Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

Rethinking Resources
for Student Success
Presentation to the DPS Board:
Resource Mapping Summary Report
Denver Public Schools, January 17, 2012
Preliminary – Please do not cite or distribute

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 2
Through more than a decade of working with large
urban school systems, we understand that…
It’s not just about how much, it’s also about how well.
There is no one “right” way to use resources, but there are
common principles of strategic resource use that can be
measured and observed.
If we want excellent schools for all children, we need to
develop school systems that can effectively support
high-performing schools.
Aligning resources with strategy and best practice requires
understanding current usage and key misalignments.

ERS partner districts include …
BALTIMORE (04,08,10)
CINCINNATI
(05, 07, 08)
ROCHESTER (05,06,08, 09,10)
CHICAGO
(05)
LA (06, 07)
ST. PAUL (06) BOSTON (06,07,09)
ATLANTA (07,08, 09,10)
STATE OF GEORGIA (11,12)
OAKLAND (07)
PHILADELPHIA (07,08,09)
NYC (08)
CHARLOTTE (08,09,10)
ALBUQUERQUE (00,01)
PROVIDENCE (03,04)
NEWARK (11,12)SACRAMENTO(09)
DUVAL COUNTY (10)
PG COUNTY (10,11,12)
SYRACUSE (09)
DENVER (11)
WASHINGTON DC (05,11,12)

ERS began work in DPS in March 2011 and engaged
DPS leadership team in working session over the year
Data
Interviews
School
Visits
Focus
Groups
FY0910 Data Analysis: Expenditures, HR, Payroll,
Course Schedule, Student Demographics, Student
Performance, Special Education, ELL Data
Interviews with Central Office department
leaders and other key staff members
Visits to 5 schools: Force ES, Place Bridge K8,
Morey MS, West Denver Prep – Harvey Park MS,
East HS
3 sets of Principal Focus Groups: Charter Schools,
Innovation Schools, Traditional Schools

This project comes at an opportune moment for DPS
DPS must rapidly accelerate its rate of performance growth to exceed
state averages and meet the upcoming challenge of Common Core.
Because DPS has such diverse student and school needs, DPS’ “managed
performance empowerment” theory of action is the right approach to
managing the district’s diverse portfolio of schools.
Denver has lower funding and lower central spending (both as a $ amount
and as a % of operating expenditures) than other urban districts studied.
Given this context, new school-level investments can only come from
reorganizing resources within schools rather than identifying add’l $s to be
reallocated to schools (absent new revenue).
Ensuring that schools are organizing people, time, and money effectively
to meet their specific student needs and instructional models will be
essential to meeting the performance challenge.

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Includes Charter Expenses; ERS benchmark database. Note: 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
Overall, Denver spent less per pupil in SY0910 than many of
the other urban districts that ERS has examined
$19.6
$14.7 $14.2 $13.8 $13.3
$11.8
$10.7
$9.9 $9.8 $9.1 $8.6
$s represent all funds (federal, state, local, mill levy,
stimulus, grant, foundation, etc.)
Cross District Comparison of K-12 Operating $pp
(Adjusted for Cost of Living Differences)
K12Operating$pp(inthousands)

Denver spent higher share of its PreK-12 Operating Expenses on
Instruction and a lower share on Operations & Maintenance
compared to other districts
57% 58% 57%
51%
55% 54% 50%
8% 5% 8%
9%
5% 9%
9%
20% 20% 16%
23% 17%
20%
20%
3% 3% 5% 4% 8%
2%
4%
4% 6% 5% 5% 7% 7%
7%
8% 8% 8% 8% 7% 7% 10%
Charlotte Duval Denver Prince
George's
Atlanta Boston Rochester
%ofoperatingbudget/expenditures
Leadership
Instructional
Support & PD
Business
Services
Operations &
Maintenance
Pupil Services
Instruction
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.
Cross District Comparison of Operating Expenses by Use
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District

Compared to other districts, Denver also spent a smaller % of
Operating Expenditures and a lower $pp on central overhead
8%
6%
7%
6% 6%
8%
6%
12%
15%
11%
10%
Charlotte
Duval
Chicago
Denver
PrinceGeorge's
Philadelphia
St.Paul
Atlanta
Wash.D.C.
Boston
Rochester
%ofexpenditures/budget
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database.
% of K12 operating expenditures spent on CENTRAL OVERHEAD
$pp $685 $547 $689 $594 $664 $941 $797 $1,656 $2,134 $1,619 $1,955

To determine how DPS can best use its limited
resources to significantly improve teaching and
transform outcomes for kids, this project focused on:
School Funding
Note on Human Capital: Teacher effectiveness - and human capital more broadly -
are critical to effective resource strategy. Given DPS’s ongoing implementation of
LEAP, ERS analysis didn’t focus as deeply on DPS’s investments in this area in SY0910
School Design
School Resource Flexibility

