ERS: School Funding in Duval County

ERS
•  April Resource Mapping:

2010 School Funding
Duval County Public Schools, January 27, 2011
Based on our experience working in districts, ERS believes that resources
(people, time, and money) need to be aligned to support seven key
transformation strategies
TRANSFORMATIONAL
RESOURCE STRATEGIES These district strategies support
and facilitate a system of
Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexible high-performing schools
funding across schools
Restructure the teaching Job
Support schools in organizing people, time,

and money to maximize learning
Ensure access to aligned curriculum,
instruction, assessment, PD
Build school and district leader capacity
Redesign central roles for empowerment,

accountability and efficiency
Partner with families and communities
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 2

Preliminary – Do Not Cite or Distribute
ERS will present our findings, aligned to the transformational

resource strategies, across 7 working sessions
Date Topic DCPS Lead Transformational Resource Strategy
Mike Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexible

Jan School Funding funding across schools
Perrone
Debbie
Feb Elementary School
Menard
Support schools in organizing people, time, and
Lawrence
Mar Middle School money to maximize learning
Dennis
Apr High School Elaine Mann
Central Roles Jackie Byrd Redesign central roles Ensure access to

for empowerment, aligned curriculum,
May (including Turnaround Tony accountability and instruction, assessment,
Strategy) Bellamy efficiency PD
Vicki Restructure the Build school and district

May Human Capital teaching Job leader capacity
Reynolds
Recap findings from
Wrap-Up & Action Partner with families
June TBD the previous 6
and communities
Implications strategies

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

improving school funding process and allocation levels

Overall, Duval spends less per pupil than almost any
other urban district that ERS has examined
Cross District Comparison of Average

K-12 Operating $/per pupil (fully allocated)*
$20 $18.1
Charlotte
Average K-12 $/pp ($K)
Unadjusted $8.7/pp
$15 $13.6 $13.2 $12.8 $12.3
$10.9
$10.0
$10 $9.1
$8.5 $7.9
$5
$0
NCES-
Comparative 1.19 1.20 1.43 1.55 1.30 1.31 1.33 1.55 1.39 1.31
Wage-Index
*Dollars represent K-12 operating budget/expenditure for year studied. Dollars adjusted for geography using the National Center for Education Statistics 2005 School
District Comparative Wage Index. Dollars adjusted to 2009-10 (inflation adjusted) using the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI calculator
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 5
Methodology
To ensure comparability across districts in our analysis, ERS uses its
own methodologies, definitions and coding structures – including
“use” and “function”
Use Instruction Leadership

•  Teacher Compensation •  Governance
•  Aides Compensation •  School Supervision
Function •  Substitute Compensation •  School Administration
•  Librarian & Media Specialist •  Research & Accountability
•  Instructional Materials & Supplies •  Communications
•  Other Non-Compensation •  Student Assignment
•  Other Compensation
Operations & Maintenance
•  Extended Time & Tutoring
•  Facilities & Maintenance
Pupil Services & Enrichment •  Security & Safety
•  Enrichment •  Food Services
•  Social Emotional •  Student Transportation
•  Physical Health Services & Therapies •  Utilities
•  Career Academic Counseling
Business Services
•  Parent & Community Relations
•  Human Resources
Instruction Support & Prof. Dev. •  Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution
•  Professional Development •  Data Processing & Information Services
•  Curriculum Development •  Facilities Planning
•  Recruitment(of Instructional Staff) •  Development & Fundraising
•  Special Population Program Management & •  Legal
Support •  Insurance
Source: ERS knowledge management
PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

6
DCPS spends a higher % of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on
Instruction and Operations & Maintenance than other districts
CROSS DISTRICT COMPARISON OF OPERATING EXPENSES BY USE

100%
8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 10%
$ of operating budget/expenditures
4% 6% 5% 7% 7%
3% 3% 2% 7%
4% 8% Leadership
80% 4%
20% 20% 20%
23% 17% ISPD
20%
60% 8% 5% 9% Business Services

5%
9% 9%
O&M
40% Pupil Services
57% 58% 55% 54%

Instruction
51% 50%
20%
0%
Charlotte Duval PGCPS Atlanta Boston Rochester
Low $/pp High $/pp
Note: Included districts reflect those with comparable ERS methodology and coding.
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis 7
Methodology
ERS also recodes expenses to identify how much the

district spends at the following five “levels”:
DCPS: % of
Expenses “Central Overhead”
System Essential district governance costs
0.1% Leadership Example: Superintendent, Board Costs
Management and overhead of the support

Central
6% services provided to schools
Mgmt
Example: Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation
This is what ERS uses to
compare Central
All FTEs, services, and materials that provide Overhead across districts
Support support across all schools but generally on
12%
Services as-needed or irregular basis
Example: Transportation, Schulz Center
Centrally All FTEs, services, and materials not reported “School-Attributed”

