Resource Equity NASBE Annual Conference 10/18/2018 Todays - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Resource Equity

NASBE Annual Conference

10/18/2018

Today’s Objectives

Build an understanding of:

• What we mean by resource equity
• How your state compares to others in terms of performance,

spending, and equity and which key questions to explore further

• Levers to improve resource equity and the role states can play

Our mission

Education Resource Strategies is a national nonprofit that partners with district, school, and state leaders to transform how they use resources (people, time, and money) so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income.

What do we mean by resource equity?

5

Equal Fundin ing

Schools get comparable resources based on size and/or

• ther fixed allocation drivers.

Equit itable le Fundin ing

Schools get resources that are comparable based on student needs and what it will take to reach high learning goals.

With empowering, rigorous learning standards for all children…

6

Resource Equity is the allocation and use of resources (people, time, and money) to create student experiences that enable all children to reach empowering, rigorous learning outcomes — no matter their race or income.

What is Resource Equity?

7

How Much and How Well

How Much Student Outcomes How Well

Inequities persist, even when funding increases. How well those funds are used is critical to equitably improving student outcomes Skepticism and lack of clarity for what the money will buy has hindered the case for more funds. Greater clarity for how resources would be used and proof points for using them well would bolster the case for greater investment in education

8

Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools

Sk Sky Blu lue Academy Gr Green Str Street H.S .S.

9-12 12 550 550 22 22 84% 84% 9-12 12 565 565 23 23 82% 82% Grades Stu tudents Tea eachers Pct ct Poverty (F (FRL)

$12,960 $13,080

9

Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools

13% 13% 10% / 3% 7% 7% 100% 100% 24% 24% 11% / 13% 22% 22% 35% 35% Spec ecia ial Ed Resource / Self-Contained 9th

th gr

graders in in bot

• ttom quartil

ile e ELA LA Ch Chose to

• atten

end sch chool

Sk Sky Blu lue Academy Gr Green Str Street H.S .S.

$12,960 $13,080

10

Defining “equity” – a tale of two schools

% % ELA ELA Prof

• ficient/Advanced

Sk Sky Blu lue Academy Gr Green Str Street H.S .S.

$12,9 ,960 $1 $13,0 3,080 20 Year Vet “Star” Ha Hand-pic icked Novice 8 Force e pla lace ced, 8 subs, , no

• ELA

LA ce cert rtifie ied Prin rincipal Tea eaching Staff 68% 68% 35% 35% 7% 7%

%ELA in Lowest Quartile

22% 22%

11

States and districts can measure across how much and how well across “11 Dimensions of Resource Equity”

12

States can play a powerful role in enabling and supporting both resource equity

State Roles or Mechanisms: ▪Funding ▪Accountability & Reporting ▪Support ▪Flexibility & Innovation How much How well

There are four levels of resource equity that must be addressed

States Divisions Schools Classrooms

What do you need to know to begin to assess the resource equity in your state?

Five key questions to ask about resource equity in your state

• 1. How does your state compare in terms of overall performance? Subgroup

performance?

• 2. How does your state compare in terms of overall spending? Equity in funding

across districts?

• 3. How much does spending vary within districts based on need?
• 4. Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to

accelerate learning for ALL students?

• 5. Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making

and support?

How does your state compare in terms

• f overall performance? In terms of

subgroup performance?

Key question #1

Overall performance varies across states

Source: ERS analysis based on NAEP Data Explorer

207 236 190 195 200 205 210 215 220 225 230 235 240 Alaska New Mexico Louisiana South Carolina Nevada Texas Mississippi California Arizona Arkansas Hawaii Alabama Oklahoma West Virginia Oregon Michigan Tennessee Wisconsin Georgia Illinois Maine Delaware North Dakota Iowa South Dakota New York Montana Missouri Idaho Washington Kansas Rhode Island North Carolina Kentucky Nebraska Minnesota Colorado Pennsylvania Maryland Utah Ohio Indiana Vermont Wyoming Virginia Florida Connecticut New Hampshire New Jersey Massachusetts

