The connection (?) between school spending and effectiveness 1 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The connection (?) between school spending and effectiveness 1

Silicon Schools Five Year Goal (in 2012) 25 $25 5 schools million years 2

Where we are now 25 $25 5 schools million years 30 $26.5 4 schools million years 3

How many students met or exceeded state standards? (SBAC 2015.16) 59% 49% 48% 37% Silicon Schools California average Silicon State Schools California average average State average Reading Math 5

How many economically disadvantaged students met or exceeded state standards? (SBAC 2015-16) 49% 49% 38% 37% 35% Silicon Overall 23% Schools California Silicon Overall (econ dis) State avg. California Schools California State California (econ dis) State avg. Average State (econ dis) Average (econ dis) Reading Math 6

Where we are going 40 $40 5 schools million years

Average cost of ~$10,000 per student across portfolio 12,000 Portfolio range $10,178 10,000 995 8,000 Technology 2,161 Central office 6,000 Facilities Othwe 4,000 Staffing 6,270 2,000 - Per student cost

One of the least expensive models in our portfolio the highest performing 2015.16 SBAC performance Cost per student (2015.16) 86% 85% $14,700 81% 76% $9,170 Piedmont Middle School Top Palo Alto E.S. Hollister Prep Top Palo Alto E.S. Hollister Prep Hollister Prep ELA Math $s per student

Costs per student in our portfolio is increasing with new California budgeting approach (LCFF) Cost per student ($s) 12,000 $1,500 in increased • 10,000 spending over last few years 8,000 75% of that • Technology increase going to 6,000 Central office staffing Facilities 11% to facilities • 4,000 Other Staffing 2,000 - Per student Per student (2012-14) (2015 - )

The relationship between spending on staffing and state assessment results in our portfolio = School in the Silicon Schools Portfolio 100% 90% % proficient in ELA (2015.16) 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 $s spent on staffing per student