6% Reported on the school budget, but support schools on
School a regular and predictable basis
Resources Example: OT/PTs, SROs, Region ESE Staff
All FTEs, services, and materials allocated

77% School
directly to the school on the district budget
Reported This is what ERS uses to
Example: Teachers, Principals, Aides compare spending across
schools
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis
Compared to other districts, Duval spends a much smaller % of
its total Pre-K12 Operating Expenditures on central overhead
($63M or 6%)
% of K12 operating budget/expenditures spent on

CENTRAL OVERHEAD
15%
15%
% of expenditures/budget
12%
11%
10%
10%
8% 8%
7%
6% 6% 6%
5%
0%
Low $/pp High $/pp
*Central overhead defined as system leadership and central operations mgmt.

Duval reports 77% of its PreK-Operating Expenditures at the
school-level, which is one of the highest %s among the districts
that we've studied
Cross District Comparison of the % of Resources Reported at

SCHOOL LEVEL
77% 77% 77%

80% 71%
69%
% of expenditures/budget
70% 66%
58%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Low $/pp High $/pp

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

use reflect the goals and priorities of the district?
Upcoming Budget Shortfall: How can we

strategically change current resource use to
address the anticipated $92+ million shortfall?
Race to the Top $s: How can the district leverage

Florida gets
RTT $s to correct existing resource misalignments
RTT $S
and ease the impact of the fiscal crisis?

Agenda
Setting the Context
Discussion
Next Steps

When ERS thinks about what makes a district’s funding system effective, we
use the following 7 funding principles:
Funding Principle Description
•  The system and process for funding schools is

Transparency easily understood by all stakeholders.
•  Allocates resources equitably across students,

Meets Student Needs based on student need.
•  Allocates resources equitably across schools,

Equitable Across Schools based on student and school need.
•  Schools have greater control over the right

Flexibility resources in their schools and the capacity to
make decisions on effective resource use.
•  Supports the district’s and school’s academic
Alignment with Strategy strategy.
•  Integrates lessons learned from prior year
Reflective process.
•  School allocation processes are structured to
Predictability minimize disruption of educational process from
year to year.

Evolutions we explore in the funding system should build
on the strength of a transparent budget process
For a transparent budget process, districts need to ensure that:
School budgets include all funding sources and

are easy to understand and compare
Funding formulas for staff and school resources

are widely shared and understood
School principals clearly understand what

resources they have and why
School budget reports include benefits costs

for each position

Before we dig into the section around “Equity” which is where try to
understand how students and schools are being funded in the district and
why …
The three big questions that we have in mind are:
1 How much variation is there?
2 What is driving this variation?
3 What can/should Duval do about this?

This is a much harder question to answer…
…which is why we have 3 sessions (ES, MS, HS) directly following this
one that focus on resource use…
…so that we can understand how changes in school funding may
affect resource use.

In Duval, as in most districts that ERS has studied, we find that
the spending per pupil varies significantly across schools
$35,000 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (UNADJUSTED)
$30,000
M V RUTHERFORD ALT ED CTR
$35,999
$25,000
$20,000
$15,000
DUVAL VIRTUAL INST ACAD
$4,636
$10,000
$5,000 Median $7,066

Hi-Lo Spread 7.8x
$0
Duval Schools
DCPS spends more on students with additional needs - almost
2x on students attending Alternative Schools; more than 3x on
SWD Self-Contained students…
Fully-Allocated $s/pp by Student Type Additional $681/pupil is
allocated for Poverty
School students of any type
attributed $/ (Weight of 0.1)
pp
($ 000s)
$25
$22.3
$20
$15
$11.9 $12.3
$10.8
$9.7
$10 $7.9 $7.4 $7.3
$6.8
$5
$0
GenEd PreK Gifted Alternative Alternative ELL- LF ELL-LY ESE-VE ESE Self-
DPP Schls Monitored Served Inclusion Contained
# of Pupils 114,984 1,537 3,452 2,941 1,552 922 3,093 13,539 2,944
ERS-
Calculated - 1.2 1.1 1.6 1.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.3
Weights
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis

… Duval’s spending on student type appears to be in line with
what we’ve seen in other districts
Cross District Comparison of Per Pupil Expense by Student Type (fully allocated)
ESE ESE
General English
Poverty VE/ Self-
District Education Language
Students Inclusion Contained
Student ($K) Learners
Students Students
Low Overall
Charlotte $6.6 1.2 1.3 1.8 3.0 $/pp
Duval $6.8 1.1 1.4 1.8 3.3

