Transcript KEY FINDINGS - 21st Century School Fund

KEY FINDINGS
An Analysis of DCPS General
Education Resources in Preliminary
Local School Budgets for FY 2009
Analysis by Mary Levy, Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs
July 17, 2008
WHAT WAS ANALYZED
• General education resources for DCPS local schools for
Fiscal year 2009
• Based on May 2008 posting of local school budgets by
DCPS. Changes may have been made since then—but
no information is available.
• Does not include funds for English Language Learners,
special education, or federal funds.
• 112 schools included. Excludes special education
schools and centers, Peabody early childhood, Oyster
bilingual, schools-within-schools (Reggio Emilia, Dunbar
Pre-Engineering, Woodson Business & Finance) and
STAY programs.
DCPS PER STUDENT FUNDING
• Public education funding is higher this year than ever
before.
• In three-fourths of the schools, per pupil funding increased
by more than enough to cover the likely amount of
negotiated pay increases, but a few will have less funding
per pupil than last year and one-fourth will lack funding fully
to cover likely pay increases.
DCPS PER STUDENT FUNDING
• DCPS replaced the Weighted Student Formula with a
Staff & Budget Allocation model.
• New goal = make sure every student has the same
staffing at every school with variances based on grades
served, school size, and “comprehensive staffing” of
consolidating schools.
• Art, music and PE added to every ES. Professional
developers (coaches) for literacy and sometimes math
added to schools. Other positions eliminated or
replaced with similar functions.
Key Finding #1: Discrepancies between
Low Income & Affluent Communities’
Schools
• Overall, as groups, the ES and HS with the fewest lowincome students receive more local funding per pupil
than any other groups of schools in the city, including
the ES with the greatest percentage of low-income
students.
• Last year the situation was the reverse. Total average
per student local funding for the most affluent
schools was $5,925 compared to $6,222 for the
highest poverty elementary schools.
Comparison of average per pupil local funds of the
lowest and highest poverty schools
Grade Level
Elementary
(Pre S-grade 6)
PreS-8
(up to grade 7/8)
Middle
(grades 6/7 – 8)
Regular senior high
Magnet senior high (selective admissions)
Students Eligible for Free/Reduced
Lunch
# schools
Average per pupil local
funding
FY2009
33% or less
Lowest poverty
12
$ 7,269
More than 85%
Highest poverty
16
$ 6,805
All are greater than 40%
High poverty
19
$ 7,118
3
$ 6,351
10
$ 7,255
Less than 40% (1 @ 38%)
Low poverty
1
$ 5,848
Greater than 40%
High poverty
9
$ 6,340
Less than 31%
Low poverty
3
$10,570
Greater than 40% (1 @ 43%) High poverty
1
$ 8,376
Less than 40%
Low poverty
Greater than 40%
High poverty
Key Finding #2:
Funding Variations are Extreme
• The budgets show discrepancies of up to $4,200 per
student among individual schools at the same grade level.
The extremes are not just a few exceptions, since the
discrepancies between the 25th and 75th percentiles at all
grade levels run from over $1,000 to over $2,000 per
student.
• Last year (SY 2007-08) the gap between the lowest and
highest elementary schools was a little under $2000, but
differences of that magnitude were exceptional: the
funding difference between the 10th and 90th percentile
schools was $625 and between the 25th and 75th
percentile schools only $265.
Key Finding #3: Restructuring Funding
Lower than Others
Elementary, Pre-K - 8, and high schools undergoing
NCLB restructuring receive less local funding per pupil
on the average than higher performing schools.
DCPS Local $$ Per Pupil: Restructuring vs. Other
Schools
$12,000
$9,689
$10,000
$8,000
$6,788
$7,088
ES
Res truc
ES Other
$7,035
$7,270
$7,378
$6,553
$6,282
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
PreS-8
Res truc
PreS-8
Other
MS
Res truc
MS Other
SH
Res truc
SH
Magnet
(not
res truc)
Key Finding #4: Class Size Variations
Elementary and high schools with the fewest lowincome students have smaller class sizes on the
average than those in other schools in the city.
Within the middle school group, however, higher
poverty schools on the average have smaller class
sizes.
Comparison of average class size of the lowest
and highest poverty schools
Grade Level
Students Eligible for
Free/Reduced Lunch
# of schools
Average class size
PreS-PreK
K-12
Elementary
(PreS-grade 6)
33% or less (lowest poverty)
12
17.0
21.8
More than 85% (highest poverty)
16
16.3
24.1
PreS-8
(up to grade 7/8)
All are more than 40% (high poverty)
19
19.6
21.9
Middle
(grades 6/7 – 8)
Less than 40% (low poverty)
3
26.2
More than 40% (high poverty)
10
24.7
Less than 40% (low poverty)
1
22.9
More than 40% (high poverty)
9
23.7
Less than 31% (low poverty)
3
14.5
More than 40% (1 @ 43%) (high poverty)
1
16.2
Regular high schools
Magnet high schools
(selective admission)
Class Size in Restructuring HS
Average class sizes in schools undergoing NCLB
restructuring generally do not differ much from those in
other schools—except at the high school level.
DCPS magnet high schools (all non-restructuring) have
much smaller classes than the high schools in
restructuring. 15.1 vs. 23.5
Key Finding #5:
ESL Not in Compliance
About half the schools needing teachers for English
Language Learners are allocated fewer teachers than
required by the DCPS Compliance Agreement with the US
Department of Education.
Key Finding #6:
DCPS Teacher Allocation Model Not
Followed
Only 24% of the school allocations actually adhere to the
Staffing Model as to classroom teachers. Most of the rest
have fewer classroom teachers than they are entitled to, but
a small number have more.
Key Finding #7:
Custodial Staffing Unfair
Custodians are assigned on the basis of enrollment,
with a minimum of three per building, resulting in per
custodian coverage of as little as 5,500 square feet or
as much as 37,000 square feet of school floor space.
If a typical classroom is 800 sq. ft., then some
custodians will clean the equivalent of 7 classrooms
and others will clean 46.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Increase funds to low-income schools with the greatest
need, without pulling resources from other schools.
Estimated cost = $48 million dollars.
2. Use the staffing model to permit the hiring of teachers
and other personnel at schools where they are short
personnel under the model. Estimated cost $9 million
dollars (included in $48 million above).
3. Retain local school influence over budgets and staffing
and permit increased flexibility in the staffing model to
allow local schools to meet individualized needs within
their budget allocation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4.
5.
6.
7.
Bring the staffing of ESL teachers into compliance
with the federal compliance agreement.
Assign custodial staff based on building size as well
as enrollment.
Assess the staffing model for special education
programs and services.
Establish an ongoing working group of DCPS central
office officials, budget analysts and local school and
community representatives who begin now to evaluate
the model, address inequities, and field test any
changes for next year.