28.44 32.43 35.28 37.83 40.08 41.58 42.33
123.7 123.4 128.7 122.7 119.0 103.4
(1.71) (1.41) (6.66) (0.73)
91.7
83.0
75.8
70.2
66.0
62.3
58.9
By the end of the

roll out, BPS could
be saving ~$60M
annually
2.96 18.55 30.32 38.97 46.24 51.79 56.01 59.70 63.09
Source: Decline in costs scaled to expected decline in classrooms,
determined by interviews with BPS staff and outside experts
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education

Appendix
DISTRICT ORGANIZATION AND PERFORMANCE
Executive summary
DRAFT
BPS has key organizational strengths. At the present, each department is internally wellaligned and works as a team to accomplish its goals; additionally, other than at the top level,
there is a standard manager-employee ratio and generally balanced organizational
structures.
Among peer district BPS has a smaller student to staff ratio. When benchmarked against
other, large districts, BPS still supports a non-classroom teaching staff that is larger as a ratio
than its peers, hinting at further opportunities to streamline
There are also potential areas for improvement that BPS can focus on to be more effective at
serving the students and the city at-large. For example, clear, focused goals could be set from
the top of the district with clarity so that the departments can rally around and support those
goals. Additionally, departments could be sure that KPIs track progress toward goals and are
useful for strategic departmental decision-making. With clearer goals and a KPI structure in
place, each department would be made aware of adjacent goals in other departments, and then
collaboration can be improved. Finally, the Central Office would benefit from a better human
capital system to help on-board, train, develop, meaningfully evaluate, and ultimately retain
its best people.
Improving BPS organization would help to further unlock its Central Offices potential.
The superintendent would have more clarity into the daily performance of the district against its
goals, leading to better accountability. Parents, students, and teachers would have clearer
points of contact for concerns or questions. Collaboration would help ensure that
programming occurs in a more integrated way to better support students.
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72; One-on-one Cabinet Leader

interviews; Org chart analysis
The Central Office organization is well-structured pyramid with

the exception of the top layer of management
Total number of managers and individual
contributors in each organizational layer
n
n-1
n-2
Average number of direct reports for

managers in each organizational layer
Managers
Individual Contributors
13
40
52
n-4
overall
13
119
13.0
n
n-1
2.5
33
n-2
n-3
DRAFT
3.7
148
5.6
n-3
291
472
overall
4.0
Observations
BPS has an average of 4.0 direct reports per manager (2-15 across departments)
Departments vary in how many Assistant Directors they have (0-9 per department)
While the pyramid looks mostly standard, there may be too many direct-reports at top level
Source: Analysis of Org Charts from many departments; does not
represent Comp. Student Services Org Charts
BPS is within range of peers, but still supports a lower than average
student to non-teaching staff ratio
DRAFT
Average student-staff ratio

Ratio of total students to total teachers, 2011
Peer avg. 8.5
Cleveland
Newark
Columbus
Omaha
DC
Tulsa
Atlanta
Boston
Wichita
Oklahoma City
Tucson
LA
San Francisco
Oakland
Sacramento
Source: U.S. Department of Education, 2011
4.9
5.8
Moving BPS
to the peer
set average
could reduce
~500 FTEs
of district
staff
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.6
7.8
8.4
8.4
9.5
10.5
11.0
11.0
14.3
Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

and less bureaucracy in the Central Office
Most experienced values
1. Internal Politics (41)
2. Bureaucracy (25)
4. Lack of shared purpose (14);
Customer focus (14)
Most desired values

1. Being collaborative (39)
3. Excellence (28)
4. Equity (21)
Least experienced values

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

1. Inconsistent (40)
2. Bureaucracy (37)
3. Slow moving (31)
4. Silos (30);
Internal Politics (30)
DRAFT
Therefore, BPS could consider

Defining what accountability looks like for its Central Office
Reducing the internal politics and bureaucracy currently experienced
Source: Values and Alignment Survey of BPS central office staff (n=72)
Goal alignment within departments is strong, but there is not strong

consensus on what the districts goals are
When we set our goals as a department, we make
sure that we start with the districts goals and then
determine what ours should be. Cabinet Department
leader
I dont even know what the districts or
superintendents goals are [] its too unclear. Our
only mission is to avoid lawsuits. Cabinet
Department leader
Strengths
The employees in every department seem very well
aligned with their departmental goals
A few departments ensure that their departmental
goals tie directly to the districts goals
Areas for improvement
There is no consensus across the departments about
what the districts goals actually are
Some goals are shared by multiple departments (e.g.,
adjusting the liaison structure to better serve the
schools) but there is little-to-no collaboration in
accomplishing these goals leading to poor returns
Great examples in departments:
Academics Ensures that initiatives and goals directly
support one of the districts goals
Source: Values and Alignment Survey (n=72); One-on-one Cabinet
Leader interviews
DRAFT
Results from BPS Central Office Survey

Departmental goals align with districts top goals
and priorities, number of respondents
33
20
7
7
5
Direct-report employees well aligned with my top

goals and priorities, number of respondents
15
3
21
Strong accountability for reaching individual

goals, number of respondents
33
10
Completely
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
16
Completely
agree
While every department collects data, few are collecting meaningful

data and using it to inform decision-making and strategy
DRAFT
Strengths
Every department has some form of metrics being tracked and
Departmental KPIs are used to reflect departments

progress and effectiveness, number of respondents
collected
A few departments can draw a direct link from KPIs to
20
performance to strategy to diagnose how the department is doing

and make adjustments to better reach departmental goals
17
14
14
Most departments, while collecting data, are not collecting data
that would help inform strategic decision-making; even more,

most departments dont even attempt to use that data in their
decision-making
Some departments rely on annual student performance data as a

KPI, despite the low frequency and the lack of defined causality
Departmental KPIs are actively used to make changes in
departments strategy to better reach goals,
number of respondents
23
Many departments believe avoiding lawsuits is a meaningful

KPI, even though it doesnt help make decisions
OIIT uses dashboards that show real-time performance and

can help diagnose problems and adjust course as necessary
14
15
13
sets goals based on those metrics
Engagement feedback is collected from constituencies at every
Completely
disagree
SPED team takes ownership for a collection of metrics and

opportunity and used to dynamically improve strategy
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree

Leader interviews
We collect data, but we dont use it for strategy; we know our

strategy is good because everyone on my team agrees and
knows its good. Cabinet Department leader
On-boarding is decentralized and inconsistent, and professional

development is addressed differently by each department
I know Human Capital needs to focus on teachers, but
somebody needs to focus on training and retaining my people,
too! Cabinet Department leader
Since I receive no support and I dont know that it is worth my
time, an employees professional development is his/her own
responsibility [] with my oversight and support. Cabinet
Department leader
DRAFT

Descriptions of departmental on-boarding,
Percent of Cabinet members
Decent,
Mostly mentorship 45
36
Weak or non-existant
18
Strengths
Exceptional, formal program
Every department offers some form of professional development,

even if its just ad-hoc (e.g., conference attendance)
There is no formal on-boarding and most departments use
Employees in my department receive exceptional training

and professional development, number of respondents
20
mentorship and learn-as-you-go for all new employees
20
Some departments have created robust orientation programs,

but lack of collaboration keeps these program from being shared
across the Central Office
Professional development is not targeted nor actively considered;
10
12
10
department chairs feel they have no time to commit to thinking

about it
Engagement Department has a robust on-boarding program

where new employees learn about all aspects of the Central
Office, learn essential skills, and work together to create
workplans for their first months
Leader interviews
Completely
disagree
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree
While informal feedback is strong in departments, a strong culture of

feedback and evaluation is missing in the Central Office
Strengths

Regular informal evaluations and feedback that helps
in day-to-day work, number of respondents
14
14
17
19
Receiving
superior to direct-report
Some departments have excellent feedback loops including

upward feedback and peer feedback
22
Very few department chairs use data to support evaluations