ERS Principles of an Effective School Funding System:
Aligned to Strategy: Supports the district academic strategy.
Meets Student Needs: Allocates resources equitably across
students, based on student need.
Equitable Across Schools: Allocates resources equitably
across schools, based on student and school need.
Transparent: School funding rules, policies, and
processes understood by all stakeholders.
Reflective: Integrates lessons learned.
School Funding

School Funding: Summary of Key Findings
• DPS’ school funding system is more transparent and
equitable than other systems ERS has studied.
• School size is largest driver of variation in per pupil spending
across schools.
• ELL allocations to schools are lower than other districts
studied and less than actual spending in some schools.
School Funding

Transparency: High level of transparency relative to other
districts studied
77% 77% 77% 76%
69% 66%
71%
58%
%ofexpenditures/budget
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures and Enrollment; - Excludes Charter Schools
% of K12 op. expenditures that is SCHOOL REPORTED Other Transparency Indicators:
 School budgets include most
funding sources and are
easy to compare.
 Funding formulas are widely
shared and understood.
 Principals report
understanding what they
have and why.
 School budget and expense
information includes benefit
costs.
School Funding

Education Resource Strategies 13
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
Equity: Variation in $pp across schools is less than what ERS has
seen in other districts (adjusted for student need)
ES/K-8 MS
Median $7.4K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.8X
Median $7.9K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X
FY0910 SCHOOL ATTRIBUTED $PWP
HS/SS
Median $8.1K
Hi-Lo Spread 1.4X
School Funding

Equity: Overall equity in funding across schools on the
high end of districts studied
54%
75%
81%
48%
59%
46%
Duval Denver Baltimore Prince George's District A Newark
%ofschools
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Share of Schools Within 10% of School Level Median Per Weighted Pupil Spending
School Funding

$5,000
$7,000
$9,000
$11,000
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
HS SS
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
$10,000
$11,000
$12,000
0 200 400 600 800 1000
ES K8
Elem./K-8 Schools: SA $pwp vs. Size
School Size
School-Attributed$pwp
Middle Schools
High/Secondary
Equity: In FY0910, small schools were the main driver of inequity in
funding across schools - DPS spent an add’l $6.5M on schools <350
$5,000
$7,000
$9,000
$11,000
$13,000
0 500 1000 1500
School Funding
DPS has addressed many of these issues since FY0910 (i.e.,
eliminating subsidy which accounted for 25% of $6.5M), however
small schools likely still receive significantly more $pp.

R² = 0.45
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
0 200 400 600 800 1000$pwp
ES K8
School Enrollment
Equity: Higher spending levels in small schools were
driven from outside of the SBB
School Enrollment
Small schools receive add’l resources through flat allocations, step-
function allocations, and subsidies beyond the stated formula.
Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. Non-SBB Expenditures
R² = 0.08
$4,000
$4,500
$5,000
$5,500
$6,000
$6,500
$7,000
$7,500
$8,000
$8,500
0 200 400 600 800 1000
$pwp
ES K8
Elem./K-8 Schools: Size vs. SBB Expenditures
School Funding

ELL: Re-evaluating the ELL resource strategy is important
because ELLs are disproportionately low-performing
32%
38%
29%
39%
14%
11%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DPS G3-5 All Test Takers DPS G3-5 Low Performers*
Source: DPS SY09-10 Enrollment Data and 2010 CSAP data.
*Low performers are students who scored U or PP on 2010 CSAP. ELL students comprise 30% of the population in 3rd -5th grade; 95% of ELL students have CSAP scores for
2010. Note: 3rd-5th Grade Reading Disproportionality Ratios: ELL Poverty is 1.55 and English Only Poverty is 1.12
“ELL Poverty”
Disproportionality
Ratio: 1.37x
SY0910: Disproportionality of 3rd-5th Grade Math Low
Performance by Student Type
Non-Poverty Students
ELL: Exited or Opt Out
ELL
English Only
Poverty Students
ELL: Exited or Opt Out
ELL
English Only
School Funding
“English Only Poverty”
Disproportionality
Ratio: 1.19x

ELL: Since SY0910, DPS has pushed additional resources to schools
with higher concentrations of ELL students by increasing the SBB FRL
weighting (in addition to Title I funding going to schools)School Funding
Despite these efforts, the greater disproportionality of ELLs as low performers raises
the question of whether DPS is sufficiently differentiating resources based on need.
$256 $268
$461
$290 $303
$496
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
SY0910 SY1011 SY1112
ES
HS
FRL Status Free Only Free Only Free and Red.
Subject to Offset*? Yes Yes No
Kinder counted as 1.0? No No Yes
SBB Allocation per Student by Free and Reduced Lunch Status
*This means that these funds were subject to the offsets from the “hurdle” during those years.
Note: In addition to the FRL SBB Allocations above, schools also received Title I money which was $433 or $525pp in SY1112 (depending on poverty level of school.)