Chicago $6.0 1.3 1.1 2.6 4.2
PGCPS $7.9 1.1 1.2 2.3 3.7
Philadelphia $8.1 1.3 1.3 2.3 3.4
St. Paul $7.8 1.4 1.1 2.4 4.4
Atlanta $10.8 1.1 1.4 2.4 3.4
Wash. D.C. $11.0 1.1 1.3 2.3 3.9
Boston $9.7 1.1 1.3 1.7 3.7
Rochester $14.1 1.1 1.5 2.0 2.4 High Overall $/
pp
Methodology
Comparing two Duval schools shows why we need to try to "adjust" a

school’s per-pupil spending according to student needs
1 2
These two schools have the same … so ERS takes the student type
per pupil amount but Crystal weights that we calculated to adjust
Springs serves a needier student each school’s enrollment to create
population than Pine Forest … an “adjusted” per-pupil amount
$7,283/pp
$6,729/pp $6,788/pp
$6,838/pp
PINE FOREST CRYSTAL SPRINGS PINE FOREST CRYSTAL SPRINGS
% SPED 10% 15% Size 492 1168

% ELL 1% 3% Weighted
566 1444
% Pov 40% 56% Size*

PRELIMINARY
* To make the dollar per pupil comparable, a gross-down factor is applied against weighted enrollment before : DO
calculating the per NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE
pupil amount. 19
We also know that part of the variation is due to the differences in spending
across school levels where Elementary/K-8 schools have a higher average
per pupil spending than Middle/High Schools
AVERAGE SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL

(ADJUSTED)
$14,000 $12,760
$12,000
$10,000
$9,353
$7,711
$8,000 $6,853 $6,369
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$-
ES/K8 MS HS/SS Alternative ESE
Schls & Programs Schools
Avg. Size 578 956 1686 166 158

# of Schools 106 25 19 19 3
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis Figures in bars represent the mean (average) $/pupil, weighted for differences in student need;
Alternative Schls & Programs include Amikids Jacksonville, Drop Back In Academy, Duval Detention Center, Duval Halfway House, Duval Virtual Inst Acad, Gateway, Grand Park Career, Hospital & Homebound, Impact
Halfway House, Jacksonville Youth Center, M V Rutherford, Marine Science Ed, Pace Center For Girls, Philip Randolph, Pre-K Disabilities, Pre-Trial Detention, Teen Parent Service Ctr, Tiger Success Center, Youth
Development Center
Duval’s emphasis on Elementary Schools is slightly
higher than what ERS has seen in other districts
Cross District Comparison of School Attributed Per Pupil Expense Weight by School Level*
District Elementary Middle/K-8 High

Duval Possible explanations for
1.11 0.99 0.92
why ES might be higher:
St.Paul
1.09 0.97 0.86
Atlanta •  Deliberate district
1.06 0.96 0.89
strategy
PGCPS
1.05 1.01 0.88
Baltimore •  Consequence of state
1.05 0.91 0.97 class size policy
Boston
1.04 1.05 0.9
Charlotte •  ES has higher share of
1.02 0.96 1 small schools
Chicago
1.01 0.97 1.04
Wash. D.C.
1.01 0.91 1.06
Philadelphia
0.93 1.04 1.01
*Weights calculated as School Attributed $/pp by school level divided by district average $/pp
Within school levels, significant variation remains, even after
adjusting for student need
SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)
$14,000
$12,000
John Love
Butler
$10,000
N. Berlin Ribault
$8,000 Sandalwood
Twin Lakes
$6,000
$4,000
Median $7.3K Median $6.5K Median $6.3K

Hi-Lo Spread 2.1X Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X
$2,000
$0
ES/K-8 MS HS/SS
This level of variation in per pupil expense after adjusting for
student needs is comparable to what we’ve seen in other
districts
Cross District Comparison of school attributed Per Pupil Expense
Variation Across Schools (school attributed, adjusted)
% of schools funded within +/-10% of the median

% of schools funded within +/-20% of the median
100% 93%
88% 89% 88% 86%
81% 84% 81% 80%
76%
80%
66% 65%
% of schools
63% 61%
56% 55% 53%
60%
48% 47% 46%
40%
20%
0%

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

$14,000
Bringing schls
that are 20%
$12,000 Bringing schls that are above median
10% above median to to 20% à $6.1m
$10,000 10%à $13.8m
20% above
$8,000 10% above
Median $7.3K
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000 ELEMENTARY and K-8 SCHOOLS

$0
Bringing 10% outliers to 10% of median … Bringing 20% outliers to 20% of median …
Elementary/K-8 Schools $13.8m Elementary/K-8 Schools $6.1m

Middle Schools $3.9m Middle Schools $2.3m
High/Secondary Schools $3.3m High/Secondary Schools $1.0m