There is no consistency around formal evaluations: all
Regular formal evaluations that encourage or redirect

behaviors, number of respondents
23
12
17
12
16
1
Completely
disagree
departments use the evaluation from the Circular; most hate it

but some modify it; some believe its mandatory and others
believe its optional
OIIT strong culture of 360 degree feedback; evaluations that

are data-driven and informed by performance
Receiving
Very few department chairs feel they are receiving adequate

evaluation (formal or informal) and desire more
12
Giving
Every department has a strong culture of informal feedback from
Every department conducts formal evaluations
Giving
DRAFT
13
Neither
agree nor
disagree
Completely
agree

Leader interviews
I feel like I have never received meaningful feedback and Ive

not once been evaluated since starting my job. Cabinet
Department leader
I use the evaluation because I have to but it does not make
sense for my people and is a worthless exercise [] I dont use
any other tool either. Cabinet Department leader
An improved organization will benefit BPS staff and students
DRAFT
Long-term potential impact
Central Office Staff

Clearer role descriptions, goals, and reporting
structures leading to more efficiency and faster
delivery of support to schools
and students
Tighter alignment with and accountability for district
goals
Stronger professional development and goal-oriented
evaluation and feedback
Students, Parents, and Teachers

Clearer points of contact and sources for information
and support for parents and teachers
No students falling through the cracks left by

misaligned support structures in the Central Office
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance

Appendix
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF FOCUS
BPS has other areas where focus could amount to cost savings
Description
Food
A
services
Professional development is diffused,

disorganized and misses opportunities for
coordination
Students on average have a walk to their

bus stops of just 0.16 miles
3% of students are currently running 20% of
routes
B Personnel
Transport
C
ation
MainD
tenance
Source: BPS data
55% of FNS costs are food

Cafeteria sites are more cost effective than
satellite sites
Highly variable school participation offers
revenue opportunities
Custodial services are inconsistent and

require a large FTE base
Incentives not aligned with contractors for
preventative maintenance
Savings
opportunities
$ Millions per year
~$5-8M
TBD
~$20-60M
~$1-4M
DRAFT
In addition to cost
savings, a review in
these areas could yield:
Better food options
for kids. BPS
cafeterias perform
better in taste tests
than contractors
Better PD for
schools. More
coherence at less
expense.
Fewer BPS bus lines.
Fewer routes makes
for an easier system to
manage.
Improved building
maintenance. Aligned
incentives with
contractors can
improve preventative
work.
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance

Appendix
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Food services has pushed costs down, but revenues lag

peers significantly
Cost per meal
$, per meal, 2012-13
77
101
16
45
26
62
58
25
33
1
56
5
20
19
13
9
67
3
14
52
8
54
34
30
M
39
79
21
28
48
66
37
4
44
41
12
23
57
55
10
35
71
18
47
2
43
7
49
6
DRAFT
Food services costs

% of revenue, 2012-13
2.16
2.22
2.46
2.47
2.51
2.52
2.58
2.64
2.69
2.76
2.79
2.83
2.84
2.85
2.89
2.89
2.92
2.97
3.02
3.06
3.08
3.09
3.09
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.26
3.26
3.27
3.39
3.41
3.41
3.42
3.49
3.51
3.60
3.61
3.63
3.63
3.64
3.70
3.71
3.71
3.81
3.82
3.84
3.93
3.96
BPS has gotten costs down on a per meal basis
4.57
20
45
19
33
62
4
13
9
34
79
12
39
21
101
14
10
47
3
28
6
5
56
18
M
16
58
44
8
48
66
55
67
41
1
7
35
43
52
30
71
2
37
57
49
26
54
77
Source: Operations department performance management; Council of Great City Schools
71.44%
Boston
79.52%
83.12%
Districts
83.44%
88.02%
Median
88.22%
91.99%
92.39%
92.58%
93.52%
93.63%
94.08%
94.28%
95.17%
95.32%
95.40%
95.57%
95.61%
BPS is not
97.01%
97.03%
getting the
97.15%
data
98.41%
tracking it
98.57%
needs to be
98.57%
successful
98.57%
and drive
98.68%
revenues
99.12%
99.34%
99.56%
99.62%
100.00%
100.25%
100.35%
100.98%
102.13%
102.94%
103.33%
103.85%
103.94%
104.85%
105.40%
105.53%
105.89%
110.45%
113.33%
120.81%
121.51%
ADDITIONAL AREAS
78% of FNS budget goes to food and direct labor at school sites
DRAFT
Food
Food and direct labor are >3/4 of

FNS costs
% of FNS 2014-15 cost projections
($41M)
Direct food labor
Overhead
Labor
Direct labor and food costs of BPS

cafeteria sites and Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
16.6
14.9
23%
Food
9.3
23%
12.8
55%
7.3
2.1
Caf.
($M)
Source: FNS data
Sat.
($M)
The current total forecast for 2014-2015 is $41M, $6M of which are fixed
costs and so shared across cafeterias and satellite sites
Current forecasts project $37M in revenue this year, a shortfall of $4M
Schools also pay $2.6M for school-based lunch monitor positions, not
reflected in the overall cost
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS food services are currently less expensive, than using a

contractor
DRAFT
Cafeterias
Satellites
Direct labor and food costs

of BPS cafeteria sites and
Whitson satellite sites
$, millions
16.6
Student
population, by
school type
#, thousands
Cost per
student
population
$
32.7
607
14.9
506
24.6
Total cost
($M)
Source: FNS data
Student
population
(#,000)
Annual
cost per
enrolled
student ($)
Whitson satellite
sites are less
efficient than
cafeteria sites,
costing 20% more
per student, per year
If facilities were
available, moving to
cafeteria sites could
save $1-3M
As part of the capital
planning process, a
cost/benefits
analysis should be
conducted to see
how investing in
new, central
cafeterias could
save costs
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS has better participation rates than peers, but still leaves $5M
on the table
Overall meal participation1
% of students in state classified SPED
45
25
39
19
3
21
26
18
33
20
2
66
28
58
30
54
41
10
16
67
79
M
6
23
12
47
37
48
14
62
71
44
56
5
8
13
101
4
52
55
7
1
77
Districts
Boston
Median
81.03%
69.35%
60.34%
56.26%
55.88%
55.17%
52.24%
50.79%
50.36%
50.05%
46.77%
46.34%
44.55%
43.82%
42.88%
40.35%
37.53%
36.13%
35.70%
35.69%
34.55%
34.16%
33.77%
33.40%
31.96%
31.23%
28.78%
27.03%
26.23%
25.90%
25.71%
24.91%
24.34%
24.19%
24.03%
23.40%
23.23%
22.85%
22.35%
21.58%
still trails best in class by

nearly 50%
If BPS were able to get
participation up in both
categories by 10% (57% at
breakfast and 78% at lunch), it
would capture $5M in revenues
Meal participation by site2

% of students purchasing on average
Caf.
72
45
8 10 12 14 16 18 0.2022 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 0.40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 0.6062 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 0.80 82
1 Council of Great City Schools, 2012-2013
While in the top of peers, BPS
14.89%
14.05%
10.74%
0
DRAFT
Sat.
65
49
Breakfast
participation
Lunch
participation
2 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014