District
ELL weight
(ERS-Defined)
ELL $pp
($K)
% ELL
Denver 1.1 $0.7 23%*
Chicago 1.1 $0.7 14%
St. Paul 1.1 $0.8 42%
Prince George’s 1.2 $1.7 11%
Philly 1.3 $2.6 8%
Duval 1.4 $2.9 3%
Boston 1.3 $3.2 21%
D.C. 1.3 $3.6 8%
Charlotte 1.5 $3.7 6%
Rochester 1.5 $7.6 10%
The district-allocated ELL funding is less than observed
in other districts studiedSchool Funding
Notes:
• Allocations to
schools driven by
consent decree
staffing
requirements
• Allocations
dependent on # of
students and
languages spoken
• ELA-E teachers are
funded through
schools’ base SBB
allocation; as such,
costs are excluded
from ELL weight
* Excludes “Opt-Out” students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL

DPS’ ELL spending focuses more on paraprofessionals
than St. Paul (recognized for ELL “best practice”)School Funding
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
DPS St. Paul
Other*
Leadership
Inst'l Support
& Prof Dev
Teachers
Paras/Aides
*Other includes Instructional Support/Program Management, Pupil Services, Operations & Business Services. See appendix for details within these areas.
** Excludes “Opt-Out” & Pre-K students; including “Opt-Out” and Pre-K students, ~30% of students are ELL
Breakdown of SY0910 ELL Designated Spending
Weight of 1.1 ($0.7k)
K-12: 23% ELL**
Weight of 1.1 ($0.8k)
K-12: 42% ELL

Across ES, some schools have created smaller classes for
ELLs using their “SBB base” funding, resulting in larger
classes for non-ELLs
Source: ERS Analysis DPS SY09-10 Coursefile
School Funding
34%
21% 22%
17%
14%
16%
49%
39% 40%
30% 29%
32%
<17 18-21 22-23 24-25 26-27 28+
%ELLinClass
% NEP % ELL
# of Classes 335 343 254 345 312 210
SY0910: % Elementary NEP & ELL Students by Class Size
Class Size Buckets
How to Interpret:
• In elementary classes
with 28+ students, 16%
of students were NEP.
• In contrast, in
elementary classes
with <17 students, 34%
of students were NEP.

Summary: DPS’ school funding system is more transparent
and equitable than other systems ERS has studied, however
there are still opportunities to refine the system
Summary of Key Findings DPS Action Steps
• DPS’ school funding system is more
transparent and equitable than other
systems ERS has studied.
• School size is largest driver of variation
in per pupil spending across schools.
• ELL allocations to schools are lower
than other districts studied and less
than actual spending in some schools.
• Explore further reduction of size-driven
variation in per pupil funding.
• For SY1213, add ELL weight to SBB
based on rethought service model.
• Explore adding other weights for
additional school and students need
characteristics to further differentiate
allocations based on need.
School Funding

ERS experience: While not all high-performing schools
look the same, their school designs tend to share
common elements
Teaching
Effectiveness
Our analysis of resource use looks at how DPS schools are investing in:
Teaching Effectiveness
 Teaching teams and staffing
plans
 Collaborative planning time
 Expert support
Academic Time
 Aligning schedule with
instructional design and
student needs
 Providing longer blocks of
time on core subjects
 Vary individual student time
/program when necessary
Individual Attention
 Tracking individual
student progress and
continuously adjusting
instruction
 Targeted individual
support through small
group sizes and
reduced teaching
loads in high needs
areas
 Addressing students’
social and emotional
needs
School Design

School Design: Summary of Key Findings
School Design
Some schools demonstrate best practice resource use, though overall,
resource use is uneven
Teaching Effectiveness:
• Schools will need to redesign in order to capture the full ROI of the
district’s LEAP implementation.
Individual Attention:
• ES: Despite having flexibility and different student needs, many schools
use the same para-driven approach to intervention.
• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in noncore subjects which limits
their ability to provide individual attention in core.
Maximizing Time:
• Most district schools (with exception of DSSN schools) have fewer school
hours compared to Denver charters.