* These are high-level estimates provided to help the district consider various potential actions. They are not ERS recommendations in any way.
But hold on! Having variation in per-pupil funding
across schools is not necessarily a bad thing …
Good variation Bad variation
 Deliberate/  Unplanned/
By Design Unintentional
 Aligned with  Unstrategic

district’s
strategic goals  Resources not
going to the
 Gives “needier” “needier” schools
schools add’l $s
So before we can discuss whether the district would even want to

reduce the variability in per-pupil funding across schools, we need to
understand what is driving these funding differences across schools
25
So it’s time to play …
What else is driving the

differences in per-pupil funding
across schools?
To be uncovered in the next

few slides …
DCPS EDITION
26
Based on our experience in other districts, we know that there are 6
main suspects that tend to account for most of the variation in per-
DCPS
pupil funding across schools
Fixed positions across schools generate higher per

1 School Size pupil spending in smaller schools
School status as Turnaround, Magnet, Title I- may have

2 School Status additional staff or resources associated with them.
Schools with more experienced teachers get more $s ;

3 Teacher Compensation district may reward teachers at low perf. schools.
Schools that are at or over capacity may have lower

4 Building Utilization per student operating costs than those that are
significantly under-capacity
Over-projecting enrollment can lead to overstaffing if

5 Enrollment projections leveling does not occur.
Districts may be making ad-hoc decisions separate

6 Ad-hoc exceptions from the stated policy/guidelines.
27
Which 3 suspects do you think have the biggest impact on the
DCPS variation in per-pupil funding across schools?
1.  School Size

CLICKER EXERCISE:
2.  School Status
Everyone has 3 votes. Please
press the number that 3.  Teacher Compensation
corresponds to the “suspect” 4.  Building Utilization
you wish to vote for. 5.  Enrollment Projections
6.  Ad-Hoc Exceptions

#1.
SCHOOL
SIZE
In Duval, school size at the Elementary/K-8 Level correlates strongly
with spending per pupil
Elementary and K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment

Notes and observations
$13,000
John Love
•  Strong correlation
between school size
School-Attributed (adjusted $/pp)
$12,000 MLK Jr. and cost per student

$11,000
$10,000
•  Cost curve for ES gets
much steeper below
$9,000 400 students
$8,000
•  We see a similar but
$7,000
Bank of America less pronounced trend
$6,000 (i.e., flatter curve)
when we look at
$5,000 Chets Creek Middle and High
New Berlin
Schools
$4,000
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Enrollment

DONE
#1. Duval has significantly more small ES (<500) than
SCHOOL
SIZE
Charlotte does, though its overall ES portfolio is
<> comparable to other districts ERS has studied …
% OF SCHOOLS BY SIZE BUCKET – ELEMENTARY/K8
<200 200-349 350-499 500-999 1000+
100%
% of elementary schools
80%
60% 48% of ES
are <500
40%
20%
0%
Charlotte Duval PGCPS Philadelphia Baltimore Atlanta Boston Rochester
Low $/pp High $/pp
# Schools 96 106 137 166 103 58 69 40

Average
School Size
692 578 449 543 398 415 371 452

#1. Duval’s smallest ES are spending almost $3,000/pp more than
SCHOOL
SIZE
Duval’s largest ES altogether - primarily in Instruction, O&M, and
Leadership
Elementary and K-8 Schools:
School- Average SA $/pp by Size Bucket
attributed $/
pupil
$10,000
$9.6
$8.1
$8,000 $7.0
$6.7 ISPD
$6,000
Pupil Services
$4,000
Leadership
$2,000
O&M
$-
<349 350-499 500-999 1,000+ Instruction
# of Schools 17 34 44 11
# of Students 4.8k 14.3k 29.4k 12.9k
Instruction 6,393 5,667 5,057 5,042

Avg. Student- to-
O&M 1,285 1,032 831 697 Tchr Ratio
Leadership 746 587 444 374 <349 12
Pupil Services 491 417 344 351 350-499 13
ISPD 657 414 260 216 500-999 15

1,000+ 15
#1. Instruction Drill-down: The smallest schools have more teachers because
SCHOOL
SIZE
they are more likely to have under-filled classes AND because they don’t
have enough students to combine strands when class size max rises
Grades K-3 State Max: 18 Grades 4-5 State Max: 22
Has roughly 50 kids per grade … but when class size max increases, a
which translates to 3 strands … small school can’t combine classes so it
must keep 3 strands
Size:
350
16 kids 17 kids 17 kids 25 kids 25 kids
Has roughly 140 kids per grade … and can combine to 7 strands when
which translates to 8 strands … the class size max increases
Size:
1,000
18 kids 18 kids 18 kids 18 kids 22 kids 18 kids
22 22 kids 21 kids
18 kids 18 kids 16 kids 16 kids 21 kids 18 kids

21 21 kids

#2. TURNAROUND SCHOOLS:
SCHOOL
STATUS
Elementary & MS TAs tend to be small and have a higher per-pupil
spending than non-TAs; Less of a trend at HS
Elementary and K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment Middle Schools