Average Scale Score

2017 NAEP Average Scale Score, 4th Grade Reading

National average = 222

The proportion of students living in poverty is highly correlated with performance –in Virginia:

40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Pass Rate on Standards of Learning Tests % of Economically Disadvantaged Students

2017 English Reading scores, Virginia

Source: Virginia Department of Education, SY 16-17

In our partner districts, school-level concentration of poverty lowers performance for ALL students

Source: ERS analysis of 8 large districts across 8 states

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0-9% 10-19% 20-29% 30-39% 40-49% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-89% 90-100%

Percent of Students Rated Proficient School-Level Concentration of Poverty

Student Performance vs. School-Level Concentration of Poverty

Non-Economically Disadvantaged Student Economically Disadvantaged Student

How does your state compare in terms

• f overall spending? Equity in funding

across districts?

Key question #2

Even adjusted for cost of living, highest spending state spends 3X the lowest

$7.5K $22.4K

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 Utah Indiana Arizona Nevada Idaho North Dakota Texas California Oklahoma Mississippi North Carolina Florida Virginia Alabama Georgia Tennessee Maine Michigan South Dakota Ohio Colorado Arkansas New Mexico Washington Kentucky Louisiana Missouri Wisconsin Kansas Hawaii Oregon Iowa South Carolina Minnesota Maryland Illinois Montana Nebraska Rhode Island Pennsylvania West Virginia Massachusetts Delaware New Hampshire New Jersey Wyoming Connecticut New York Vermont Alaska

Total K12 Per Pupil Expenditure, 2017-18 (adjusted for geography)

Source: Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018, NEA Research April 2018; NCES Comparable Wage Index; ERS analysis

National median = $12.3K

While spending levels don’t predict outcomes, they limit or create possibility.

In more than half of states, high poverty districts have lower funding levels than low poverty districts

Source: Is School Funding Fair? A National Report Card 7th Edition (February 2018) http://www.schoolfundingfairness.org/is-school-funding-fair/reports

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%

Nevada Illinois North Dakota Maine Missouri South Dakota Arizona Alabama Virginia Montana Maryland New Mexico Texas New Hampshire Rhode Island Iowa Connecticut Nebraska New York Washington Oregon Tennessee Pennsylvania Michigan Florida Idaho Kentucky Vermont Kansas Mississippi West Virginia California Oklahoma South Carolina Indiana Louisiana North Carolina Colorado Wisconsin Arkansas Georgia Massachusetts Wyoming New Jersey Ohio Minnesota Delaware Utah

%Difference in Funding Between Highest and Lowest Poverty Districts Education Law Center Funding Distribution Ratio

Funds for student poverty and district concentrated poverty Funds for district concentrated poverty Funds for student poverty Does not fund for poverty

Regressive Progressive

States can choose a starting place for reform based on the level of spending and equity in funding

Equity index is based on an average of the standard deviations across the EdTrust Funding Gaps 2018 metric and the ELC Funding Distribution Ratio. Spending level is calculated as difference from the national average for each state for per pupil expenditure for 2017-18 after controlling for geography. Source: Rankings of the States 2017 and Estimates of School Statistics 2018, NEA Research April 2018; NCES Comparable Wage Index; Funding Gaps 2018, EducationTrust; Is School Funding Fair 2018, Education Law Center; ERS analysis

AL AK AZ AR CA CO CT DE FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY

• $8K
• $6K
• $4K
• $2K

$0K $2K $4K $6K $8K $10K $12K

• 3.0
• 2.5
• 2.0
• 1.5
• 1.0
• 0.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Equity index Spending level

Higher spending lower equity Focus on use & Level Lower spending lower equity Focus on Level Higher spending Greater Equity Focus on Use Lower spending Greater Equity Focus on Level

How much does spending vary within districts based on need?