Teaching Effectiveness: ERS’ framework for school based
instructional support stresses the inter-related nature of
critical teaching effectiveness investmentsSchool Design

LEAP Teacher
Effectiveness
Individual Tchr.
Developmental
Needs
LEAP Domain
Expectations
CELA Growth Student Needs
Data
Individual Tchr.
Development
Strengths
DATA
School
Principal
Teaching Effectiveness: Previously, schools leaders had limited data
to help decide teaching team assignments, for example. Moving
forward, LEAP and other data can help school leaders make better
decisionsSchool Design
DPS should create tools and support to enable principals to
leverage LEAP and other data.

Total
Teacher
Hours
1,152 1,134 1,328 1,285 1,345 1,395 1,260 1,393 1,463 1,472 1,440
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Boston Rochester Philadelphia Milwaukee Baltimore Pittsburgh Seattle Duval DC Denver Prince
George's
AnnualTeachersHrs–StudentHrs
DPS Teacher Time
8 hours*
184 days
DPS Student Time
6 hours 45 min
171days
Teaching Effectiveness: Denver teachers are in schools for 317 more
hours (~40 working days) than students; this difference is significantly
higher than in other urban districts ERS has studied
104 more
hours due
to longer
year
214 more
hours due
to longer
day
72 81
124 126
145
163
180
243
273
317 324
104
214
Source: DPS Contract and TR3 Database and the Rochester School District
* This metric shows the difference in annual teacher hours based on contract (days*hours) and annual student hours
(days * hours). Duty free periods/lunches are included in the student hours per day for all districts.
Difference Between the Annual Teacher Hours and Annual Student Hours
School Design

14
39
18 16
<15 15-20 21-25 >25
NumberofSchools
Teaching Effectiveness: Schools with high teacher-to-administrator
ratios will struggle to fully benefit from LEAP without reallocating to
invest in APs or significant restructuring of roles
ES: Schools by Teacher-to-Administrator Ratios
Source: ERS analysis, DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; - excludes charter schools
School Design
These Schools are mainly
mid-sized schools (350-625
students) who do not have an
Assistant Principal.
Teacher-to-Administrator Ratio Buckets

1. LEAP and other data improve principals’ ability to create strategic teacher
teams and leverage teacher strengths and weaknesses.
2. Due to the extended teacher day, CPT will likely happen after school and
hence concurrently for teams so coaches can’t be at every meeting.
3. Current low investment in coaches/facilitators (and limited funding overall)
limits potential to add more coaches.
4. LEAP requires add’l evaluator time so opportunities for principals and APs
to support teams directly is increasingly limited.
DPS should explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles and compensation
as part of ProComp.*
*ProComp currently doesn’t offer additional compensation for taking on multiple responsibilities as
teachers, which is an important component of a broader teacher career development pathway.
Teaching Effectiveness: Given current structure and constraints on new
investments, developing teacher leaders may be best way to ensure expert
support to teams during Collaborative Planning Time (CPT)
School Design

Individual Attention – Elementary: The dominant ES school design
use paras during “flooding periods” as the primary individual
attention strategy
• Started program in K; now in K-2
 3-4 paras “flood” into the homeroom class
for 30 minutes each day to help conduct
small group intensive literacy intervention
 “Flooding” in all grades
 Paras, interventionists, facilitators, SPED
teachers “flood” a grade level for 45 minutes
each day to provide small group
interventions
School X School Y
ERS criteria for effective Flexible Grouping School X School Y
Regular formative assessments, common to subject/grade
PD and support is provided on creating and using groups well
Time in schedule for all participants to review data, group students,
and agree on strategy
High-quality staff is available to create groups
School Design

$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
Charlotte Denver Duval Prince George's Syracuse
Compensationin$1,000’s
Avg. para Comp. = 1/3 of Avg.
Tchr. Comp. in DPS
Individual Attention – Elementary: Compared to other districts
studied, Denver paras have the lowest average compensation and
lowest relative compensation compared to teachers
0.5 0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
Range of Para Compensation Across Districts
Source: DPS SY09-10 expenditures and enrollment; ERS analysis.
School Design
If use of paras continues as a core strategy, DPS should explore more rigorous
evaluation of paras to ensure high-quality.

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 32Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data.
Individual Attention - Secondary:
In HS, higher per student cost of class in non-core subjects than in
core is driven by lower class sizes and higher teacher compensation
Subject Avg Cost
of GenEd
Class
# of
Classes
Avg.
GenEd
Class Size
Avg. Tchr
Comp
Avg. Yrs
of Exp.
% on Pro-
Comp
ELA $426/pp 599 23 $71,658 9 62%
Math $445 547 23 $74,734 8 84%
Science $393 437 25 $69,807 8 70%
Social Studies $383 444 25 $73,132 10 59%
Foreign Language $372 198 26 $75,142 12 60%
Art/Music $538 142 23 $74,555 10 60%
Computer Literacy $489 27 20 $76,149 15 48%
PE/Health $271 71 30 $78,288 14 44%
Vocational/Career $519 47 22 $84,542 15 69%
Denver SS G9-12: Average Cost of Class by Subject
Given this differential, DPS should explore expanding flexibility to schools around non-
traditional ways of offerings noncore classes.
School Design