$10,000
Butler
Non-Turnaround Schools Northwestern
$13,000
Turnaround Schools $8,000
$12,000
Justina Road
$11,000 $10,377 $6,000
$10,000 W. Mayport
J’ville Twin Lakes
$10,320 $4,000
$9,000 - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000
Northshore K-8
$8,000 $7,387
$7,000
High Schools
$6,000
$10,000
$5,000 Ribault
$4,000
$8,000
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Sandalwood
Enrollment
$6,000
The three schools highlighted are 0809 0919 Baldwin

all Title I, with similar % Pov and % WEST J’VILLE A C
$4,000
SWD, but with dramatically JUSTINA ROAD D B
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
different performance. NORTH SHORE F F
#2. SCHOOL GRADES
SCHOOL
STATUS
We also see variation among schools that received the same grade in the
prior year though C-D-F schools do have higher funding overall
ELEMENTARY & K-8 SCHOOLS ONLY:

2009-10 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $/PUPIL (ADJUSTED FOR STUDENT NEED)
Northshore &
$14,000
Livingston
Turnaround Schools MLK Jr
Pearson
$12,000
Non-Turnaround Schools
Jville
$10,000 Heights
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000 Median
Median $7.0k Median $7.3k Median $8.5K $8.8K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.9X Hi-Lo Spread 1.7X Hi-Lo Spread 1.8x Hi-Lo
$2,000 Spread
1.4X
$0
0809 (Prior Year) School Grade A B C D F
We see similar variation in per pupil spending both across and Median $9.2K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.2X
within school grade-levels at the MS and HS
Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis 34

PRELIMINARY
Excludes MERRILL ROAD , R. V. DANIELS, WESTVIEW K-8, and BARTRAM SPRINGS because we did not have their : DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE
0809 School Grades
#2. TITLE I SCHOOLS:
SCHOOL
STATUS
Elementary Title I Schools also tend to be small and have a higher
per-pupil spending than non-Title Is
Elementary/K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment

Notes and observations
•  ES Title I’s mostly small

$13,000
•  Similar but less
Non-Title I Schools
$12,000 pronounced trend at
Title I Schools MS/HS
$11,000
$10,000
$9,000
$8,000
$7,000
$6,000
$5,000 Magnet Status: No

trend observed
$4,000
- 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Enrollment
#3.
TCHR
COMP.
There is significant variation in average teacher salary
both across and within school-levels
AVERAGE TEACHER SALARY
$60,000 TA Schools Fletcher
Fletcher
Non-TA Schools Mayport
$55,000
$50,000 Jackson
Northshore K-8 Northwestern
$45,000
$40,000
$35,000
$30,000 Median $44.5k

Median $42.1k Median $43.3k
Hi-Low 1.5x
Hi-Low 1.5x Hi-Low 1.5x
$25,000
$20,000
ES/K-8 MS HS/SS
#3. When we add in benefits, stipends, and other pay (including TA
TCHR
COMP.
school bonuses), we see that there is still variation in total
compensation across schools…
AVERAGE TEACHER COMPENSATION

Fletcher
$80,000
TA Schools Mayport
Fletcher
Non-TA Schools
$70,000 Jackson
Highlands
Sadie Tillis
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000 Median
Median Median
Overall: $60.7k
Overall: $59.0k Overall: $61.3k
TA: $57.8k
$30,000 TA: $56.3k TA: $61.2k
Non-TA: $60.7k
Non-TA: $59.2k Non-TA: $63.0k
$20,000
ES/K-8 MS HS/SS
#3.
TCHR
COMP.
But you can see that there’s not a strong relationship between a
school’s average teacher compensation and its per pupil spending
Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Avg. Teacher Comp. Middle Schools

Northwestern
$10,000 Butler
$13,000 $8,000
J. Love Turnaround Schools
$12,000
$6,000
$11,000 Fletcher
$10,000 $4,000
$50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75
$9,000 Thousands
$8,000
High Schools
$7,000 Mayport
$10,000
Ribault
$6,000 Fletcher
Jackson
$5,000 N.Berlin $8,000
$4,000
$50,000 $55,000 $60,000 $65,000 $70,000 $75,000 $6,000
Average Teacher Compensation

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

Thousands 38
#4.
BLDG
UTILIZ
Duval Schools that have low building utilization %s tend to be more
expensive on a per-pupil basis across all school levels …
Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $/pp vs. Building Utilization Middle Schools

Butler
$10,000
Northwestern
$13,000 $8,000
$12,000 Turnaround Schools

$6,000 Ribault
$11,000
$10,000 $4,000
Mayport 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
$9,000
$8,000
High Schools
$7,000 Garden City
$10,000
$6,000 Westview K-8 Ribault
$5,000 $8,000
$4,000 Lee
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Raines
$6,000
Building Utilization
$4,000
(Enrollment/Building Capacity) 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%