ADDITIONAL AREAS
School participation is highly variable, targeting the low performers

would drive revenues
DRAFT
Lunch participation1
% of students buying lunch
Elihu Greenwood Leadership Academy
Dearborn
UP ACADEMY DORCHESTER
East Boston Early Childhood Center
The English High
Hugh Roe ODonnell
Paul A Dever
Orchard Gardens
Mildred Avenue Middle School
Michael J Perkins
Dudley Street Neighborhood Charter School
Henry L Higginson
UP Academy Holland
John Winthrop
Clarence R Edwards Middle
Wm B Rogers Middle
Mario Umana Middle School Academy
John F Kennedy
David A Ellis
Sarah Greenwood
Martin Luther King Jr Mid
Harvard-Kent
James W Hennigan
Charles H Taylor
Dr. Catherine Ellison-Rosa Parks Early Ed School
Donald Mckay
Expulsion Alt School (COUNSELING INTERVENTION CTR.)
Mattahunt
Lee Academy @ Fifield
HIGGINSON/LEWIS K-8
Haynes Early Education Center
MCKINLEY ELEM & MCKINLEY SE Acad
William E Russell
John W McCormack
Henry Grew
William Monroe Trotter
TECH BOSTON ACADEMY (6-12)
Joseph Lee
James Condon Elementary
William Ellery Channing
Jackson Mann
Washington Irving Middle
Josiah Quincy
Mary E Curley Middle
Curtis Guild
UP ACADEMY BOSTON & Middle School Acad
East Boston High
O W Holmes
KENNEDY HEALTH CAREERS (9-10)
Edward Everett
Nathan Hale
Joseph P Tynan
Lilla G. Frederick Middle School
Samuel W Mason
James Otis
James P Timilty Middle
Blackstone
Rafael Hernandez
Jeremiah E Burke High
Samuel Adams
George H Conley
Charlestown High
Quincy Upper High - Washington St
Young Achievers
MADISON PARK HIGH
Mather
William H Ohrenberger
Thomas J Kenny
Thomas A Edison Jr High
Maurice J Tobin
Joseph J Hurley
Winship Elementary
Patrick J Kennedy
Compass School
South Boston High
MCKINLEY MIDDLE
Manassah E Bradley
James J Chittick
Franklin D Roosevelt
Franklin D Roosevelt Lower Elementary School
Roger Clap
Richard J Murphy
HYDE PARK EDUCATION CENTER
Agassiz
MCKINLEY PREP HIGH
Lyon K-8
Phineas Bates
Lyndon
Dr. William Henderson Upper
Quincy Upper School
Ellis Mendell
Boston Teachers Union School
Charles Sumner
Boston International High School
Beethoven
Dennis C Haley
Mozart
Brighton High
Baldwin Early Learning Center
Dorchester Academy
John D Philbrick
Boston Latin
West Roxbury School
Dr. William Henderson Lower
Carter Developmental Center
BOSTON ADULT TECHNICAL ACADEMY (BATA)
Joseph P Manning
KILMER K-8 LOWER (K1-3)
LYON 9-12
ABCD, INC
Warren-Prescott
KILMER K-8 UPPER (4-8)
Eliot Elementary
Boston Arts Academy
Oliver Hazard Perry
Greater Egleston Community High School
Snowden International School at Copley
Community Academy
KENNEDY HEALTH CAREERS (11-12)
Boston Day and Evening Academy Charter School
EDCO YOUTH ALT
Moving the bottom
half of lunch
performers, 48
programs, to the
BPS average would
net $2M in lunch
revenues
A similar move on
breakfast at the
same set of schools
would capture
$1.4M
Next Steps:
Investigate what is
driving high
participation sites that
can be pushed to low
participation sites
What are ways to
incentivize schools to
get rates up?
What leverage is
there with contractor
to drive rates?
67
1 BPS Food and Nutrition Services Data, 2013-2014
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance

Appendix
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS professional development is inconsistent and expensive
DRAFT
Professional development spending

$M, 2013-2014
I want all the PD money pushed out
to the schools I can do it better than
central office
BPS Principal
48
Over half of PD spending

goes to contractual days
and specific school
improvement schools
13
I have never had a PD that was at all

valuable
BPS teacher
12
7
5
2
P.D.
Tot.
ContractSchool Gen.
days impr. ed.
After Central SPED ELL

school +office
summer
Misc.1 Princ.
1
Math
We do our own PD, because we

know what we need to get out.
BPS administrator
Elem.
Ed.
9% of PD logged in My Learning Plan in 2014-15 had no category

of focus (e.g., Special Education, Math, etc.)
27% of PD was registered as having other as category of focus
1 Miscellaneous areas include: Equity, Adult ed., Social Studies, Science, Health, Early ed.
Source: BPS Office of budget and finance
ADDITIONAL AREAS
My Learning Plan data shows interest in PD, but not consistency

2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD usage
% teachers registered for >0 PD
DRAFT
2014-2015 My Learning Plan PD offerings

% of offering by category, 278 PD offerings
Arts
Used
MyLP PD
43
Did not
use MyLP
The average
teacher who used
My LP registered
for 1.5 courses
68% of teachers
registered for
just one class
57
Other
22%
Early Childhood
4%
12%
World Languages 1%
Special Education 9%
1%
Secondary English/
7%
Language Arts
Elementary English/
7%
Language Arts
Science
Elementary
Mathematics
6% Secondary
Mathematics
1% Family and Student
3%
Engagement
7% History and
Social Sciences
2%
6%
Instructional Technology
Leadership
9%
School Climate
School Health
2%
2014-15
Only ~30% of teachers who use My Learning Plan have returned for further professional development through
the portfolio of options
22% of courses offered are outside of the traditional cores set of academic subjects and training functions
and can only be tracked as other
Source: Office of Human Capital, My Learning Plan data
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance

Appendix
ADDITIONAL AREAS
BPS transportation is driven by special education and Choice

busing routes
PRELIMINARY
BPS transportation budget

$M, 2014
Equipment, msic.
Vehicles
10
Parochial
5
Professional support
Insurance 2 1 2
Debt 6
Special education
40
Choice
Attendant 6
SPED out of city
11
drives nearly 40%

of the transportation budget
Choice busing
policies drive the
need for busing as
it is now
29
SPED
In 2014 BPS operated a $113M transportation
system, over one tenth of the budget
Source: 2014 drill down
ADDITIONAL AREAS
20%of BPS bus routes transport 3% of its student population, while ~60%
of students are walking to bus stops less than a quarter mile away
PRELIMINARY
BPS bus routes

1,575
1,263
312

transport 3% of the students
BPS transports
The average student receiving
BPS students riding buses

26,923
748
20% of BPS routes have
27,671
transportation has 0.16 mile

walk to their bus stop
59% of students are classified

as bus stop (i.e., not door-todoor) riders and have a walk
of less than a quarter mile
59% of the transportation

budget is $67M
Routes with
5+ students
Source: BPS data
Routes with
<5 students
Total BPS
bus routes
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Other transportation opportunities
Area of
opportunity
DRAFT
Description
BPS spends $2M a year on parochial

Parochial
schools
student transportation
A review of this state policy could

potentially scale back this spending
A successful migration of 8th graders

to the MBTA netted savings1
MBTA
passes
A review of 7th and 6th grader policies

could move another 3,000 6,000
kids to the MBTA and cut the number
of routes and potentially $2-4M2
1 Due to a number of transportation policy changes this year, Transportation has not been able to isolate exactly how much of savings came from this
policy change
2 Assuming that enough routes are eliminated to capture half of the savings of going from $1,500 a year per student to $260
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Special education
Food services
Transportation
Maintenance