-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500
Noncore-Core
K8
MS
6-12
HS
School Y
Noncore Class Size = 16
Core Class Size = 25
Individual Attention - Secondary:
Smaller HS and upper grades (6-8) of K-8s have largest
differentials in core v. non-core class size
Source: DPS 0910 CourseSchedule Data. Note: ERS defines core subjects as ELA, Math, Social Studies, Science & Foreign Language.
Denver SS: Difference in Avg. Noncore and Core Class vs. School Size
At these schools,
noncore >
Core Class Sizes
School Size
At these schools,
noncore <
Core Class Sizes
School X
Noncore Class Size = 31
Core Class Size = 22
School Design

0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
StudentHoursPerYear
Innovation Traditional Charter
Mode- 1204, equivalent to 172 days that are 7 hours
DPS Secondary Schools
DPS: Secondary Student Hours per Year by School
Source: DPS 0910 Course Schedule
Maximize Time: Most charters have opted for more
student hours, while district schools almost all had the
same school hours per year in SY0910School Design
DPS should consider future investment to extend school day/year.

Summary: Some schools demonstrate best practice
resource use, though overall, resource use is uneven
particularly in the following areas:School Design
Teaching Effectiveness:
• Schools will need to redesign in order to
capture the full ROI of the district’s LEAP
implementation.
Individual Attention:
• ES: Despite having flexibility and different
student needs, many schools are using the
same para-driven approach to intervention.
• SS: Many schools offer small class-sizes in
noncore subjects which limits their ability to
provide individual attention in core.
Maximizing Time:
• Most district schools (with exception of DSSN
schools) have fewer school hours
compared to Denver charters.
• Actively promote the effective use of
resources in all schools:
o Continue to build school leader capacity
o Build capacity within school support depts.
(OSRI and Area Supt’s offices)
o Create research-based school design
templates for principals to adapt
o Revise Framework for Effective School
Leadership to hold principals accountable
for the effective use of resources
o Create tools/support to enable principals
to leverage LEAP and other data
• Explore formalizing differentiated teacher roles
and compensation as part of ProComp.
• Consider future investment to extend school
day/year.

The purpose of providing resource flexibility to schools is to
enable them to develop the strategic school designs that will best
meet their school and student needs
Guiding Principles to be “tight”
Protection of Student Health & Safety
Giving schools control over this service could negatively impact the health & safety
outcomes of students; holding schools accountable to those outcomes is costly or risky.
Compliance with Law/Legal Liability
The district has accountability for the service/activity (i.e., to state, federal) and
transferring the accountability to the school-level would not actually give schools more
flexibility and/or would create additional legal risk.
Targeting of Funds to Highest Need students
Giving schools control over this service could negatively impact the District’s ability to
target the use of funds to serve students with greater needs.
Consistency of District Strategy/ Experience
This service is critical to district strategy, important to ensure the consistency of student
experience across district, or important for system but not for individual schools.
Quality Control
Ensuring the quality of this service requires specialized expertise or content knowledge
that principals are unlikely to have, or is more effectively managed centrally .
Economies of Scale
Per student or per school cost of providing the service/activity across all schools is
much less than providing it at a single (or small number of) school(s).
Insurance/Risk-Pooling
The need for this service/activity is unpredictable and/or varies greatly across schools,
and the costs are significant – i.e., major facilities repairs, low-incidence SPED, etc.
Three Dimensions of Financial
Flexibility:
How Much: Flexibility “over
how much to spend on a
service”
How: Flexibility “over how to
provide the service”
Who: Flexibility “over
who/what is used to provide
the service”
School Flexibility
1
2
3

School Flexibility: Summary of Key Findings
• Overall, lack of capacity around strategic school design has
been greater limiting factor to the effective use of resources
than lack of flexibility.
• Schools have the most flexibility in deciding “who” should
provide the service.
• Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more about
who can provide the service and less about how to provide it.
School Flexibility

40%
60%
71%
60%
40%
29%
Loose Tight
Most of these $s
have some type of
external constraint:
• Title I
• Special Ed: Mild
Moderate &
Center Program
• Mill Levy: Kinder,
Textbooks, Arts
• Other Grants
Under SBB, schools have the most flexibility in
deciding who/what to spend on
Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations
School-Attributed Spending: By Flexibility Category
How Much How Who/What
School Flexibility