Key question #3

We typically see significant variation in funding between schools in the same district

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 $10,000

Source: ERS Analysis; District Financial File 2016

Elementary Schools Middle

Median $5.8K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X

District Example- ERS analysis School Level Gen Ed. Dollar per Gen Ed. Student by School

Excludes Federal Funds High

Median $7.0K Hi-Lo Spread 1.9X Median $6.5K Hi-Lo Spread 1.6X

Districts do not intentionally allocate resources inequitably

…but district policies often unintentionally create inequity. Funding inequity is never intentional…

For example, most districts use average (as opposed to actual) teacher salary for budgeting which disguises inequity

Using average salary School A School B District average salary $60,000 $60,000 Number of teachers 10 10 Budgeted for salary $600,000 $600,000 Though the district would appear to be making an equal investment in these schools on an average salary basis… …School B actually invests $300 $300k mor

• re

than School A Using actual salary School A School B Novice teachers earning $30,000 each 5 Mid-level teachers earning $60,000 each 5 5 Experienced teachers earning $90,000 each 5 Actual salary $450,000 $750,000

An important step for each district to take is to identify their drivers of spending variation

District Strategy School opening/ closure $

School Level $ School Type $

Student Need

Special Education $$$

English Language Learners $$ $$ Economic Disadvantage $$ $$

Other Student Needs $

Unplanned

Enrollment/ School Size $$$

Teacher Compensation $ Building Utilization $ Enrollment Projections $ Ad-hoc exceptions $

Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to accelerate learning for ALL students?

Key question #4

Schools that accelerate learning for all students “do” school differently

Organizing for high performance means making big shifts from traditional ways of organizing resources

Design Essential

From: To:

Teacher Collaboration

Teaching as an individual enterprise. Teams of teachers who work together to execute a collective vision for excellent instruction, and their own professional improvement. A “one-size-fits-all” teaching job. Roles, assignments and compensation that match each individual’s unique skills and expertise to needed roles.

Personalized Time & Attention

Standardized class sizes in “one- teacher classrooms.” Groups of teachers and students that vary across subjects, activities and students. Rigid time allocations. Flexible schedules that allow time to vary with needs of students.

Whole Child

Investments in culture and social- emotional support that remove resources from core instruction. Investments that are embedded within and reinforce the school’s core instructional work.

States and districts can support principals in making this transformation

• Provide financial support to cohorts of districts or schools that want to pilot new

ways of organizing resources

• Provide tools for building class schedules, including scheduling models and example

schedules

• Create job-embedded and targeted strategic school design supports
• Increase flexibility over financial and non-financial resources, such as flexibility over

staffing assignments, hiring, and outside partnerships coupled with strong accountability for performance

Many districts don’t have meaningful flexibility over resources, in part because of state categorical mandates which limits their ability to use their resources strategically

1% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4% 5% 5% 6% 6% 7% 8% 8% 8% 10%10%10%10%10%11%12%12%12%13%14%14%15%15%16%18%19%19%19%20%20%20%22% 26% 28%29%30% 44% 55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Arizona New York Georgia New Mexico Indiana Louisiana Montana Wyoming New Hampshire Maryland North Dakota Hawaii Alabama Idaho Rhode Island Arkansas Colorado Kansas Missouri West Virginia Massachusetts Alaska Oregon Kentucky Wisconsin California South Dakota Vermont Nevada Florida Minnesota Ohio Washington Michigan Connecticut Oklahoma Virginia Maine Illinois Utah North Carolina New Jersey Pennsylvania South Carolina

Categorical Mandates as Percent of State Education Budget (2013)

These percentages may not be indicative of the “true” amount of flexible resources when considering the form in which resources are distributed (i.e. teacher positions), among other characteristics of funding systems.