Appendix
ADDITIONAL AREAS
Facility maintenance, while underfunded, can capture some savings

through outsourcing of functions
Area of
opportunity
FTE
structure
Description
Opportunity
Facilities has 550 employees, Outsourcing the 137 night

but just 130 buildings under
their care
BPS has 100s of contractors
Maintenance
DRAFT
Source: Interviews with BPS staff
who are engaged to fix various

problems (e.g., broken toilets)
Contracts do not do
preventative work and are not
incentivized to perform good,
timely work
custodians work could net $1-3M
Contracting out all maintenance
work to a single contractor could

align incentives around preventative maintenance, could net
savings of $1-3M on $22M
maintenance budget
One blanket contract could allow
performance incentives around
timeliness and quality
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Taking action on overextension
Taking action on SPED
Taking action on organizational
effectiveness
Appendix
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
effectiveness
Appendix
TAKING ACTION ON OVEREXTENSION
Before you start the process, the solution space will be bounded by
answers to a few questions
DRAFT
What pace of change to the new footprint is most

appropriate?
How will the future design be developed?
Internally?
Externally? In collaboration?
How will the system engage the community

proactively in the path forward?
Will the overall system be addressed all at once or will

change happen neighborhood by neighborhood?
What other city services and benefits can be

brought into communities as support during
transition?
How will student academic progress and safety be

ensured through the process?
If BPS wishes to reduce its footprint, it may want to consider focusing

its efforts in four ways going forward
DRAFT
A Align on approach and vision for making school

closure decisions
B Build a strong fact-base that supports data-driven
decisions
C Engage the community at each step of the process
D Make decisions transparently along a public timeline
A After determining the future state of BPS, the vision for the schools
will best require alignment on approach towards key educational
drivers, including school action guidelines and portfolio strategy
DRAFT
School type and autonomy

Align on a BPS-wide perspective on possible school types (e.g., traditional, charter, SPED, exam,
pilot, innovation) and programs and determine optimal mix to ensure quality choices and access
system-wide
Align on a BPS-wide guarantee of the services and programs that all schools will provide
School size
Determine optimal school size ranges for elementary and high schools
Develop BPS policy towards housing multiple schools on one campus and develop criteria for
determining when this action is required as part of building performance & space utilization standards
Enrollment and choice approach
Determine enrollment boundaries for elementary schools including flexibility of zone boundaries, with
exceptions for specific open enrollment school types (e.g., selective enrollment)
System-wide options
Define overall strategy for system-wide open enrollment schools/programs and align with other
stakeholder plans
Determine optimal location and facility requirements for existing and new programs
School action approach
Incorporate new performance policy approach and finalize criteria to take school action
Include updated biannual building assessments into footprint tool
Align on BPS/city leaderships threshold/approach towards action (e.g., large waves vs. small set
annually) and determine annual target/capacity for executing school actions
A Design choices will also need to take known constraints

into account
Example constraints
DRAFT
Potential policy changes
Increase security and safety resources in school and

Safety concerns and
neighborhood
differences
ensure safe passage during a 2-year transition period to

support students to travel to school
Historic and geographic boundaries between communities
have often impeded transfer or consolidation of students
Reclassify elementary school enrollment boundaries for

Current enrollment
and mobility
approach
Human capital
challenges
Low levels of
support for receiving
students from lowperforming schools
zones and encourage overlays for open enrollment

schools to meet demand where possible
Consider increasing enrollment for better performing
schools where feasible
Proactively support movement of high quality teachers

and school leaders from the consolidated low-performing
schools when students are transferred or consolidated
Provide sweeteners for schools receiving students

Support performing schools with additional
programmatic and facility support
Improve facility and fund turnaround efforts for
consolidated schools
B To lay the analytical foundation for determining the BPS footprint

reduction, several analyses could be integrated
Objective: to provide a tool to support data
driven decision-making in order to
determine BPS footprint through the
following:
Comprehensive database of all schools
across a set of key variables
School-level snapshot of current seat
supply and demand
School level academic performance to
understand best place for students
Target reduction or expansion of
seats in 10 years to meet demand
Initial list of schools identified to
potentially achieve targets
DRAFT
Mobility
Garfield-Humboldt and enrollment analyses
Input/analysis
Demand
2011
Supply
2011
Demand
2021
14230
22791.6
13111
1765
1995.3
910
1482.12
Suppy change needed

2021
School type
Total
Demand projection
by11555school19314.2
Traditional
Charter/Contract
Magnet/gifted
9681
Master School List Academics and0 Ops.

SPED/Alternative
ID
Unit
400010
7950
School
ACE Tech Charter
ADDRESS
Community (NE)
5410 S State St
WASHINGTON PARK
District level output
609772
2020
Addams School
10810 S Avenue H
609773
2030
Agassiz School
2851 N Seminary Ave
610513
1055
Air Force Academy High School (at Abbott) 3630 S Wells St
610334
7690
Al Raby School (at Flower)
3545 W Fulton Blvd
610212
6290
Albany Park Academy
4929 N Sawyer Ave
Collaborative
Network
Enrollment Efficiency
(2010/2011)
Program Enrollment
(2010/2011)
Utilization
(Enrollment/DC)
School Enrollment Design

(2010/2011)
Capacity
Uti
South
Burnham Park
-24%
624
55%
476
870
Far South
Lake Calumet
93%
474
139%
915
660
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
-15%
506
61%
430
705
Southwest
Pershing
-73%
797
19%
212
1110
West
Garfield-Humboldt
-41%
944
42%
558
1315
North/NW
O'Hare
-60%
646
29%
261
900
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
-50%
355
36%
178
495
North/NW
Fullerton
-25%
678
54%
511
945
Far South
Lake Calumet
-50%
571
36%
284
795
Southwest
Englewood-Gresham
-34%
883
48%
587
1230
Southwest
Englewood-Gresham
-20%
524
58%
420
730
North/NW
Fullerton
-46%
1044
39%
568
1455
EAST SIDE
LAKE VIEW
ARMOUR SQUARE
EAST GARFIELD PARK
ALBANY PARK
Data sources
Operations (e.g., school based health
clinics)
Demographics (e.g., enrollment)
Academic performance
Security
ADA accessibility
ESRI and US Census (external, for

population projection)
610524
8035
Alcott Humanities HS
2957 N Hoyne Ave
609774
2040
Alcott School
2625 N Orchard St
NORTH CENTER
LINCOLN PARK
609848
2710
Aldridge School
630 E 131st St
609775
2050
Altgeld School
1340 W 71st St
RIVERDALE
WEST ENGLEWOOD
609707
2035
Amandla Charter HS
6800 S Stewart Ave
609780
2090
Ames School
1920 N Hamlin Ave
ENGLEWOOD
LOGAN SQUARE
609695
1210
Amundsen High School
5110 N Damen Ave
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
48%
1110
106%
1645
1547
609776
2060
Andersen Community
1148 N Honore St
WEST TOWN
West
Fulton
-33%
154
48%
103
215
609951
3640
Ariel Community School
1119 E 46th St
KENWOOD
South
Burnham Park
-32%
775
49%
524
1080
609777
2070
Armour School
950 W 33rd Pl
Southwest
Pershing
-47%
624
38%
332
870
North/NW
Ravenswood-Ridge
27%
1120
91%
1419
1560
West
Austin-North Lawndale
-58%
258
30%
108
360
Southwest
Midway
-21%
581
57%
461
810
LINCOLN SQUARE
BRIDGEPORT
609779
2080
Armstrong School
2110 W Greenleaf Ave
610156
5700
Armstrong Specialty School
5345 W Congress Pkwy
WEST RIDGE
AUSTIN
610287
7100
Ashburn Community Area ES (St. Dennis)
8300 S Saint Louis Ave

ASHBURN
610268
6900
Ashe School
8505 S Ingleside Ave
400013
7803
Aspira Charter - Early College
3986 W Barry Ave
South
Skyway
North/NW
Fullerton
-27%
646
52%
469
900
-3%
538
70%
524
750
CHATHAM
AVONDALE
B The cost-benefit model could provide a critical input and fact base
on financials for decision making
Typical input levers
Typical assumption variables
Model outputs
Open schools
Closed schools
Repurposed buildings
Timing and sequencing
Facilities maintenance costs

Projected capital investments
DRAFT
Scenario savings
Scenario costs
School closure costs