Innovation School Menu of Service has focused more
about who can provide the service and less about how
to provide it
2010-11 Menu Estimated Total 1011 $s
Available to Innov.
Schls
How much How Who
Custodians $1.6M Loose Loose Loose
PSNs $539k Loose Loose Loose
Occupational & Physical Therapist $258k Tight Tight Loose
Textbook Acquisition (Fund 16) $189k Tight Loose Loose
High School Athletics $163k Tight Loose Loose
Title IID $103k Tight Loose Loose
College Readiness $93k Tight Tight Loose
Post-Secondary Education Options $88k Tight Loose Loose
Credit Recovery $67k Tight Loose Loose
Human Resources $51k Loose Loose Loose
District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 10) $39k Loose Loose Loose
Library, Film, LION, Book Baskets $35k Tight Tight Loose
District PD /SIT Academy (Fund 16) $30k Tight Tight Loose
9th Grade Academies $25k Tight Loose Loose
AVID: Participation $18k Tight Loose Loose
Teacher Leadership Development $12k Loose Loose Loose
Career & Tech Program $12k Tight Loose Loose
Textbook Acquisition (Fund 10) $9k Loose Loose Loose
Principal PD $7k Loose Loose Loose
Total $3.3m
School Flexibility
Note: ERS Estimates using 0910 Expenditures but 1011 Menu Allocations

School Flexibility: Summary
• Overall, lack of capacity around
strategic school design has been
greater limiting factor to the effective
use of resources than lack of flexibility.
• Schools have the most flexibility in
deciding “who” should provide the
service.
• Innovation School Menu of Service
has focused more about who can
provide the service and less about
how to provide it.
• Support and incentivize the
development of school designs to
meet specific needs.
• Moving forward, specific strategic
school design needs should drive
greater flexibility (especially over
“how” to provide services).
School Flexibility

DPS has already put in place much of the groundwork it needs to successfully
implement its “managed performance empowerment” theory of action:
How, overall, will DPS be able to use its limited
resources to significantly improve teaching and
transform outcomes for kids?
School Design
• DPS’ school funding system is highly transparent and equitable though there are
opportunities to refine: further adjust the SBB formula to match student needs
(particularly in ELL) and further reduce size-driven variation.
However, the ultimate success of a “managed performance empowerment”
system lies in the hands of its principals – whether they can leverage funding
and flexibility to best meet the needs of their students:
• Thus, it is critical for DPS to actively promote the effective use of resources in all
schools by building school leader capacity, building capacity for those who
support school leaders (OSRI, Instructional Sups), and creating the tools, systems,
and structures that will best support them both.
• Ultimately, the demands of strategic school designs should drive flexibility
expansion; DPS can foster greater flexibility by incentivizing designs that focus on
specific needs

 Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures
 ERS Use & Function Coding
 Drilldown into SY0910 Operations & Maintenance Expenditures
 ERS Sharing Level Coding
 Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars
 ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need
 Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112
 Additional Explanation of Flexibility Dimensions
Appendix Slides

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures, ERS analysis
Definition of SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures
SY0910 Expenditures $1.024 billion
Exclude Non-SY0910-Operating Costs $255 million
Capital $74,674,239
Debt Service $69,424,083
Property Rental/Lease $46,661,450
Transfers $54,623,015
Other Exclusions $9,277,508
Exclude Non-PreK12 Costs $31 million
Adult Ed/EGOS $19,231,896
Private Schools $1,203,940
SPED outplacement $4,072,243
Pre K External Contract $3,139,095
Tuition Based after school and summer school $ 3,290,877
SY0910 PreK-12 Operating Expenditures $738 million
Charter $69,351,527
Appendix

EDUCATION RESOURCE STRATEGIES 44Source: ERS knowledge management
ERS Use & Function Coding: To ensure comparability across
districts in our analysis, ERS uses its own methodologies,
definitions and coding structures – including “use” and “function”
Pupil Services & Enrichment
Instruction
Operations & Maintenance
Instruction Support & Prof. Dev.
Business Services
Leadership
• Teacher Compensation
• Aides Compensation
• Substitute Compensation
• Librarian & Media Specialist
• Instructional Materials & Supplies
• Other Non-Compensation
• Other Compensation
• Extended Time & Tutoring
• Enrichment
• Social Emotional
• Physical Health Services & Therapies
• Career Academic Counseling
• Parent & Community Relations
• Professional Development
• Curriculum Development
• Recruitment(of Instructional Staff)
• Special Population Program Management
& Support
• Facilities & Maintenance
• Security & Safety
• Food Services
• Student Transportation
• Utilities
• Governance
• School Supervision
• School Administration
• Research & Accountability
• Communications
• Student Assignment
• Human Resources
• Finance, Budget, Purchasing, Distribution
• Data Processing & Information Services
• Facilities Planning
• Development & Fundraising
• Legal
• Insurance
Use
Function
Appendix