#4.
BLDG
UTILIZ
…though, not surprisingly, under-utilized schools have
smaller enrollments
Elem./K-8 Schools: Building Utilization vs. School Size Middle Schools
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,400 Turnaround Schools 1,200
1,000
800
1,200
600
400
1,000 200
0
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
800
School Size
600
High Schools
400 3,500
3,000
200 2,500
2,000
0
1,500
20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
1,000
500
Building Utilization 0
(Enrollment/Building Capacity) 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
#5.
Enrollment
Projections
There does not appear to be a strong relationship between whether
a school was over/under-projected and its $/pp

$15,000
Schools where the ProjEnroll was UNDER 10%

Schools where the ProjEnroll was OVER 10%
$10,000
$5,000
ES/K8 MS HS/SS
$0
% of Schools % of Schools
This is because very
“Over Projected” “Under Projected” >/
few schools are
>/= 10% = 10%
significantly over or
under-projected ES 16% (17 schools) 8% (8 schools)
compared to actual MS - -
enrollments … HS 11% (2 schools) -
Total 13% 5%
#6. In FY0910, Cabinet Add-ons of $3.6 million were provided to 12
Ad-Hoc
Exceptions
schools (11 Turnarounds, mostly High Schools); Range of add-ons
was $61k to $820k or 0.6-9.0% of the school’s total spending
High Schools: SA $/pp vs. Enrollment

All Other Schools
$10,000 Schools that received Cabinet Add-Ons
Ribault
$407k or 5%
$9,000
•  Is this about supplementing
Turnaround allocations
$8,000 Raines Parker based on individual school
$476k or 6% $345k or 3% needs?
White
$254k or 2% •  Or is it about prolonging
$7,000
Jackson prior efficiencies in school
$662k or 9% First Coast
$820k or 7%
resource use?
$6,000
$5,000
Englewood
$66k or 0.6%
$4,000
500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Enrollment

1 school: Randolph received cabinet-add-ons and are excluded from this analysis PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 42
Increases* in the following drivers had the greatest impact on per-pupil

funding at Elementary Schools
Potential Driver of Increase in Driver (1 standard deviation of Change in $ Per

Difference increase) Pupil
School Size** (small

schools)
300 à575 students ↓ $1,145
Turnaround Not TA à TA status ↑ $950

Building Utilization*** 75% utilization à 95% utilization ↓ $383
Percent Poverty*** 30% poverty à 54% poverty ↑ $305

0 difference between spring FTE and fall FTE
Enrollment projection***
à fall 10% greater FTE than spring ↓ $144
School average salary equals ES median
Teacher Salary*** ($44.5K)à school average salary 8% above ↑ $120
ES average ($48.1K)
School Size** (large
schools)
730 à 855 ↓ $90
*The unit of increase for each variable is equal to the standard deviation, or the increase that would be required to surpass 1/3 of schools with higher values.
**Enrollment on Survey 2
***Change in per-pupil funding will remain the same for the same increment of change regardless of starting point
Note: Explainable difference in model 80%; Alternative Education and ESE centers excluded from analysis; Full results in Appendix
43
While we can’t run a regression for middle schools (not enough
schools), we see similar trends where the highest $/pp middle schools
are high poverty, small, turnaround, and under-filled
Middle Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use
$7,927
$8,000
ISPD
$6,446
Pupil Services $6,051
$6,000
Leadership
$4,000
O&M
Instruction $2,000
$-
Lowest Spending Third Middle Spending Third Highest Spending Third
AVERAGE …
% Poverty 48% 55% 70%
% ELL 3% 4% 2%
% ESE 15% 12% 17%
Size 1,204 1,017 680
Turnaround Status 0% are turnarounds 0% are turnarounds 56% are turnarounds
School 0809 Grades 63% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs 38% are As, 0% are Ds or Fs 33% are As, 22% are Ds or Fs
Teacher Salary $43,071 $41,988 $42,092
% filled to capacity 98% 92% 68%
% Over/Under Projected 0% -1% 0%
In high schools, we see a similar but less pronounced trend where the
highest $/pp schools are small, high poverty, and under-filled;
Turnarounds are not concentrated in the highest spending third
High Schools: Average School-Attributed (adjusted) $/pp by Use
$8,000
$7,290
ISPD
$6,158
Pupil Services $6,000 $5,506
Leadership
$4,000
O&M
Instruction $2,000
$-
AVERAGE … Lowest Spending Third Middle Spending Third Highest Spending Third
% Poverty 37% 46% 45%
% ELL 4% 6% 1%
% ESE 12% 11% 10%
Size 2,172 1,792 1,178
Turnaround Status 17% are turnarounds 83% are turnarounds 57% are turnarounds
School 0809 Grades 17% are As, 0% are Fs 17% are As, 17% are Fs 29% are As, 43% are Fs
Teacher Salary $45,343 $43,582 $42,601
% filled to capacity 109% 97% 84%
% Over/Under Projected -5% 0% -3%
So now we know that each of the six suspects have some role in
driving differences in per-pupil funding across schools and their
DCPS
relative contribution to the overall variation within school levels
Is there variation across What is this driver’s impact What does this driver
schools within this driver? on overall $/pp? overlap with?
School Size Yes, a lot of variation in school Major across ES, MS., HS Building utilization,
size across ES, MS, HS Turnaround, Student needs
School Status N/A Major across ES, MS., HS Size, Student Needs, and
Teacher Comp
Teacher Yes, a lot of variation in avg. Moderate at ES (suspect Turnaround