Revenue from sale or rental
of unused buildings
Transportation costs
Labor costs (teachers and
administrators)
Communications costs
The financial model will
illuminate where money is
being saved for potential
reinvestment
C Community buy-in will be the product of a thoughtful

and well-executed stakeholder engagement approach
Gather feedback on progress

and make required midcourse adjustments
Execute plan
according
to agreed timetable
6 Monitor stakeholders and

take required
actions
1 Explicitly
detail the
nature of
the
change
4 Develop
an integrated
stakeholder
engagement
plan
Use consensus building tools/

approaches to develop
overall stakeholder plan
Use results of stakeholder analysis
to carefully plan schedule and
agenda of stakeholder interactions
Prepare to articulate a
good understanding of the
proposed changes to be
implemented and of
change approach
5 Execute
Engagement plan
Mobilizing
stakeholders
DRAFT
2 Identify
stakeholders
Analyze and
3
prioritize
stakeholders
Identify any
individual or group
that impacts or is
impacted by
proposed changes
(e.g., unions, media,
political groups, local
communities, etc.)
Analyze stakeholders
to determine key
needs and interests
and how change will
impact them
C The community engagement strategy will need to account

for a variety of communication channels (1 of 2)
1-way communication
Formal Channels
Large, formal
meeting
Presentation,
speech
Memo
Channels
Descriptions
Address a relatively large group of people

with little opportunity for Q & A
Press
Interview held for news reporters
conferences
Face-to-face
meetings
A formal speech to persuade an audience

to commit to pursue a common a course of
action
Workshops/
A brief written record, proposal or reminder
Small group
seminars
meetings
In-person meeting to discuss and

exchange ideas
Educational seminar emphasizing
interaction and information exchange
Series of meetings with people of similar
background or for a specific tailored
message
Email
Quick and easy dispersion of message
Video/audio
Use pre-recorded video or audio tapes to a

target audience
Town hall
Short messages to briefly and quickly

update the audience
Question and Internal session intended to answer
tapes
Voice mail
Web
Informal
2-way communication
Descriptions
Press release An announcement issued to the press
DRAFT
Posted on internets and intranets for public

viewing
Brochure
Small booklet or pamphlet containing key

messages or promotional materials
Bulletin
Board or poster displaying brief key

messages, usually to internal people
boards,
posters
meetings
Usually internal debrief of recent

happening to hear employee reaction
answer
session
questions regarding a series of events
Small group
Gathering of similar minded people to

build relationships and informally
exchange opinions
dinner
Retreats
Off-site activities by a select group of

people to exchange ideas in an informal
setting
C The community engagement strategy will need to account

for a variety of communication channels (2 of 2)
Descriptions
Spectrum of options
Who and how many people

are actually reached using One single person
this channel?
Large group of people
Is it appropriate to deliver
tailored, urgent, effective
messages?
Suitable for prompt

delivery of tailored
messages
Is it effective and reliable in Little differentiation

delivering desired message to various
to targeted audience?
audiences
Effective for target

audience
Are there opportunities for

discussion or feedback
through this channel?
Audience response
not critical for
success
Immediate feedback
desired for ongoing
and future interactions
How regular is it? How

convenient is it to
organize?
Takes a lot of effort

to organize,
happens irregularly
Easy to organize, can

happen frequently
Reach
Message
Effectiveness
Responsiveness
Frequency
DRAFT
Suitable for nonurgent generic

messages
D BPS could follow a six month journey to align on the 10-year

vision for the schools
Month 1
Data and
analytics
Policy
decisions
Month 2
Month 3
Month 4
Month 5
July
August
September
October
November
Data and analytics Data and analytics Data and analytics Data and analytics
Project 10-year Refine financial Refine financial Refine 10-year
neighborhood
model and cost/
model and cost/
neighborhood
baseline for
savings
savings
vision, based on
student
estimates
estimates
input to feedback
demographics
from BPS team
Develop initial
members and
financial model
other key stakethat estimates
holders, and
costs and
build alignment
savings
and ownership
associated with
across the team
actions
Finalize financial
model
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Policy decisions
Align on BPS/
Develop
Identify critical
city approach
participatory
decisions around
towards action
process that
issues such as
and determine
enables school
safety,
annual target
actions endorsed
transportation,
and capacity
by stakeholders
budget, policy
Outline potential
in affected
alignment
policy options
communities
Document set of
around key
reqs for and
issues
constraints to
Facilitate crossschool actions
functional
dialogue across
key departments/
groups
Finalize list of
school actions
Share widely the
results of the
participatory
process
DRAFT
Month 6
December
Finalize 10-year
vision
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
effectiveness
Appendix
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
effectiveness
Appendix
TAKING ACTION ON SPECIAL EDUCATION
There are 14 schools who classified 100% of referred

students as having disabilities
DRAFT

There are 14 schools who classified

100% of the students referred:
Henderson K-4
Roosevelt K-8 (K1-1)1
Baldwin E.L. Pilot Acad1
Mendell Elementary
Tobin K-8
BTU K-8 Pilot
East Boston EEC1
Kenny Elementary
Mario Umana Academy
Irving Middle
Mission Hill K-8
Deeper data dives, at the level of IEP are needed to understand whether students
in these programs are being classified, when they may be over classified
Cultural shifts in the district may be necessary to identify whether classification is
systematically too high, or appropriate, given the student population
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments

while there are 34 schools who classified 0% of its

student population
DRAFT

Deeper data dives, at the level
of IEP are needed to understand
whether students in these
programs are not getting
services they need
There are 35 schools who classified 0% of the students referred:
Urban Science Academy Dorchester Academy
Hale Elementary1
UP Academy Boston
Mozart Elementary1
Alighieri Montessori1
West Roxbury Academy Boston Comm Lead Acad
Lyon K-81
Shaw Pauline A Elem1

Middle School Academy1
Hernandez K-8
Mildred Avenue K-8
Otis Elementary
Henderson 5-8
Mason Elementary
Haley Elementary
Timilty Middle
Excel High
Boston Adult Tech Aca.1
Roosevelt K-8 (2-8)
Newcomers Academy1
Henderson 9-121
English High

Burke High
Quincy Upper School
Community Academy1
Edwards Middle
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
1 Schools with fewer than 200 student enrollments

Further research into outlying programs may identify students who

are not receiving the services they need or are being over-classified
School type
Lowest
classifiers
Highest
classifiers
Standardization
DRAFT
Action
Outcome
Interview/observe special education

coordinators to understand methods
Interview general education teachers

to get a sense of school culture
around referrals
Identify best practices of leveraging

interventions to avoid
misclassification
Identify programs that have

opportunities to properly classify
overlooked students
Interview/observe students in
classrooms to verify proper
placement
Identify potential areas of frequent

misclassification for school and
district training
Interview coordinators and teachers

to capture school culture of special
education
Get IEP information to track trends in

classification
Capture school or coordinator

practices/cultures that are
misidentifying students and develop
correctional plans
Identify where BPS guidance does

and does not come into the
classification process
Bring clarity and transparency to

where the bar for classification lies
Be clearer on processes and train

those involved across multiple school
sites to maintain consistency
Identify influencers around culture

and intuition
Further understanding variations can move misidentified

students into more appropriate settings and capture savings
Area for further
research
Coordinators
Description
Data needed
Analysis and next steps
Closely analyzing special
Data on IEP creation, by
Identify high and low classifiers
education coordinator patterns

of classification can move
classification rates in to a more
specific band
Tracking student progression/

Student progress
regression in classification can

identify programs into which
more students should be
encouraged and bring focus to
programs that arent improving
student outcomes
Correlate teacher evaluations

Teachers
with student progression/

regression to understand
where the strongest teachers
are and leverage BPS
strengths most effectively
Looking at patterns in types of