Within O&M, Transportation and Facilities & Maintenance drive
most of difference; Facilities & Maintenance is particularly low
given Denver’s larger square foot per pupil
4.8%
7.2%
5.5%
9.1%
6.1%
4.7%
2.5%
5.9%
5.2% 4.2%
3.5%
3.8%2.3% 3.0%
2.3%
2.7%
1.1% 0.8%
0.6%
0.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Charlotte Duval Denver Prince George's
Security & Safety
Utilities
Food Services
Student Transportation
Facilities & Maintenance
19.9%
14.5%
22.3%
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE: % of PreK12 Operating
Lower $pp
District
Higher $pp
District
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses, ERS Analysis, ERS Benchmark Database
19.5%
SqFt/pupil 132 130 166 143
Appendix

ERS Sharing Level Coding: ERS also recodes expenses to identify how
much the district spends at the following four “levels”:
District Governance, Management of the
support services provide to Schools
Example: Superintendent, Board, Strategy,
Dir. of Math, Dir. of Transportation
Leadership &
Management
“Central Overhead”
DPS: % of
Expenses
6%
All FTEs, services, and materials not reported
on the school budget, but support schools on
a regular and predictable basis
Example: Athletics, Prep Kitchens, PSNs
All FTEs, services, and materials allocated
directly to schools in the district expenditures
Example: SBB Allocations, Non-SBB Resources
School on
Central
School
Reported
All FTEs, services, and materials that provide
support to schools but generally on as-
needed or irregular basis
Example: Transportation, Maintenance
Support
Services
“School-Attributed”
This is what ERS uses to
compare spending across
schools
9%
9%
76%
Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,
In SY1112, the “School-Reported” % will be even higher because
many of the resources that were “School on Central” in SY0910
like PSNs will now be accounted for at schools
Appendix

Source: DPS SY0910 Expenditures Excludes Charter Expenses,
School
Reported:
89%
All FTEs, services, and materials reported to schools in the expenditures file.
SBB:
65%
SBB Base funding: $3,931 for all schools K-12 (K=.5) in SY1112
Other SBB Allocations: For example – Mild Moderate, Title I, FRL
Supplemental Funds, Mill Levy: Tech, Facilitators, Textbooks, Kinder,
Elementary Arts, etc.
Non-SBB:
24%
For example: Custodial Services, Food Services, Security Services,
Special Education Center Programs, General Education Programs like
Boost, AVID, Credit Recovery, College Readiness, etc.
School on
Central:
11%
All FTEs, services, and materials that are reported on central budgets in the
expenditures file, but supports schools on a regular and predictable basis.
For example: Athletics, Central Food Prep Kitchens, Related Services (OT, PT,
Speech, etc.), Other SPED Services, Central Textbook Adoption, Teaching
Effectiveness Coaches, Operations & Maintenance, etc.
Breakdown of Denver’s “School-Attributed” Dollars
Appendix

School S School D
% SPED 5% 9%
% ELA 1% 15%
% Pov 9% 75%
$6,764/pp
$6,766/pp
These two schools have the same per
pupil amount but School D serves a much
needier student population …
… so ERS takes the student type weights
that we calculated to adjust each
school’s enrollment to create an
“adjusted” per-pupil amount
School S School D
Enrollment 504 428
Weighed
Enrollment*
441 422
$7,957/pwp
$7,067/pwp
1 2
ERS Methodology for Adjusting $pp for Student Need: Comparing two
Denver schools shows why we need to try to "adjust" a school’s per-
pupil spending according to student needs
*For example: We know that the district overall spending on SPED-Mild Moderate students is 2.4 weight-> so
any SPED Mild Moderate students at School D and School S are weighted 2.4 in the school’s weighted
enrollment. Across the district, the weighted enrollment is then grossed down proportionally to get to the
district’s actual enrollment.
Appendix