AZ NY GA NM IN LA MT WY NH MD ND

7 17 14 14 13 2 1 6 4 2 5

In general, states with a higher % of categorical funds also have a greater # of categorical programs

MI CT OK VA ME IL UT NC NJ PA SC

50 9 26 30 4 9 31 12 8 29 36

# Categorical Funds 2013

Source: Center for American Progress, Categorical Funds: The Intersection of School Finance and Governance, 2013

State support is particularly important where low-performing schools are spread out across many districts

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Delaware Maryland Nevada Kansas Rhode Island Wisconsin New York Tennessee Alaska Connecticut Massachusetts Ohio Colorado Pennsylvania Kentucky New Mexico Utah Minnesota Florida Oklahoma Missouri South Dakota New Hampshire Arkansas Indiana Alabama Oregon South Carolina North Carolina Idaho New Jersey Texas West Virginia Mississippi Michigan Arizona Maine Georgia Virginia

Share of low-performing schools in 5 largest districts in 2013-14

Source: U.S. Department of Education, SY 13-14

Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making and support?

Key question #5

Leveraging the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)

ESSA offers two important levers:

• 1. It requires spending to be reported at the school level
• 2. It requires states and districts to conduct reviews of resource allocation in

the lowest performing schools How can we ensure ESSA moves beyond a compliance exercise and inspires actions that improve resource equity?

ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement

• State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of

Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds

• Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures
• Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school
• Must be reported for the previous fiscal year

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C)

Reporting needs to help explain the dollars that aren’t tracked to the school level—usually about one-third of spending

38

Source: ERS analysis

ERS analysis in one state showed that the average district tracked 63% to schools

$7,186 $3,536 $684 $11,407 $0 $2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 LEA $pp LEA $pp by Reporting School Reported Centrally Managed School Services Leadership & Management All LEA Dollars to Report Dollars currently reported at the school level Centrally-reported dollars for school

• r student facing

activities Solely central

• ffice dollars

Districts typically report 45%-70% of their spending at the school level

Dollars the public sees at the district level (6%) (31%) (63%)

Reporting can help explain why spending levels differ

39

Special Education, 23% Special Education, 36% English Learners, 5% English Learners, 29%

Free and Reduced Price Meals, 9%

Free and Reduced Price Meals, 21%

Teacher Compensation, 12%

Teacher Compensation, 1%

School Size, 23%

School Size, 5%

Other, 29% Other, 8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

District A District E

What Explains the differences in spending across schools?

Student Need Student Need

% of difference between high and low spending schools

Source: ERS Analysis

ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement

• State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of

Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds

• Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures
• Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school
• Must be reported for the previous fiscal year

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C)

Equity Leader states will include data that HELP INTERPRET REASONS FOR SPENDING DIFFERENCES

States can report on resource for decision making by creating metrics linked to the “Dimensions of Resource Equity”

For example, this metric shows that in this district, students in the highest need schools are twice as likely to have a new teacher

42

17% 32% 38% Lowest need quartile Middle 50% of Schools Highest need

% Novice Teachers by School Need Quartile,

Source: District X PDR July, December 2015

ESSA provides new ways of addressing these challenges: Financial Reporting Requirement

• State and district report cards must annually include per-pupil expenditures of

Federal, State, and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds

• Must include actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures
• Must be reported for the LEA as a whole and for each school
• Must be reported for the previous fiscal year

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), (h)(2)(C)

Equity Leader states will include data that HELP INTERPRET REASONS FOR SPENDING DIFFERENCES + include data on STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND RESOURCE USE

Resource Allocation Reviews can be a powerful lever for change

Ask questions about the data to be included in the reviews, and how the data will be used to inform school improvement plans. Look for: ✓Review of more than just dollars. Dollars are one important data point, but should not be the

• nly piece of the conversation. Resources are more than just dollars.

✓Reviews that include the whole pie. Not just the services and supports funded by “school improvement” dollars.

Source: ERS and EdTrust Partnership

Five key questions to ask about resource equity in your state

• 1. How does your state compare in terms of overall performance? Subgroup

performance?

• 2. How does your state compare in terms of overall spending? Equity in funding

across districts?

• 3. How much does spending vary within districts based on need?
• 4. Does your state support and enable school leaders to organize resources to

accelerate learning for ALL students?

• 5. Does your state report useful resource equity data to inform decision making

and support?