Needs
identification
DRAFT
classifications can identify

specific types of classifications
that are happening at irregular
rates and can be shifted
coordinator
Data on IEP maintenance, by
coordinator
IEP level data on student
classifications
Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program
IEP level data on student
classifications
Longitudinal data on changes
in student classifications,
aligned with program
Identify teachers that have
serviced students and align
with their performance evals.
IEP level data on identified
student needs
Aligned data with coordinators
and schools
and provide appropriate

training and coaching
Use the data to identify
programs that are moving

students into general education
faster
Figure out what these
programs are doing differently
Through correlating student
achievement and progression

with teachers and performance,
develop a detailed view of BPS
strengths and weaknesses
Use areas of strength to
capture best practices, and
focus resources on weak spots
Analyze where certain types of
needs are being identified and

interview to figure out drivers of
irregularity
Train highly variable areas in
better classification of needs
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Data next steps
3-6 month plan
effectiveness
Appendix
SPED opportunities are both short-term and long-term

Time horizon
DRAFT
Opportunities
Time to realization
Potential to be captured
Focus on high / low classifying

schools to target district average
Can begin immediately, with

changes in school rates seen in
SY15-16
$300-500K
Identify and leverage programs

with excellent student
progression outcomes
Identifying can begin

immediately, with best practices
and student placement by
SY14-15
TBD
Evaluate para. approach
Can evaluate immediately, with

changes in SY14-15
$9-11M
Evaluate specialist approach
Can evaluate immediately, with

changes in SY14-15
$8-10M
Analyze bus attendant usage
IEP analysis immediately, with

any attendants removed over the
course of the next calendar year
$7.2M in attendants currently,

10% reduction saves $720K
Evaluate SPED zone alignment

for SY 15-16
Zone policy changes would have

to be communicated by end of
the year, with streamlined
patterns in SY15-16 and gains in
classroom consolidation over 4
years of inclusion roll-out
TBD
Contract changes around clerks,

coordinators
Negotiate around with expir-ation

of contraction in 2016
$3-8M
Private placements and

transportation
Begin coordination process

today, with gains seen beginning
5 years out
$2-10M
Inclusion
Gains from full inclusion model

expected to be seen in year 4,
with savings coming in out years
~$60M annually after final year

of implementation
Short-term
3 months 1 year
Long-term
1-10 years
Source: Team analysis
Short-term opportunities can be realized over the next 12 months
Classification
rates
Month 1 + 2
Month 3 + 4
Month 5 + 6
Month 7 + 8
Month 9 + 10
Month 11 + 12
Mar. + Apr.
May + Jun.
Jul. + Aug.
Sept. + Oct.
Nov. + Dec.
Jan. + Feb.
Interview high/
low classifiers
Create school
and student data
from IEP analyses
Develop picture of
drivers of variable
classifications
Identify students
for reevaluation
Develop and
deliver training for
high classifiers
Monitor high / low

classifiers closely
in beginning of
year to encourage
new approaches
Create peer set

dashboards for
schools to
understand where
rates are against
BPS and MA. set
Create school
regression/
progression data
from IEP analyses
Interview
progressing /
regressing
schools
Identify high
regression /
progression sites
Begin to work
with IEP meetings
to move students
where appropriate
Develop and
deliver training
around best
practices
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Evaluate para.
approach for
SY15-16 through
cost/benefit
Decide on best
approach for para
usage
Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16
Implement and
monitor new para
system at schools
Evaluate specialist approach

for SY15-16
through cost/
benefit
Decide on best
approach for
specialist usage
Negotiate
contracts or begin
adjusting staff as
appropriate for
SY15-16
Implement and
monitor new
specialist system
at schools
Create data to
capture universe
of bus attendants
from IEP
Reevaluate
students for bus
attendant needs,
reclassifying
where needed
Monitor any
routes where
attendants have
been removed to
ensure safety
Student
progression
Para
approach
Specialist
approach
Bus
attendant
DRAFT
Continue to work
with IEP process
to move students
where appropriate
Long-term opportunities have varying time horizons, but can capture

as much as $60M, annually by 2026
Year 1
Year 2
Do analysis of Begin closing
SPED zone
realignment
Private
placement
& transportation
enrollment #s
in classrooms
Do analysis of
classroom
performance in
feeder patterns
Identify new,
educationally
appropriate
feeder patterns
Year 5-6
Continue
Complete
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
Develop
Begin to align Continue to
Expand to
Expand to
preferred
feeder schools
Create
process with
DCF for better
placement
Zone A
Inclusion
classrooms in
alignment with
inclusion
expansion
Year 3-4
new bus
routes with
consolidated
placements
Zones B and C
Begin
identifying sub/
separate
classrooms
that can be
eliminated
Years 7-8
Years 9-10
Continue
Continue
DRAFT
class-room
alignment with
inclusion rollout
consolidate
placements
Monitor
placemen
rates
Expand to
Zones D and E
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
Expand to
Zones F and G
Continue
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
classes
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases
identifying and
eliminating
sub / separate
clases
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
effectiveness
Appendix
TAKING ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
BPS could pursue a few steps to improve organizational effectiveness DRAFT

Step to take
Why its important
Consider reorganizing the top team so that

a pyramid structure is maintained
throughout the organization with increasing
numbers of direct reports at each layer
Smaller top organization increases accountability, focuses priorities, and allow for
more tradeoffs within departments,
rather than across 18 silos
Define the districts top goals and define

superintendent-level metrics, committing as
a top team to prioritize all work around
these goals and metrics
Goals agreed to throughout (from top to

bottom) will help align the organization
and ensure everyone is working toward the
same ends
Set departmental goals that work toward the

districts top goals with departmental KPIs
and metrics which inform superintendents
metrics, help track progress against
departmental goals, and inform strategic
decision-making throughout the
organization
Having well-aligned departmental goals and

metrics, supported by KPI team will allow
the superintendent to check-in on the wellbeing of every department while
understanding how successes and failures
will affect the districts overall performance
on its goals
Identify departmental best-practices in onboarding, training, evaluation, and

professional development and share these
best-practices across departments
Retention and development of the best staff

members will improve the districts ability
to meet its goals; this can only be done by
unlocking the staffs potential
BPS largest gap is in having the right KPIs to track

departmental performance
DRAFT
Filter criteria
Relevance
Outcome
ultimately
affects
district
performance
Influencability
KPIs could be
defined for all
BPS departments
along relevant
performance
dimensions
such as
Process
owners can
influence KPIs
Improvement
levers can be
assigned
Positive feedback for a

BPS department does
not always correlate
with an effect on
district performance
Many
performance
measures
Availability
Data can be
continuously
obtained
Many BPS departments

cite MCAS as a KPI,
despite unclear
influenceabilitiy
Student test scores

are not useful as
an always
available KPI
Student
performance
Productivity
Quality
Service
Safety
4-6 sets of
measures
Source: BPS district interviews
BPS should ensure that its departments KPIs are SMART
DRAFT
KPIs must be carefully designed using 'smart' guidelines and limited in number
Questions
Simple and
specific
Measurable
Achievable
and agreed
Resultsoriented
Timely
Does it have a clear definition?

Is it straightforward to understand?
Can it be easily generated without complex calculations?
Is it addressed to a specific BPS department or goal?
Is it easy to measure?
Can it be benchmarked against other teams/outside data?
Can the measurement be defined in an unambiguous way?
Can the BPS department responsible for it actually influence it?

Does the BPS department understand the drivers that are behind it?
Can the department take steps to mitigate the impact of drivers beyond
its control?
Does the BPS department have all it needs to reach the target?
Is it relevant to the district as a whole?