Changes in SBB Weights and Policies: SY0910 to SY1112
Appendix
ALLOCATION FY09-10* FY10-11* FY11-12 NOTES
Base Per Pupil*
$3,335 for all schools K-12 (K=.5)
Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle
Middle Schools $58 *
6-12 Schools $3 *
High Schools $157 *
Additional per pupil funding below subject to hurdle
Middle Schools $58 *
6-12 Schools $3 *
High Schools $157 *
Instructional Dollars $193 K-12 (K=.5) $193 K-12 (K=.5) Included in Base
Guest Teachers NONE $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00) $52 ECE-12 (@ 1.00)
Guest Teachers (Substitutes) were budgeted
centrally until FY10-11 when dollars were devolved
to schools
Supplemental Base for
Center Programs
NONE NONE
$ Per Center Program per K-12 (K=.5)
Until FY11-12 this allocation was included as part of
PSN staffing allocation (below)
ES - $12
K8 - $12
MS - $13
6-12 - $13
HS/Alt - $11
PSN (Student Service
Days) Staffing
Allocation*
NONE
As of FY11-12 - No specific PSN staffing allocation -
$110-114 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 (K-12, K=.5) $106-$119 included in Base (above)
$50-55 (FL grades K-12, K=.5) $52-$57 (FL grades 1-12) $52-$57 included in FRL Supp Funds Allocation
$11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5)
FTE minimums required - subsidies allocated to ensure
appropriate staffing
$11-13 per center/per K-12 (K=.5)
$11-13 included in Supp Base for Center Programs
Mild Moderate
Staffing Allocation*
$351 for FRL Students $334 for FRL Students
NONE
As of FY11-12 - No specific MM staffing allocation
$234 for non-FRL Students
$223 for non-FRL Students
FRL is a standalone allocation (below)
Non-FRL students funded as part of SBB Base - (All
K-12, K=.5)
Free Lunch / Free and
Reduced Lunch Supp
Funds*
$256 Elementary FL ($122 subject to offset) $268 for Elementary FL ($128 subject to offset) $461 for Elementary
As of FY11-12 allocated to free AND REDUCED lunch
students and K @ 1.00$290 Secondary FL ($220 subject to offset) $303 for Secondary FL ($230 subject to offset) $496 for Secondary
Gifted & Talented Per
Pupil*
$95 $95 $120
Per identified GT (gr. 1-8) in addition to .25 FTE
allocation
Targeted
Interventions
$100,000 targeted allocation $100,000 targeted allocation
$100,000-$250,000
SPF "Orange" and "Red" schools
Performance
Allocation
NONE NONE
$65/student - SPF Blue
NEW for FY11-12
$95/student for growth to Orange
$100/student for growth to Yellow
$105/student for growth to Green
$115/student for growth to Blue
Extra Allocations (IB,
Montessori, Arts)
$2.2 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $2.3 million (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE
Funding added to class size relief pool, additional
school funding addressed through that process
Small School Factor $1,649,768 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation $854,000 (Total) - Not a per pupil allocation NONE
Funding added to class size relief pool, additional
school funding addressed through that process
* Subject to offset due to hurdle. This offset was eliminated with FY11-12 formula changes.

What do we mean by flexibility over “How
Much”
Flexibility over “How Much”TIGHT
Principal
PD
District determines a minimum
amount that each school must
spend on Principal PD.
Schools can choose if they want to
spend any $ on Principal PD, and if
so, how much. They can choose to
spend no $ if they want.
Speech
Pathology
Services
Districts review IEPs/student need
at school and tell schools how
much Speech Pathology to offer.
Schools review IEPs/student needs
themselves to decide how much
Speech Pathology to offer. They
can provide none but only if their
students don’t need it.
The school decides if they
want to provide a service, and
if so, how much to spend.
The district decides that the
service must be provided and the
minimum amount to be spent.
LOOSE
Appendix
Source: ERS knowledge management

What do we mean by flexibility over “How ”?
Flexibility over “How”TIGHT
Principal
PD
District determines that the amount
spent on Principal PD will go
towards funding network meetings
and attending workshop X.
Schools can choose how to use
the amount spent on Principal PD –
i.e., they want to take workshop Y
and get executive coaching.
Speech
Pathology
Services
District determines that the amount
spent on Speech Pathology will go
towards funding a full time 1.0 FTE
at the school.
Schools can choose how to use
the amount spent on Speech
Pathology, i.e., hire 2 partial FTEs
OR purchase services by hour.
The school decides the
structure through which the
service will be provided.
The district decides the structure
through which the service will be
provided.
LOOSE
Appendix

What do we mean by flexibility over
“Who/what”?
Flexibility over “Who/what”TIGHT
Principal
PD
District determines that principals
can only attend workshops off an
approved list or get executive
coaching from provider X.
Schools can choose which
workshops to attend, which
coach/mentor to hire, etc.
Speech
Pathology
Services
District assigns the Speech
Pathologist OR determines the
provider that schools can purchase
hourly services from.
School hires the Speech
Pathologist OR can decide which
provider to purchase hourly
services from.
The school decides who to
hire or from which provider
they will procure the resource.
The district decides the person or
provider or significantly restricts the set
of people or providers from which they
can choose.
LOOSE
Appendix

Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

Similar a Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report (20)

Más de Education Resource Strategies

Más de Education Resource Strategies (16)

Último

Último (20)

Presentation to the DPS Board:Resource Mapping Summary Report

Notas del editor