Compensation teacher compensation similar at MS, HS)
Building Yes, a lot of variation in avg. Moderate at ES (suspect Size, Turnaround, Student
Utilization building utilization similar at MS, HS) Needs
Enrollment No, most schools are projected Minor across ES (n/a at MS., None – very few schools
projections close to actual HS) impacted
Ad-hoc exceptions Yes, but only targeted at 12 Minor at ES (bigger impact at N/A
schools (mostly MS, HS) MS, HS)

46
Summary of Today: Major Takeaways and Possible Implications

Summary of Major Takeaways Possible Implications for Duval
Low Overall •  Smaller investment in central administration •  Hard to make major cuts without touching
1 Funding •  Larger investment in Instruction Instruction & schools
Level •  Urgency to make sure school level investments not
in Instruction are highly leveraged
2 Transparency •  School budget process highly transparent •  Continue with current process
relative to others studied
School Level •  ES receive more than MS and HS •  ERS future ES, MS, HS presentations to investigate
3 •  Relative priority on ES greater than other districts how schools are using their $s (across school levels
studied and school sizes) to help Duval determine whether
it might want to change:
School Size •  Relatively larger share of small ES o School Funding (i.e., change small schl premium)
•  Biggest driver of differences in per pupil funding
Drivers of variation across schools
o School Portfolio (i.e., rethink school sizes)

School Status •  TA schools get $950/pp more than non-Tas •  ERS future TA session to investigate how TA schools
•  TAs tend to be small, under-capacity, with lower are using these add’l $s and how needs vary
tchr comp across TAs
Teacher •  Substantial variation in avg. teacher comp across •  ERS future Human Capital session to investigate
Comp. schools distribution of teachers across schools to help
•  Not a major driver of $/pp differences Duval determine action implications
Building •  Substantial variation in utilization •  Use as factor in decision-making on school closure/
Utilization •  Moderate driver of $/pp differences consolidations
•  Overlap with school size & TA
Enrollment •  Most schools’ projections are +/- 10% of actual •  Continue with current process
projections •  Minor driver of variation
Ad-hoc •  Mostly HS •  Is this a TA supplement or prolonging prior

exceptions •  12 schools get between1-9% of their total inefficient resource use?
allocation •  ERS future HS session will investigate
47
Agenda
Setting the Context
Discussion
48
Discussion:
Divide into groups of 2-3 to discuss:
•  What would you want to preserve/

protect about school funding?
-  Process
-  Allocation
-  Transparency
•  What would you want to explore

changing about school funding?
•  What questions does this analysis

raise?
49
Agenda
Setting the Context
Discussion
Next Steps
50
PRELIMINARY – DO
PRELIMINARY NOT
: DO CITE
NOT CITEOR
ORDISTRIBUTE
DISTRIBUTE
Winter/Spring Project Milestones
Working Session #1 Session #2 Session #3 Session #4

School Funding Elementary Middle High
Schools Schools Schools
Session #5
Central Roles
(Including
HS Visits turnaround
Strategy)
1/25-
1/27 1/28 2/10 3/10 4/14 4/28
Jan Feb Mar Apr
Project Team: Working Sessions
ERS at the district for data gathering
51
Appendix
•  ES and K-8 Regression Analysis

Results: Detailed Breakdown
•  ESE (not including Gifted)

Weights by Setting Suffix
52
ES and K-8 Regression Analysis Results: Detailed Breakdown

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.91404344
R Square 0.83547542
Adjusted R Square 0.81222738
Standard Error 558.340954
Observations 106
ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 13 145643018.4 11203309 35.93746 2.3722E-‐30
Residual 92 28680505.12 311744.6
Total 105 174323523.5
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-‐value Lower 95% Upper 95%