Does it support the high-level targets?
Is it aligned with the districts strategy and objectives?
Can it be measured at a frequency that will allow the department to

solve problems in the reporting cycle?
When will the department measure it?
The number of
KPIs must be
limited to help
focus BPS
departments

DRAFT
BPS may consider adding a KPI Team to address potential
deficiencies in metric alignment and help drive performance on initiatives
Boston Public Schools KPI Team

Purpose
Organization
Key activities
Small, highly capable,

responsive group of
people
Reports directly to the

superintendent and has
leaders visible backing
Strong performancedriven, results-oriented

culture
Monitor progress toward

aspirations:
Collect and analyze
relevant data
Coordinate individuals
to make sure results
are on track
Report regularly to system

leader
Take corrective action as

necessary to achieve
aspirations
Implement the aspirations

defined by the
superintendent, school
committee, and/or mayor
Promote urgent and

visible action
Amplify superintendents
authority over others in
the system
Ensure forward
momentum toward
aspiration
Part of the KPI Team design will be determining which BPS

challenges it should address
Typical
challenges
Typical functions of transformation units

to overcome challenges
Huge,
complex tasks
1 Monitor overall program success
Many players
3 Facilitate coordination among players
Need for
fundamental
behavior
change
DRAFT
2 Detail and adjust overall planning as needed
4 Support owners with initiatives they cannot

(yet) perform alone
5 Take over tasks for which KPI Team itself is
better suited than other owners
"Minimum
role" of KPI
Team
Potential
additional
roles of KPI
Team
6 Facilitate sustainable behavior change
The KPI Team can take the form of any of the three
fundamental setups for a transformation unit
DRAFT
Driver of change
Potential organizational setups for KPI Team on the district level
Description
When
does it
work
best
"Existing leader"
Delivery unit"
"Catalytic driver"
KPI Team role is played by an

existing stakeholder (e.g., a
key division such as Data &
Accountability)
KPI Team performs either
only monitoring/adjustment of
strategy or also does active
stakeholder supports, owns
initiatives and drives
behavioral change
KPI Team reports to overall

"system leader" (i.e,
superintendent)
KPI Team function is limited
to monitoring, detailing and
some coordination
No actual project work
KPI Team reports to overall

"system leader"
(i.e, superintendent)
KPI Team performs all
possible functions
(monitoring, adjustment of
strategy, support of
stakeholders, owning select
own initiatives, driving
behavioral change)
"Leading stakeholder" has

significant influence over
others
"Leading stakeholder" has
sufficient will, capability and
capacity to drive
transformation
All or most stakeholders in

the program have sufficient
will, capability and capacity,
and skill and will to drive
transformation
Political will to create

powerful new entity given
Stakeholders have
significant issues with skill
and or will for change
Strong need for central
coordination among different
entities
A critical factor in the KPI Teams success would be staffing

the right individuals
Attributes
Description
Influencing and
Demonstrates an understanding of the thoughts and
empathy for others

Leadership
and
presence
Leading others and

teamwork
Presence and
listening
Problem structuring
DRAFT
feelings of others; able to adopt personal style to

successfully influence others
Inspires devoted followership; leads groups to accomplish

high aspirations
Articulate, able to engage senior system leaders and

stakeholders
Demonstrates ability to disaggregate a problem into a set

of key elements to be resolved
Problemsolving
skills
Analytical capabilities Able to conduct end-to-end analyses; and draw insights

and implications
Creativity (able to
bring new insight)
Passion for public

Personality
fit
service
Goal orientation
Ethics
Drawing from experience to bring new insight to solve a

different problem
Shows passion and is committed improving delivery for

citizens
Sets and achieves challenging goals for responsible area

Bound by strong ethics
If BPS pursues overextension opportunity, BPS FTE count

would be expected to align with new district
DRAFT

11,000
57,000
(7-10%)
Central office
Schools
10,000
9,000
56,000
8,000
7,000
If BPS were to decrease

staff in-line with future
enrollment trends and
historical central office FTE
counts, BPS could shrink
by ~7-10%

2014-15, that ratio had
fallen to 5.0

than six years ago
55,000
6,000
5,000
54,000
4,000
3,000
53,000
2,000
1,000

Education
Future year
2014-15
2013-14
2012-13
2011-12
2010-11
52,000
2009-10
Contents
Executive summary
System overview
Appendix
1 Case Study: Chicago Public Schools

Context
Improving academic performance
With one of the largest school footprints in the

country, dozens of schools were closed in the
early 2000s under Arne Duncan
Academic performance at closed and

welcoming schools in 2013
Percent of students
CPS still had a footprint much larger than its

need, so it s school board voted in 2013 to close
50 more elementary schools
Level 1
(excellent)
Factors for school closings:
Declining population of school-age children

Greater impact of charters in the state
Level 2
(good)
Level 3
(probation)
Facilities with long-deferred maintenance
19%
0%
81%
44%
21%
Closed schools
Long-held system of choice leading to largely

under-demanded schools
35%
Designated
welcoming
schools
Many were concerned about the rounds of

school closings, even calling for a moratorium at
the state level, due to perceived disproportionate
effects on minorities and safety issues
Chicago designed its school closures so that

students would be designated to welcoming
schools where the academics were at least as
good as their former school
CPS took care to ensure that improved

academics and student safety were the primary
drivers of which schools to close
Over a third of the students in closed schools

were welcomed at the top performing schools,
while only 21% remained in probationary schools
Source: Chicago Tribune; Chicago Public Schools; University of Chicago

report on academic impact
2 Case Study: Detroit Public Schools utilized a clear,

non-negotiable decision matrix for school closings
Context
Under the leadership of emergency financial managers, DPS closed schools due to:
50% decline in student population over the last decade
Growing budget deficit
In 2009 2010, closed 59 schools in a compressed time frame:
Announced first round of closure candidates in March 2009
Final decisions made in April 2010
In 2011, announced plans to close an additional 70 schools by 2014, which will result in a district with only 72
schools
Approach highlights
Clear data-driven decision matrix
that included
Clear community
communications
Maintained focus on academics
Student performance data
Emergency financial manager
Leadership relentlessly worked
(3-year trend)
Enrollment patterns (3-year period)
Quality of school leadership team
Facility index
Safety
Cost analysis (e.g. transportation)
Special partnerships and programs
(e.g., invested community groups)
Political considerations
was the face of the campaign

Shared criteria for selecting
schools, but they were nonnegotiable
Externally facilitated community
discussions, which included
critical follow-up discussions
Communicated choices to families
whose schools were closed
Source: Detroit Public Schools; The Pew Charitable Trusts; CNN
to maintain academic focus in

the midst of transitions
DPS made Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP)
3 Case Study: DC Public Schools compressed timeline for

closing schools led to academic and fiscal returns
Context
How did they do it?
Factors for school closings:

Declining population of school-age children
Greater use of charters
Deteriorating facilities
No Child Left Behind requirements to
DC law gave Rhee authority to close schools
restructure 27 schools
In spring 2007, DCPS was placed under
mayoral control
In 2007, Superintendent Clifford B. Janey
proposed closing 19 schools with low
enrollment on a staggered schedule until 2019
Annual cost savings were about $16.7
However, in her first six months as Chancellor,

Michelle Rhee announced school closures as
part of a larger set of reforms involving teacher
performance and central office staff reductions
In 2008, DC closed 23 schools. In 2009
and 2010, DC closed an additional two
schools and one school, respectively
Source: Literature search; DC Public Schools; Closing Schools in Philadelphia:

Lessons From Six Urban Districts (Pew Charitable Trusts)
with mayoral approval only

The compressed timeline gave little opportunity
for public input, which led to opposition from
public and city council
million, lower than projections of $23 million

Maintenance and repair costs offset savings
$10 million teacher buyout covered 700
teachers who were in 50 schools being
closed or overhauled for academics
About $200 million was spent on 60
buildings in the summer and fall of 2008
for school upgrades, especially among
schools receiving new students
However, the district saw many gains as a
result of the closures including:
Improved academic performance across the
system
Saved money to reinvest in teachers
4 Co-locating charter schools and LAUSD schools increased utilization of

public school facilities but created tension between schools
In 2000
Resulting Co-location Pros
Saw the passing of Los Angeles United

School Districts (LAUSD) Proposition 39
(School Facilities Local Vote Act)
Schools applying for the temporary space do
Allowed charter schools to request

for unused space on public school
property
public school facilities should be shared
fairly among all public school pupils,
including those in charter schools
Proposition 39
not have a permanent home
Judge ruled that LAUSD was not abiding by

proposition because it was not providing
facilities to charter schools in the same ratio as
it is to public schools
LAUSD appealed because it believes it is
not feasible to do so without placing district
students at risk
Source: United Teachers Los Angeles; Highland Park-Mount

Washington Patch; The Argonaut; Southern California Public Radio.
Charter schools pay rent to the city for the space
Resulting Co-location Concerns
Actually utilized unused space (e.g. reading

labs, special programs)
Hostile environment for charter school students

if district teachers, students, and family
members are not receptive
Competition from charter schools recruiting new

students at district schools
Equitable sharing of health, facility, and student

resources
Communication breakdowns between charter

schools and district schools
In 2012
Provide charter schools with much needed

facilities to operate in
BPS may be able to avoid backlash by closing schools in a predictable,

moderate way, learning from other districts examples
Timing of school closings
Pittsburgh
Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap

22 schools out of 86 schools closed in 2006
Eliminated 10,000 of 13,700 excess seats (88% capacity)
Closed underutilized and low-achieving schools
Leveraged Rand Corporation to measure school effectiveness
Superintendent visited every community to pitch closures
22
6-7
2006
2007-12
Washington D.C.
23
2008
2009
2010
Kansas City
21
8
DC was averaging 300 kids per school

In 2007, chancellor given power to close schools with mayoral approval
Compressed timetable (6 months):
September 2007: Announcement of school closures
2 months later: List of target school closures
2 months later: Final decision made on school closings
Negative reaction from public because of the lack of community involvement
Officials believe they should have allocated extra time for feedback
Potential state takeover if it did not reduce spending gap
Enrollment down 42% between 2000 and 2010 school years
Kansas City actively made case for closures
Secured support of groups such as Civic Council, who paid for an
informational campaign for closings
Residents had input criteria for closures
2009
2012
Local teachers union agreed that schools need to close
Boston Public Schools can benefit from the support of many parents and community leaders for working to
improve the academic situation of every child and trying to create community engagement for local, neighborhood
schools; BPS needs to create this community engagement and not be too aggressive in planning these moves
Source: Closing public schools in Philadelphia. The Pew Charitable Trusts;
New York Times, Local school districts.
BPS peer districts for benchmarking
HIGHLY
DRAFT PRELIMINARY
We looked at ~19,000 districts across the country and found 13 peers
Description of
files/metric
Initial
consideration set,
NCES 2010-111
BPS
Number of
peer districts
18,840
Newark
District of
Columbia
Cleveland
Total student
enrollment
between 40-70k
Location:
Large city
~56k
Large city
74%
428
91
34
28
13
Columbus
Atlanta2
San Francisco
% of students
qualifying for free/
reduced lunch >50%
Wichita2
Oakland
Tucson
Number of
students/ school
300 600
Sacramento
Tulsa2
Omaha2
Oklahoma City
1 Most recently available data

2 Indicates district is located in a Right to Work state, where unions have limited options
Source: NCES 2010-11
List of interviewees
Name
Area
Name
Area
Melissa Dodd
Eileen de los Reyes
Ross Wilson
Eileen Nash
Antonieta Bolomey
Tanisha Sullivan
Michele Brooks
Kamal Chavda
Sam DePina
Kim Rice
Lee McGuire
Mark Racine
Erika Giampietro
Chris Guilani
Linh Vuong
Elaine Ng
Jaime Racanelli
Barry Kaufman
Paul Sloan
Jon Sproul
Shakera Walker
Nate Kuder
Melissa Partridge
Mary Skipper
Margarita Ruiz
Ann Chan
Kavita Venkatesh
Khadijah Brooks
Jonathan Steketee
Jerry Burrell
Carleton Jones
Jon Barrows
Emily Qazilbash
Boston Public Schools

Amanda Present
Human Capital
Acadmics
Deb Pullin
Human Capital
Human Capital
Avery Esdaile
Comprehensive student support services
SPED and related services
Angela Rubenstein
Human Capital
ELL
John McDonough
Boston Public Schools
Equity
Al Taylor
Acadmics
Engagement
Dr. Hardin Coleman
School Committee
Data and accountability
Andy Horgan
Technology
Diane Hauser
Technology
Operations
Deborah Ventricelli
Communications
Joseph Larusso
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Technology
Todd Isherwood
Environment, Energy and Open Space
Finance
Matt Mayrl
City OIT
Finance
Paul Curran
Office of Labor Relations (City)
na
Julia Bott
Boston Public School
SPED and related services
Kelly Hung
Operations
Lynne Teta
Operations
Nicole Bahnam
Operations
Stephanie Sibley
CoS
Tanya Freeman-Wisdom
Human Capital
Traci Walker
CFO
William Thomas
Acadmics
Cathy O'Flaherty
Acadmics
Alice Laramore
Acadmics
Marjie Crosby
Human Capital
Casandra Wallace
Acadmics
Kristen Davolio
Operations
Paul Tritter
BTU
Operations
Vivian Leonard
Boston HR
Operations
Bernard Killarney
Boston HR
Operations
Rahn Dorsey
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
Shaun Blugh
Mayor's Office
Human Capital
The Operational Review process conducted six focus groups:
Two with principals (15 total participants)
Two with parents (27 total participants)
Two with teachers (20 total participants

Steering Committee Working Draft

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Steering Committee Working Draft

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

INTRODUCTION

What this work IS NOT

Exploration of potential options to

These are not recommendations

improve student achievement, lower

Estimates of ranges of savings to

Collaborative idea generation and

identify specific opportunities and

Exact analysis to predict how much

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 1

The core focus of this review is on student outcomes in

Ultimately, improved student outcomes is the

Opportunities for BPS have been prioritized

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 2

English Language Learner (ELL)

Students with Disabilities (SWD)

Inclusion classrooms are classrooms that support a mix of the general

Individualized Education Plan (IEP)

When a student is classified as needing Special Education, an IEP is

Occupational Therapy / Physical Therapy

Food and Nutrition Services (FNS)

Office of Instructional and Information

OIIT is the BPS department responsible for delivering the technological

Pull-out vs. push-in

Current special education practices in BPS require the pulling out of

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 4

BPS is a highly diverse public school system, with demographics much

As BPS transitions to a new superintendent and potentially addresses

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 5

Capturable, but time-sensitive

Overview of BPS opportunities

Consolidate ~30-50 schools

$1.7m savings per school

Sell 30-50 closed school buildings

estimated value $4.1m per school

$63M /yr after full phase-in

External related service providers

Raise max bus stop walk to 0.25 mile,

from current 0.16 mile

Target meal participation to improve

Centralize food preparation

Contract out for the 137 night

Contract out all maintenance to single

$3,351 of the per pupil spend, or 19%

is the foundation of each school

14% of per pupil

Benefits Trans- SPED

drives per pupil

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 7

BPS Potential Opportunities

1 Values survey reveals there is a desire for more accountability

Most desired values

Least experienced values

Least desired values

Therefore, BPS could consider

Defining what accountability looks like for its Central Office

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 9

Schools vs. student population

BPS can reduce

DRAFT Pre-decisional - Proprietary and Confidential | 10

2 Moving students into fewer schools could allow BPS to redirect

With fewer staff, BPS could commensurately

The foundation money is no longer needed

Custodial support is no longer required at