Intercept 11869.4237 635.6576539 18.67267 4.72E-‐33 10606.9528 13131.8947
Total Enrollment -‐8.7661474 1.06815093 -‐8.20684 1.34E-‐12 -‐10.887587 -‐6.64470748
Enrollment-‐Squared 0.00505644 0.000702338 7.199433 1.61E-‐10 0.00366153 0.00645134
Program_Magnet 114.464089 127.1598707 0.900159 0.370386 -‐138.08638 367.014562
Dedicated_Magnet 216.140957 369.543732 0.584886 0.560056 -‐517.80478 950.08669
Turnaround 948.150257 187.0042924 5.070206 2.05E-‐06 576.743599 1319.55691
% Pov (K-‐12) 12.7983709 3.937624285 3.250277 0.001611 4.97790934 20.6188324
% ELL -‐4.4829771 9.620052058 -‐0.466 0.642314 -‐23.58923 14.6232762
% Self-‐Contained -‐18.70143 14.01785489 -‐1.33411 0.185459 -‐46.542099 9.13923902
% VE Inclusion -‐34.740987 22.92670808 -‐1.51531 0.133123 -‐80.275407 10.7934328
% alt-‐DPP 0.63435881 32.13128217 0.019743 0.984291 -‐63.18114 64.4498572
Average teacher salary (% diff from district average salary) 16.1017462 8.29501577 1.941135 0.055303 -‐0.3728707 32.5763632
Enrollment Projection (% diff from spring to fall) -‐15.148239 6.213657922 -‐2.43789 0.016695 -‐27.4891 -‐2.8073785
Building Utilization -‐19.639061 4.075364239 -‐4.81897 5.67E-‐06 -‐27.733086 -‐11.5450358
53
ESE (not including Gifted) Weights by Setting Suffix
School ERS-
# of
Setting Suffixes Attributed Calculated Total Investment
Students
$/pp Weights
VE-Inclusion $ 12,321 1.8 13,539 $ 74,941,731
A-Communication Social Skills Class (CSS) $ 24,592 3.6 692 $ 14,991,981
B-VE Pre-Kindergarten $ 25,229 3.7 190 $ 4,237,265
C-Center School $ 19,032 2.8 520 $ 8,374,212
I-Sensory Self-Contained $ 21,854 3.2 130 $ 2,460,366
N-Participatory Level for Academics (PLA) $ 43,213 6.4 59 $ 2,376,816
P-Physical/Medical Needs $ 24,143 3.6 213 $ 4,518,969
Q -Day Treatment $ 21,731 3.2 285 $ 5,358,901
R-Transition Kindergarten $ 20,860 3.1 47 $ 842,832
S-Behavior Support Class (BSC) $ 24,474 3.6 183 $ 3,942,927
T-Support Level for Academics (SLA) $ 18,633 2.7 625 $ 9,815,643
Source: DCPS SY0910 Expenditures and Survey 2 Enrollment; ERS analysis

54

ERS: School Funding in Duval County

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

ERS: School Funding in Duval County

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

ERS

• April Resource Mapping:

Restructure the teaching Job

Support schools in organizing people, time,

Build school and district leader capacity

Redesign central roles for empowerment,

Partner with families and communities

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 2

ERS will present our findings, aligned to the transformational

Date Topic DCPS Lead Transformational Resource Strategy

Mike Ensure equitable, transparent, and flexible

Central Roles Jackie Byrd Redesign central roles Ensure access to

Vicki Restructure the Build school and district

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 3

Setting the Context

Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System

• Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why?

• Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why?

Objective: Team will identify priorities and next steps for

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 4

Cross District Comparison of Average

Use Instruction Leadership

Source: ERS knowledge management

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE

CROSS DISTRICT COMPARISON OF OPERATING EXPENSES BY USE

60% 8% 5% 9% Business Services

40% Pupil Services

57% 58% 55% 54%

Low $/pp High $/pp

ERS also recodes expenses to identify how much the

Management and overhead of the support

Centrally All FTEs, services, and materials not reported “School-Attributed”

All FTEs, services, and materials allocated

% of K12 operating budget/expenditures spent on

Low $/pp High $/pp

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

Cross District Comparison of the % of Resources Reported at

77% 77% 77%

Low $/pp High $/pp

Source: DCPS FY0910 Expenditures, Survey 2 Data, ERS analysis 10

Let’s keep the following lenses in mind as we review the findings:

District Strategic Plan: Does the current resource

Upcoming Budget Shortfall: How can we

Race to the Top $s: How can the district leverage

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 11

Setting the Context

Examining the impact of Duval’s current School Funding System

• Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why?

• Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why?

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 12

Funding Principle Description

• The system and process for funding schools is

• Allocates resources equitably across students,

• Allocates resources equitably across schools,

• Schools have greater control over the right

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 13

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

School budgets include all funding sources and

Funding formulas for staff and school resources

School principals clearly understand what

School budget reports include benefits costs

PRELIMINARY: DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE 14

The three big questions that we have in mind are:

1 How much variation is there?

•  April Resource Mapping:

•  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why?

•  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why?

•  Transparency: Is it clear who gets what and why?

•  Equity: It is “equitable” who gets what and why?

•  The system and process for funding schools is

•  Allocates resources equitably across students,

•  Allocates resources equitably across schools,

•  Schools have greater control over the right

 Aligned with  Unstrategic

1.  School Size

•  ES Title I’s mostly small